Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Additives are:

(a) To establish or endorse permitted maximum levels for individual food additives;

(b) to prepare priority lists of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives;

(c) to assign functional classes to individual food additives;

(d) to recommend specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission;

(e) to consider methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and

(f) to consider and elaborate standards or codes for related subjects such as the labelling of food additives when sold as such.

The CCFA is hosted by China. The United States attends the CCFA as a member country of Codex.

The following items on the Agenda for the 52nd Session of the CCFA will be discussed during the public meeting:

At the May 11, 2021, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Paul Honigfort, U.S. Delegate for the 52nd Session of the CCFA (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 52nd Session of the CCFA.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the USDA web page located at: http://www.usda.gov/codex , a link that also offers an email subscription service providing access to information related to Codex. Customers can add or delete their subscription themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative. Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email.

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects for funding under the Secure Rural School allocations to Custer, Lawrence, and Pennington Counties for fiscal year 2020.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to provide comments to this meeting's agenda and to the meeting minutes/records must submit comments in writing by Friday April 8th, 2021. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting.

Written comments must be sent to Kelly Warnke, Mystic Ranger District, 8221 Mount Rushmore Road, Rapid City, South Dakota 57702; by email to kelly.warnke@usda.gov, or via facsimile to 605-343-7134.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss project proposals;

2. Make funding reccomendations on Tittle II projects;

3. Approve meeting minutes; and

4. Schedule the next meeting.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 21, 2021, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting.

Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Kate Jerman, 24 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59801; or by email to katelyn.jerman@usda.gov.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Discuss Title II project proposals review and decision process:

2. Approve meeting minutes: and

3. Schedule the next meeting.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 1, 2021 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Kate Jerman, 24 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59801; or by email to katelyn.jerman@usda.gov.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The purpose of the meetings are to:

1. Present project proposals: and

2. Discuss, recommend, and approve new Title II projects;

The meetings will be virtual-only meetings. The agendas will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement at any of the meetings should request in writing by Friday, April 9, 2021, to be scheduled on the agenda for that particular meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meetings. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lisa Canaday, RAC Coordinator, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho 83530; by email to lisa.canaday@usda.gov, or via facsimile to 208-983-4098.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

The purpose of the meetings are to review FACA regulations, update committee governing documents, review past practices, determine a new process for project proposals, and solicit project proposals.

The meetings are open to the public. The agendas will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement at any of the meetings should request in writing to be scheduled on the agenda for that particular meeting seven days before the meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meetings. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Kristi Schroeder, Eldorado National Forest, 100 Forni Road, Placerville, California 95667; by email to kristi.schroeder@usda.gov, or via facsimile to 530-621-5297.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Discuss, prioritize, and approve RAC project proposals: and

2. Receive public comment.

The virtual meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements, subject to time requirements by the RAC facilitator. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Update members on past RAC projects; and

2. Propose new RAC projects.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 13, 2021, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Penny L. Richardson, RAC Coordinator, Ketchikan Misty Fjords Ranger District, 3031 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901; by email to penny.richardson@usda.gov, or via facsimile to 907-225-8738.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-360-9505; Access code: 199 228 2911. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzlJAAQ.

Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

The meeting is available to the public through the web link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request other accommodations, please email mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov at least 7 days prior to the meeting for which accommodations are requested.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at mtrachtenberg@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-360-9505; Access code: 199 768 8396. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzlJAAQ.

Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-360-9505; Access code: 199 070 2234. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzlJAAQ.

Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Background

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

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and 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 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 incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

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

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

On March 13, 2020, NMFS received an application from the ACOE requesting an IHA to take small numbers of three species of pinnipeds incidental to resetting and replacing stone and dredging associated with the San Luis Breakwater Repair Project. ACOE subsequently notified us that funding, workload and other issues led them to delay the project 1 year. A revised application was sent on February 18, 2021 and the application process was reinitiated. The application was deemed adequate and complete on March 1, 2021. ACOE's request is for take of a small number of three species of marine mammals by Level B harassment. Neither the ACOE nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The project consists of the repair of a deteriorating breakwater at Port San Luis, California. The proposed project is required to protect Port San Luis Harbor and maintain safe navigability within the port. Repair work includes minor excavation of shoaled sediment (~15,000 cubic yards (11,470 cubic meters)) adjacent to the leeward side of the breakwater to create adequate depths for barges and support boats to access the breakwater for the repair. Approximately 29,000 tons (26,310 metric tons) of existing stone would need to be reset and 60,000 tons (54,430 metric tons) of new stone (stones range from 5 to 20 tons (4.5-18.1 metric tons) each) would be placed to restore the most heavily damaged portion of the breakwater. The project is expected to take no more than 174 work days over 7 months. The sounds and visual disturbance from the work can result in take of marine mammals through behavioral harassment and/or auditory injury.

The IHA will be valid April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023. Due to the location of the breakwater, the work would be fully or partially exposed to open ocean wave conditions. Adverse wave and inclement winter weather conditions at the breakwater generally preclude safe working conditions during the months of November to March. Therefore, the analysis emphasizes conditions during the likely work window but considers that work could possibly occur anytime during the year in case work is not completed and decent weather days occur in late fall and winter.

The project site is located on the central California Coast, approximately midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, in San Luis Obispo County (Figure 1). An offshore rock formation on the seaward side of the breakwater's southern end absorbs direct wave energy and reduces the intensity of waves reaching the breakwater. This allows for manageable pinniped haulout locations on both the seaward and leeward sides of the breakwater in proximity to this rock. A small island called Smith Island is approximately 400 meters (m) (1312 feet) to the northwest of the breakwater and also attracts pinnipeds. Smith Island is also near some eelgrass remediation that is part of the project.

Port San Luis breakwater is approximately 2,400 feet (730 m) long and 20 feet (6 m) wide. Repair work would focus on the most heavily damaged 1,420 feet (430 m) at the seaward end of the breakwater. The footprint of the breakwater would not be changed, but the crest elevation would be raised 3 feet (1 m) from +13 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to +16 feet MLLW for hydraulic stability, to accommodate larger armor stone, to meet design criteria, and to account for sea level rise. Repair work could potentially extend to the sea bed to ensure a stable slope and structural stability is maintained. Repair work construction activities would be limited to daylight hours (approximately 11 hours a day), 6 days a week.

The sediment removal is the first phase of the project and would require one to 3 weeks. The excavated material would be side cast to an adjacent area from where it was removed. The sediment excavation requires a crane-equipped barge, possibly a scow, up to two tugboats, and two small craft support vessels. The crane on the barge will be outfitted with a clamshell bucket which will be lowered by the crane operator to the sea floor to excavate sediment. The crane will pivot around and place material in an adjacent area or into a scow for placement at a designated placement site within the vicinity.

The major phase of the breakwater repair requires a crane-equipped barge, up to two barges carrying rock to be added to the breakwater, up to three tug boats, and three small craft support vessels. The work will consist of resetting of existing stone and placement of new stone on the breakwater structure. Dropping of armor stone is not permitted, but it should be expected that some stones may be accidentally dropped during placement. Stones would be carefully placed and interlocked with existing stones to maximize stability and minimize the intensity of sound due to stone placement. The crane on the barge will be outfitted with lifting tongs to reset existing stone and retrieve stones from the rock storage barge, and then place those stones on damaged sections of the jetties. A boat operator in a skiff, and a spotter on the jetty, would direct the operation of the crane in order to pick and place the stones. The picked stone must be able to match the dimensions of the voids along the jetty. Approximately 30 to 35 stones can be picked and placed per day.

The small tugs help position the barge and other support vessels ferry equipment and crew back and forth from the shore, jetties, staging areas, and the crane and rock storage barges. Rock storage barges are typically towed in from an offsite quarry location (likely Pebbly Beach Quarry on Santa Catalina Island), and then anchored next to the crane-equipped barge. The rock storage barges are expected to carry approximately 1,500 tons (1,360 metric tons) of stone per trip. Additional rock storage barges will be stored within a designated area within Port San Luis Harbor until they are needed. Approximately 40 rock storage barges/loads will be needed for this project.

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

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

Table 1 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 ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2019). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs and draft SARs ( e.g., Carretta et al. 2019, 2020).

As indicated above, all three species (with three managed stocks) in Table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are discussed in the IHA application. While gray whales, humpback whales, blue whales, killer whales, bottlenose and common dolphins, harbor porpoise, fur seal, and northern elephant seals have been sighted 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 here. None of the cetacean species would occur close enough to the breakwater to be exposed to the limited sound from the project, and as cetaceans they do not haul out where they would be exposed to the visual or in-air disturbance of the project. Surveys over multiple years (see below) have not recorded fur seals or northern elephant seals in the vicinity of the project so take is not requested for these species and they are not discussed further.

California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to the southern tip of Baja California. They breed on the offshore islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath and Perrin 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island (Jefferson et al. 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney 2005). Females and some juveniles tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al. 1990, Melin et al. 2008).

Pupping occurs primarily on the California Channel Islands from late May until the end of June (Peterson and Bartholomew 1967). Weaning and mating occur in late spring and summer during the peak upwelling period (Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating season, adult males migrate northward to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf of Alaska (Lowry et al., 1992), and they remain away until spring (March-May), when they migrate back to the breeding colonies. Adult females generally remain south of Monterey Bay, California throughout the year, feeding in coastal waters in the summer and offshore waters in the winter, alternating between foraging and nursing their pups on shore until the next pupping/breeding season (Melin and DeLong 2000; Melin et al. 2008). Increasing sea-surface temperatures in the California Current negatively impact prey species availability and reduce survival rates (DeLong et al. 2017, Laake et al. 2018, Lowry et al. 1991, Melin et al. 2008, 2010).

California sea lions are common in Port San Luis year round where they are often hauled out on buoys, work docks, and the breakwater structure. The general distribution along the breakwater is influenced by direct wave energy against exposed breakwater segments. Generally the breakwater is utilized beginning in April extending through December, with greater densities observed hauled out at the south eastern end of the breakwater. In addition, greater densities were observed on the leeward side as opposed to the seaward side, except on the southeastern seaward side where some rocks provide protection depending on the prevailing current and wind.

Harbor seals are found from Baja California to the eastern Aleutian Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley 2011). In California there are approximately 500 haulout sites along the mainland and on offshore islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores, and beaches (Hanan 1996, Lowry et al. 2008). Harbor seals are central-place foragers (Orians and Pearson 1979) and tend to exhibit strong site fidelity within season and across years, generally forage close to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit specific foraging areas (Grigg et al. 2012, Suryan and Harvey 1998, Thompson et al. 1998).

Harbor seals molt from May through June. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul out in central California during late May to early June, which coincides with the peak molt. During both pupping and molting seasons, the number of seals and the length of time hauled out per day increase, from an average of 7 hours per day to 10-12 hours (Harvey and Goley 2011, Huber et al. 2001, Stewart and Yochem 1994).

Harbor seals tend to forage at night and haul out during the day with a peak in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (Grigg et al. 2012, London et al. 2001, Stewart and Yochem 1994, Yochem et al. 1987). Tide levels affect the maximum number of seals hauled out, with the largest number of seals hauled out at low tide, but time of day and season have the greatest influence on haul-out behavior (Manugian et al. 2017, Patterson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2008, Stewart and Yochem 1994).

Harbor seals have not been observed hauling out on the Port San Luis breakwater or work docks but they have been observed swimming in close proximity. They are also known to forage and rest in various small patch kelp beds of the inner harbor, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 miles (0.8 to 2.4 kilometers (km)) from the breakwater. The closest haulout to the project area is on Smith Island (Figure 1).

Pupping occurs from March through May in central California (Codde and Allen 2018). Pups are weaned in four weeks, most by mid-June (Codde and Allen 2018). Harbor seals molt from June through July (Codde and Allen 2018) and breed between late March and June (Greig and Allen 2015).

Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Large numbers of individuals widely disperse when not breeding (late May to early July) to access seasonally important prey resources (Muto et al., 2019). They were listed as threatened range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Steller sea lions were subsequently partitioned into the western and eastern Distinct Population Segments (DPSs; western and eastern stocks) in 1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997). The western DPS breeds on rookeries located west of 144° W in Alaska and Russia, whereas the eastern DPS breeds on rookeries in southeast Alaska through California. The eastern DPS was delisted in 2013. The eastern DPS is the only population of Steller's sea lions thought to occur in the project area.

In the southern end of its range (Channel Islands in southern California), Steller sea lions have declined considerably since the late 1930s and several rookeries and haulouts south of Año Nuevo Island have been abandoned (Carretta et al. 2019). Steller sea lions have been observed hauling out on the Port San Luis breakwater and work docks. Like the California sea lions, the general distribution of Steller sea lions when present along the breakwater is influenced by direct wave energy against exposed breakwater segments, the season, and day to day sea state conditions with the highest densities on the southeastern leeward end of the breakwater.

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

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

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Harbor seals are in the phocid group and the sea lions are classified as otariid pinnipeds.

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

The likely or possible impacts of the ACOE's proposed activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical and visual presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel. Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation, rock setting, and sediment movement. The effects of underwater and in-air noise and visual disturbance from the ACOE's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area.

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 1994, 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical ( e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound ( e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis )) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018).

Resetting rocks and moving sediments are intermittent activities, especially for the loudest noises. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral Harassment —Exposure to noise from the project also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to in-air and 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 a sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005).

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006) or in the worst cases stampede en masse towards the water. 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). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

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). 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.

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). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress 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). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. 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), however distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.

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., pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high ( e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. The California coast area contains active commercial shipping, cruise ship and ferry operations, as well as numerous recreational and other commercial vessels; therefore, background sound levels in the area are already elevated.

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

Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could also be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source.

Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to visual disturbance associated with the sediment removal and rock setting activities that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their sensitivity and distance from the construction activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne visual disturbance that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

Available studies show wide variation in response to in-air visual disturbance, therefore it is difficult to predict specifically how any given activity might affect pinnipeds perceiving the signal. If a pinniped does react briefly to visual disturbance by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. Since the construction work will not affect the entire length of the breakwater at any time the animals may simply move to other parts of the breakwater or nearby haulout locations. Some degree of habituation is possible. Monitoring data from the project will help ascertain these effects for similar future projects (see Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section below).

California sea lions and northern elephant seals have been observed as less sensitive to visual stimuli than harbor seals. For example, monitoring of pinniped disturbance as a result of abalone research in the Channel Islands showed that while harbor seals flushed at a rate of 69 percent, California sea lions flushed at a rate of only 21 percent. The rate for elephant seals declined to 0.1 percent (VanBlaricom 2010). For intertidal researchers the take rate for harbor seals was 40 percent, while for California sea lions and northern elephant seals it was 24 and 19 percent, respectively (PISCO 2019).

Construction activities related to estuary management and marsh restoration, including heavy equipment operation, sediment removal, and other activities, has also resulted in take of pinnipeds (Sonoma County Water Agency 2019, California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2018).

Small and large vessels are also known to affect pinnipeds. Henry and Hammil (2001) measured the impacts of small boats ( i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on harbor seal haulout behavior in Metis Bay, Quebec, Canada. The most frequent disturbances were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks, and canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting high-speed passes. The seal's flight reactions could be linked to a surprise disturbance factor by kayaks and canoes, which approach slowly, quietly, and low on the water. However, the authors note that once the animals were disturbed, there did not appear to be any significant lingering effect on the recovery of numbers to their pre-disturbance levels.

Acevedo-Gutierrez and Johnson (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haul-out sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the study the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances that were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 feet (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haul-out site in 60 minutes or less.

The potential for striking marine mammals is a concern with vessel traffic. Typically, the reasons for vessel strikes are fast transit speeds, lack of maneuverability, or not seeing the animal because the boat is so large. The ACOE will access project areas at slow transit speeds, avoiding close approaches to the breakwater unless necessary, minimizing any chance of an accidental strike.

The available evidence thus suggests the construction and vessel activities of the work on Port San Luis harbor have the potential for short-term Level B behavioral harassment, but not more serious effects.

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

A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where sediment is removed or redeposited. Increases in turbidity detectable above background levels are usually confined from 100 to 500 feet from the crane-equipped barge depending on sediment character and tidal current conditions (Merkel and Associates 2010). Sediment adjacent to the PSL breakwater is expected to be characterized as sands, which fall out of the water column quickly. Suspended solid concentrations would likely return to background levels within an hour to 24 hours after excavation ceases (Merkel and Associates 2010). Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the activities to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat ( e.g., most of the impacted area is immediately adjacent to the breakwater and in the area where sediment is deposited of the bay and does not include any Biologically Important Areas). Extensive Pacific eelgrass ( Zostera pacifica ) beds are located throughout Port San Luis Harbor. Essential Fish Habitat mitigation under the Magnuson Stevens Act is a required part of the project for impacts to nearby eelgrass beds. The area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities. The total seafloor area affected is a very small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the area. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fish, while the new breakwater rocks would provide substrate for invertebrate prey to settle on. Furthermore, construction activity at the project site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have the potential to adversely affect fishes and invertebrates in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of construction activities (see above). However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly. Given the limited area affected, high tidal dilution rates, and ability to avoid turbidity any effects on fish are expected to be minor or negligible. Some marine populations, particularly benthic organisms, would be destroyed by, or have filter-feeding or respiratory structures damaged by, the excavation of sediment, but are expected to recolonize the area once excavation of sediment has ceased (Merkel and Associates 2010).

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

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

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

Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic source ( i.e., rock setting) and visual disturbance has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

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

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

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed 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). Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.

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

For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals exposed above received levels of 90 dB re 20 μPa (rms) will be behaviorally harassed, and other pinnipeds will be harassed when exposed above 100 dB re 20 μPa (rms).

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—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). The ACOE's activity includes the use of impulsive (rock setting) and non-impulsive (general construction) sources.

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

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

The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project ( i.e., rock setting and sediment removal).

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

The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the, practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the ACOE's proposed activity.

In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment sound thresholds for this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data collected by the ACOE. In February 2019 a team of researchers from the ACOE Los Angeles District and Engineer Research and Development Center traveled to a breakwater repair project at the Port of Long Beach, CA to collect representative sound data in anticipation of the Port San Luis breakwater project. Maintenance activities on the Long Beach, CA breakwater provided near identical conditions to the proposed work activities at Port San Luis, but the Long Beach site has no marine mammals nearby. At Long Beach they collected in-air and in-water sound recordings from both the rock setting and other construction equipment sounds. They also recorded ambient sound data at San Luis Obispo, CA near the breakwater to be used as a baseline measurement for proposed repair work. The analysis of the sound files provided by the ACOE to determine source levels relevant to marine mammal exposures contained some methods that we did not entirely concur with, but our acoustics expert (Dr. Shane Guan) was able to determine from them that in-water noise would not exceed marine mammal thresholds beyond 10 m (33 feet) from the source. He was also able to determine that in-air noise would not exceed the pinniped in-air thresholds at a distance greater than 100 m (328 feet) from the source.

During the above-mentioned acoustic surveys of the similar breakwater repair work at the Port of Long Beach pinnipeds maintained a minimum approximate 150 foot (46 m) distance from construction equipment and personnel (Natalie Martinez-Takeshita, ACOE, personal communication 2020). Observations on a past breakwater repair project in Redondo Harbor, California showed that pinnipeds that flushed from distances up to 100 m (Natalie Martinez-Takeshita, ACOE, personal communication 2021). As noted above the construction barge could be up to 260 feet (80 m) long with activity occurring simultaneously at either end as well as the full reach of the crane. Based on the above information, we conservatively estimate a 200 m (660 ft) radius potential effect zone for Level B harassment of pinnipeds by visual disturbance. This equals or exceeds any effect radius from in-air noise. Given the breakwater is 2,400 feet (730 m) long, this means large portions of the breakwater should be undisturbed and available for animals to re-haulout on any given construction day.

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Take by Level B harassment is proposed for authorization and summarized in Table 6.

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

Merkel and Associates (2019) conducted three marine mammal surveys of the breakwater in 2018 as part of the preparation for this project. The surveys were in June, July and September. The focus was on other taxa besides marine mammals. Their most detailed marine mammal survey was in June when pinnipeds were identified to species level. They identified California sea lions and Steller sea lions hauled out on the breakwater, with 94 percent of the animals being California sea lions. Greater densities of pinnipeds were observed hauled out at the south eastern end of the breakwater, and the greatest densities were consistently observed at the most seaward end of the breakwater.

In further anticipation of this project, the ACOE conducted additional approximately monthly marine mammal surveys, weather permitting, in the project area in 2019 to estimate breakwater abundance levels to use to estimate take. The 2019 surveys did not distinguish between California sea lions and Steller seals and assumed the Merkel and Associates (2019) determination that 94 percent of the animals were California sea lions and 6 percent were Steller sea lions applied during 2019 as well. While harbor seals were not observed hauled out on the breakwater, the ACOE did observe them hauled out at the low lying rocky benches of Smith Island (approximately 400 m (1,300 feet) from the nearest repair area). They were also observed in the water adjacent to the breakwater on at least one occasion. No other marine mammal species were observed in the project area.

The ACOE surveys from 2019 found that pinnipeds were present on the breakwater from April through December (Table 4), likely due to lower wave energy at those times. The highest number were present from June through September. We averaged the three highest surveys (bolded in the table) during the likely work period to determine that an average of 321.33 animals were present daily during the spring to fall construction season. Using the results of Merkel and Associates (2019) June 2018 survey we estimated those 321.33 animals were comprised of 302.05 California sea lions and 19.29 Steller sea lions per day. We used these numbers to estimate take for these two species for the project by multiplying these daily take estimates by the total number of work days (174). For California sea lions this is 302.05 × 174 = 52,557 takes, and for Steller sea lions this is 19.28 × 174 = 3,355 takes.

While harbor seals were not observed hauled out on the breakwater, they were observed hauled out at the low lying rocky benches of Smith Island and in the water near the breakwater during the ACOE 2019 surveys. Estimated daily abundance for harbor seals was also calculated using the three highest abundance surveys from 2019 survey data from the likely construction season (late March through September, bolded in Table 5). The average abundance in the project area was 10.33 seals per day. We used this average and calculated total take for the project by multiplying by the total number of work days (174). For harbor seals this is 10.33 × 174 = 1,797 takes.

The above-calculated take estimates are likely to be conservative as some animals may habituate to the project and regularly haul out on the parts of the breakwater where there is no construction activity, where construction activity has finished, or they may move to other nearby haulout locations. Moreover, because the main area of effect on any given day is no more than 300 m of breakwater length, the breakwater is much longer than this, most pinnipeds are concentrated at the far 200 m of the breakwater, and the project will begin at the landward end of the breakwater, far fewer animals will likely be taken in the early stages of the project.

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

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

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

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

The following mitigation measures are proposed in the IHA:

• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of construction activity ( i.e., pre-start clearance monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of construction activity.

• The ACOE must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 meters of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.

• Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead Protected Species Observer (PSO) to determine the shutdown zones clear of marine mammals. Construction may commence when the determination is made.

• If construction is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.

• The Holder must use soft start techniques. Soft start requires contractors and equipment to slowly approach the work site creating a visual disturbance allowing animals in close proximity to construction activities a chance to leave the area prior to stone resetting or new stone placement. Contractors shall avoid walking or driving equipment through the seal haul-out. A soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's construction activity and at any time following cessation of activity for a period of 30 minutes or longer.

• Vessels would approach the breakwater perpendicular to the area they need to be as much as is feasible to minimize interactions with pinnipeds on or near the breakwater.

• The Holder must ensure that construction supervisors and crews, the monitoring team, and relevant ACOE staff are trained prior to the start of construction activity subject to this IHA, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood. New personnel joining during the project must be trained prior to commencing work.

• Construction activity must be halted upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within a 200 m Level B harassment zone.

• Construction work will start at the landward end of the breakwater as much as feasible.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring section of the application and Section 5 of the IHA. These observers must record all observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the construction activity. Marine mammal monitoring during construction activity must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:

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

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

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

• The ACOE must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.

PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:

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

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

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

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

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

One PSO will be employed. PSO location will provide an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone, and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO location is as follows:

(1) At the crane barge site or best vantage point practicable to monitor the shutdown zones; and

Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after construction activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from construction activity.

A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 calendar days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities, or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHAs for construction activity at the same location, whichever comes first. A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of any NMFS comments on the draft report. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. All draft and final marine mammal and acoustic monitoring reports must be submitted to PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and Dwayne.Meadows@noaa.gov. Specifically, the report must include:

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

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of rocks were set or reset and total duration of rock setting.

• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance.

• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.

• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information:

○ PSO who sighted the animal and PSO location and activity at time of sighting;

○ Time of sighting;

○ Identification of the animal ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;

○ Distance and bearing of each marine mammal observed to the rock setting for each sighting (if rock setting was occurring at time of sighting);

○ Estimated number of animals (min/max/best);

○ Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.);

○ Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone;

○ Number of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of disturbance (see Table 7). Observations of disturbance Levels 2 and 3 must be recorded as takes. Description of any additional marine mammal behavioral observations ( e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling;

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

The ACOE must submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

The RLS is being provided via the Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System and is designed to provide the beacon user in distress an acknowledgment message informing them that the alert has been detected and located by the Cospas-Sarsat System.

The SARSAT Program has commenced an effort to understand the benefits and associated risks of RLS Type 1 equipped beacons and is soliciting the public through this RFI to obtain input from a wider range of stakeholders, including academia, private industry, beacon users and other relevant organizations and institutions. The public input provided in response to this RFI will help inform the SARSAT Program as it evaluates the authorization of RLS Type 1 equipped beacons within the United States.

In depth information on RLS Type 1 equipped beacons can be found at: https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-SAR-SDD.pdf.

Additional information on RLS-enabled beacons may be viewed at: https://cospas-sarsat.int/en/beacon-ownership/rls-enabled-beacon-purchase.

Please consider the following questions of interest to the SARSAT Program when responding:

1. Under nominal conditions, the RLS has an inherent period of time between beacon activation and the acknowledgement being received and displayed to the person in distress. This period of time should be within 30 minutes. Is this acceptable? If not, what is an acceptable time?

2. What is the best method to ensure the user understands that there is a period of time before the acknowledgement message is received? Please consider that the user's first interaction with an RLS capable beacon could be an emergency situation where only the beacon is available (no user manual).

3. RLS only indicates that the distress signal has been received, not that rescue forces have been deployed. Therefore, the acknowledgement message is not an indication of when rescue forces may arrive on scene. How should the beacon user be provided this information so that they understand what the RLS signal means? Please consider that the user's first interaction with an RLS capable beacon could be an emergency situation where only the beacon is available (no user manual).

4. There are several RLS related message indications that can be displayed to the beacon user; RLS signal sent from beacon, awaiting RLS signal return, RLS response received, RLS signal not received, etc. Which signals should be displayed to the user and how should they be displayed? Please consider the user's first interaction with an RLS capable beacon could be an emergency situation where only the beacon is available (no user manual).

5. Are there any other features you believe would be advantageous to add to 406 MHz emergency beacons?

6. Are there any other comments you would like the U.S. SARSAT Program to consider?

The Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation (CFRF) submitted a complete application to renew an existing Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on December 9, 2020, to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. The EFP would authorize 19 vessels to continue a study using ventless lobster traps to survey the abundance and distribution of juvenile American lobster and Jonah crab in regions and times of year not covered by traditional surveys. This EFP proposes to use 69 ventless lobster traps throughout Lobster Conservation Management Areas (LCMA) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Maps of these areas are available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/lobster-management-areas. The study would inform management by addressing questions of changing reproduction and recruitment dynamics of lobster, and developing a foundation of knowledge for the data poor Jonah crab fishery.

Funding for this study is through the Campbell Foundation and the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program (Grant # NA17NMF4270208). For this project, CFRF is requesting exemptions from the following Federal lobster regulations:

1. Gear specification requirements in 50 CFR 697.21(c) to allow for closed escape vents and smaller trap mesh and entrance heads;

2. Trap limit requirements, as listed in § 697.19, for LCMA 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, to be exceeded by 3 additional traps per fishing vessel for a total of 69 additional traps;

3. Trap tag requirements, as specified in § 697.19(j), to allow for the use of untagged traps (though each experimental trap will have the participating fisherman's identification attached); and

4. Possession restrictions in § 697.20(a), (d), (g), and (h)(1) and (2), to allow for onboard biological sampling of undersized, v-notched, and egg-bearing lobsters and undersized and egg-bearing Jonah crabs.

If the EFP is approved, this study would take place during the regular fishing activity of 19 federally-permitted commercial fishing vessels; 4 “inshore” vessels in LCMA 2 and 15 “offshore” vessels in LCMAs 1, 3, and 4. Four additional offshore vessels will be added to the project at a later date. Each vessel would have up to three modified traps attached to a standard Atlantic Large Whale-compliant, trap trawl. When the additional vessels are active on the EFP, no more than 69 total modified traps would be in the water at any time. The modifications to a conventional lobster trap would include a closed escape vent, single parlor, and smaller mesh size and entrance head to capture juvenile lobsters and Jonah crabs. Additional traps would be added to the participating vessels' commercial trawls so there would be no additional vertical lines as a result of this project. Sampling would occur year round with traps hauled weekly in LCMA 2 and every 10 days in the other areas. All lobsters and Jonah crabs caught in the experimental traps would be counted, sexed, and measured. Biological information, including shell hardness and presence of eggs, would also be recorded. All species captured in study traps would be returned promptly to the sea after sampling. All data collected would be made available to state and Federal management agencies to improve and enhance the available data for these two crustacean species.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study period. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

Sea Watch is requesting exemption from the Georges Bank Closed Area specified at 50 CFR 648.76(a)(4). The proposed project would explore expansion of the area that is currently open to vessels that are certified for at-sea testing for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).

This Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) would allow four commercial surfclam and ocean quahog vessels, using hydraulic clam dredge gear, to conduct at-sea PSP testing in the Closed Area II scallop access area in statistical area 552. The participating vessels are already certified for at-sea testing and are currently operating the area that opened in George's Bank in 2012. Vessels would take 2 trips per week for a yearlong period, for a total of up to 416 trips. Each trip would be between two to four days. Vessels would land up to 4,800 bushels (169,148 L) of surfclams or ocean quahogs per trip. All landings would be handled under the current PSP protocol in place as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. A positive PSP result from any one sample would deem the area unacceptable for harvest. The vessel Captain would immediately report all positive screening test results, by telephone or email, to the Authority within the intended State of landing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Shellfish Specialist, and the processor. The FDA would notify NMFS and permitted vessels would stop fishing in the affected area(s).

Participating vessels would adhere to all seasonal groundfish closures in Closed Area II and would not retain any scallops while on EFP trips. Additionally, vessels must also adhere to all other requirements at 50 CFR 648.76(a)(4)(i).

If approved, Sea Watch may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

Background

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

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

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

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

• The request for renewal must include the following:

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

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

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

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

On November 1, 2018, NMFS received a request from the Navy for authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment and Level A harassment, of marine mammals incidental to the modification and expansion of Dry Dock 1 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The specified activity is expected to result in the taking of five species of marine mammals (harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ), gray seals ( Halichoerus grypsus ), harp seals ( Pagophilus groenlandicus ), hooded seals ( Cystophora cristata ), and harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena )). A final version of the application, which NMFS deemed adequate and complete, was submitted on March 11, 2019. NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (referred to hereafter as the proposed initial IHA) and request for comments on April 4, 2019 (84 FR 13252). After the public comment period, NMFS issued the final IHA on May 16, 2019, effective October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020 (84 FR 24476), hereafter referred to as the 2019 IHA. On September 30, 2019, the Navy informed NMFS that the project was delayed. None of the work identified in the IHA had occurred and no take of any marine mammals had occurred since the issuance of the IHA. The Navy requested that NMFS modify the effective dates in order to conduct the construction work that was previously analyzed and authorized. On December 3, 2019, NMFS re-issued, with new effective dates, an IHA to the Navy to take marine mammals incidental to modification and expansion of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock 1 in Kittery, Maine (84 FR 67261; December 9, 2019), effective from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021 (hereafter referred to as the initial IHA).

On January 21, 2021, NMFS received an application for the renewal of the initial IHA. As described in the request for the renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested include a small subset of the activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration, as well as a new additional activity that is nearly identical to that covered in the initial authorization. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities ) which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted.

The Navy's authorized activities include installation of temporary dolphin piles for construction of the caisson seat float-in, completion of the caisson seat foundation, and construction of a temporary blast wall. The Navy planned to install the guide dolphin piles in February 2021, prior to the expiration of the initial IHA; however, due to unforeseen delays, these piles are now scheduled to be installed during March and April, 2021, under the renewal IHA. Additionally, the installation of sheet piles to complete the caisson seat foundation was scheduled to conclude on February 25, 2021, although unanticipated delays prevented the completion of this activity prior to the expiration of the initial IHA. Finally, construction of a temporary blast wall was not specifically analyzed in the 2019 IHA, but will involve the installation of a comparatively small number (in relation to the initial IHA) of similar or smaller size steel sheet and pipe piles using installation methods identical to those described in the 2019 IHA. The location and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are nearly identical to those described in the initial IHA. Similarly, the anticipated impacts are identical in nature to those described in the initial IHA.

The following documents are referenced in this notice and include important supporting information:

• Reissued 2019 IHA (84 FR 67261; December 9, 2019);

• 2019 final IHA (84 FR 24476; May 28, 2019);

• 2019 proposed IHA (843 FR 13252; April 4, 2019);

• 2019 IHA application, references cited, and previous public comments received (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities ).

The Navy will modify and expand Dry Dock 1 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard because dimensional limitations currently impede operations and maintenance. To minimize impacts on dry dock operations during construction, the overall project is being constructed in phases. The first element, construction of a superflood basin, is scheduled to occur in six phases; activities associated with first two phases, and one activity from Phase 3 (installation of the caisson seat float-in) were described and analyzed in the 2019 IHA. Phases 1 and 2, planned to be completed under the initial IHA, included site reconnaissance, field measurements, contractor submittals and general mobilization activities (Phase 1), and construction of the southern closure wall, construction of the caisson seat float-in and foundation, Berth 1 and 11 improvements, Dry Dock 1 utility improvements, and dredging (Phase 2). Schedule delays precluded installation of the caisson seat float-in; therefore, this construction activity will be completed under the renewal IHA.

To construct the caisson seat float-in, the Navy will use vibratory pile driving to install six temporary dolphins, comprised of twelve, 30-inch (in) diameter steel pipe piles (a reduction in size from the 36-in diameter steel pipe piles analyzed for this activity in the 2019 IHA).

To construct the remaining portion of the caisson seat foundation, the renewal IHA includes the installation of 20, 27-in sheet piles using a combination of vibratory and impact pile driving, as described in the initial IHA. The 2019 IHA analyzed the potential for Level A harassment and Level B harassment from installation of 20, 24-in sheet piles using the identical installation methods; the size of the sheet pile included in this authorization is slightly larger and the source levels used to model distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths are accordingly slightly higher (see Estimated Take section, Table 1). However, although the sheet pile size is slightly larger, the number of 27-in sheet piles (20) associated with installation of the caisson seat foundation included in the renewal IHA is identical in number to that planned for the caisson seat foundation and is also a small subset of the total number (320) of 24-in sheet piles included in the initial IHA.

Finally, the Navy will construct a temporary blast wall, comprised of 15, 30-in steel pipe piles and 70, 25-in sheet piles installed using vibratory pile driving only. This wall will be located within the project area, across the opening of the existing Dry Dock 1 between Berth 1 and Berth 11A and opposite the caisson seat, described in the proposed initial IHA (84 FR 13252; April 4, 2019). For comparison, the initial IHA included vibratory installation of 48, 36-in steel pipe piles and 320, 24-in sheet piles. The renewal IHA includes nearly identical pile sizes (steel pipe and sheet) and identical installation methods to those described and included in the initial IHA.

A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA for the 2019 authorization (84 FR 13252; April 4, 2019). As stated above, the location and nature of the pile driving operations, including the type and size of piles, and the methods of pile driving, are identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in the 2019 IHA.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2021 (86 FR 10545). During the 15-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and a member of the general public. Specific comments and responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The Commission stated that NMFS has not met its basic renewal IHA issuance criteria based, in part, on the fact that the Navy did not submit a renewal request at least 60 days prior to the needed renewal authorization date.

Response: NMFS engaged in extensive communication with the Navy leading up to the Navy's request for a renewal IHA, and so was prepared to process the request despite the fact that it was not received at least 60 days prior to the requested issuance date. Furthermore, while the Navy indicated when they would prefer to have the renewal effective date, they understood that the process typically takes 60 days to complete and that it may not be complete by that date—so the “needed renewal IHA effective date” was the one they requested or as soon thereafter as possible.

Comment 2: The Commission observed that the Navy based its analyses of the proposed activities on the assumption that construction would occur in the month of March, yet the comment period on the proposed renewal IHA did not close until March 6, 2021, thus limiting the number of available construction days in March.

Response: NMFS concurs that the Navy will not be able to complete the proposed construction activities in March, and has revised the construction timeframe to include the month of April. The number of days on which construction will occur remains the same. This change does not affect NMFS' analysis or findings.

Comment 3: The Commission observed that the Navy's request to increase the size of sheet piles from 24- to 27-in would increase the size of the Level A harassment zone from (1) 13.7 meters (m) to 25.4 m for high-frequency (HF) cetaceans and 5.6 m to 10.4 m for phocids during vibratory pile driving and (2) 1,763 m to 2,056 m for HF cetaceans and 792 m to 924 m for phocids during impact pile driving (see Table 6 at 84 FR 24485 and Table 2 at 86 FR 10548). The Commission identified that the increase in pile would increase the Level B harassment zone from 7.35 kilometers (km) (84 FR 24485) to 13.59 km (Table 2; 86 FR 10548) during vibratory pile driving and 1 km (Table 6; 84 FR 24485) to 2.5 km (Table 3; 86 FR 10548) during impact pile driving. In addition, the Commission noted that the harassment zones included in the renewal IHA have not been adjusted, despite being clipped by land.

Response: The Commission is correct, the Level A and Level B harassment zones have changed as noted, and the changes have been considered in the analysis. The clipped Level B harassment zones were considered in the renewal proposal and are noted in Table 2.

Comment 4: The Commission stated that the numbers of Level A harassment and Level B harassment takes of harbor seals and gray seals have been underestimated and are likely to cause unnecessary delays and shutdowns. Specifically, the Commission noted that, although the Navy did not conduct monitoring in March or April 2020 (because no construction was occurring), a gray seal was observed during only 5 days of monitoring in March 2018 and 6 to more than 10 individual harbor seals were observed routinely in the immediate project area in April 2018, and that both species have been observed well within the Level A harassment zone of 924 m.

Response: In consideration of the monitoring data the Commission cites, as well as the more recent monitoring data collected by the Navy throughout the rest of the year, NMFS has increased the number of authorized takes for harbor seals and gray seals in the renewal IHA by applying the same methods used in the final initial IHA, which considers group size and the maximum number of each species sighted in a single day, resulting in the following increases in take: Harbor seals (Level A: 2 to 4; Level B: 29 to 124); gray seals (Level A: 0 to 1; Level B (3 to 31).

Comment 5: The Commission recommended reevaluating the potential for takes of harbor porpoises, harp seals, and hooded seals, which were proposed in the renewal as zero, despite non-zero densities in the Spring.

Response: NMFS concurs and has now applied the methods described in the initial IHA to the one month of work and included authorization of one Level A take and one Level B take for harbor porpoises, one Level B take for harp seals, and one Level B take for hooded seals.

Comment 6: The Commission observed that the mitigation and monitoring measures in the proposed renewal IHA do not wholly reflect those in the initial IHA.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this error and has made corrections in the renewal IHA.

Comment 7: The Commission observed that the Navy indicated in its preliminary monitoring report for the initial IHA that the presence of active construction equipment reduced the Protected Species Observers's (PSO) ability to fully monitor the harassment zones from Berth 2 and, as a result, the Berth 2 observer location was shifted to a barge in September 1, 2020. The Commission stated that, because the extent to which the PSO's ability to monitor effectively from May through August at Berth 2 is unknown, it is unclear whether the full extents of the harassment zones were monitored effectively and, if they were not, the degree to which extrapolation was both necessary and made. As such, the Commission questioned whether the numbers of reported takes are accurate and within the authorized limits.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission concern and the limitations of some of the Navy's monitoring in the months to date, however, we disagree with any assertion that the take may have exceeded authorized limits. The Navy's preliminary report indicated that, in May, the Level A harassment and Level B harassment zones were completely monitored during 100 percent of in-water construction activities (vibratory pile driving). In June, the only construction activity was approximately 6.5 hours (hrs) of vibratory pile driving, yet PSOs monitored the project area over 316 hrs over 14 days; despite this monitoring effort, no marine mammals were sighted in the project area. In July, approximately 750 hrs of monitoring (37.5 hrs of which overlapped with vibratory pile driving and drilling activities; no impact pile driving occurred in July) occurred over 22 days, during which only 6 harbor seals (and no other marine mammals) were observed. In August, PSOs monitored the project area for 1,000 hrs over 26 days, 84.5 hrs of which overlapped with construction activities, and during which 27 marine mammals sightings were recorded (25 harbor seals, and 2 sightings of an individual gray seal). The total number of marine mammals observations during the entire project (not limited to periods when in-water construction was occurring) was 721 harbor seals (or 658 unique individuals, excluding re-sightings), 47 gray seals (or 34 unique individuals, excluding re-sightings), and 1 harbor porpoise. There were no Level A harassment takes observed for any species, 167 Level B harassment takes for harbor seals, 8 Level B harassment takes for gray seals, and 1 Level B harassment take of an unidentified seal. However, even if every marine mammal observed throughout the entire construction project was considered taken Level B harassment, the Navy still would not have exceeded their take limit.

The largest Level A harassment zone for vibratory pile driving and drilling, the only construction activities that occurred in May through July, was only 56.5 m, and was likely fully observable by the PSOs positioned at Berths 2 and 11. Impact pile driving, with the largest associated Level A zones (HF: 1,763 m; phocids: 792 m), was not conducted until August, during which (as mentioned above) PSOs monitored for 1,000 hrs over 26 days, sighting only 27 marine mammals. It is unlikely that limitations in visibility experienced by the observer at positioned at Berth 2 prevented detection of a number of marine mammals that would have surpassed the amount of authorized take. In addition, PSOs were only required to monitor two-thirds of the Level B harassment zone during all construction activities, an effort that was supported by up to three additional PSOs beyond the observer located at Berth 2.

Comment 8: The Commission noted deficiencies in the Navy's hydroacoustic monitoring reports (Appendices D and E of the initial IHA preliminary monitoring report). Specifically, the Commission observed that sound pressure level (SPL) measurements (in decibels (dB) re 1 micro Pascal (μPa)) in Appendix D were not reported as root-mean-square (rms), which is the appropriate metric and applies to means, medians, maxima, and minima. In addition, the Commission stated that for continuous, non-impulsive sound ( e.g., drilling and vibratory pile driving), those SPLrms measurements are to be made over given intervals ( i.e., 1-second intervals) and for impulsive sound ( e.g., impact pile driving and percussive hammering of a down-the-hole hammer), those SPLrms measurements are to be based on single strikes, same as the sound exposure level and peak SPL measurements, and a 90-percent energy window. The Commission noted that neither Appendix contains all the required information.

Response: NMFS has contacted the Navy and emphasized the importance of following IHA requirements concerning hydroacoustic monitoring reports. The Appendices A and D referenced by the Commission are part of the Navy's preliminary hydroacoustic report for the initial IHA; corrections will be made in the final report.

Comment 9: The Commission recommended that NMFS deny the Navy's request to renew its incidental take authorization based on the fact that the criteria have not been met and the other deficiencies noted in their letter.

Response: NMFS does not concur with the Commission's assertions, and has not adopted their recommendation to deny the renewal.

The renewal conditions have been met for this renewal proposal. First, our response to Comment 2, above, addresses the issue the Commission raised regarding the receipt of the application 60 days before it is needed. Regarding the activity proposed, as described above, it is comprised of a small subset of the work covered in the original IHA, with minor changes to the sizes of two types of piles (one larger and one smaller), as well as the addition of a temporary blast wall (installing piles one inch larger than that analyzed in the initial IHA), that do not affect the previous analysis, mitigation or monitoring, or take estimates, which are proportionally commensurate to the take authorized in the initial IHA, based on the one month of work covered. Regarding the preliminary monitoring report, as described in our response to Comment 7, the results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized. Last, upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and the preliminary monitoring report, we have determined that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain nearly the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid. Further, the other “deficiencies” the Commission references in their letter have been addressed in our responses to the comments above.

Comment: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from implementing its proposed renewal process unless it is consistent with the procedural requirements specified in section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.

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

Comment: Overall, the proposed plan by the Navy to modify and expand Dry Dock 1 is sufficient, as the plan includes using smaller installation pieces to increase efficiency of operations and maintenance of the dock. However, a deeper look into the current potential impacts on the local marine mammals and their habitat is needed. The plan uses mammal occurrence data from 2 years prior, and so might not accurately reflect the number of mammals in the area during the projected construction period. It also seems that proper precautionary actions might not be fully thought out, as work can continue in poor visibility situations as long as the work started in appropriate conditions, and only requires a break of 15 minutes after sighting a mammal within 10 m of the construction area. In order to lessen the potential for harassment and takes of any present mammals, a more thorough approach to mammal observance and mitigation of potential risks in the form of longer stops and larger shutdown zones may help. It may also be important to mention how the modifications of the dock will improve dock operations and maintenance, as opposed to a plan of no action that leaves the dock as is.

Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to continue updating density estimates using the best available information, and will encourage the Navy to incorporate more recent observations into density estimates for species that occur in the vicinity of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

NMFS authorizes takes of marine mammals as requested because mitigation measures are not expected to entirely prevent Level A harassment and Level B harassment of marine mammals. NMFS works with applicants to develop mitigation measures that are sufficiently protective of marine mammals that might be impacted by the project activities, but also practicable for the applicant to implement. For example, the shutdown distances in Table 2 were negotiated between NMFS and the Navy during the development of the 2019 IHA, providing mitigation of potential impacts to marine mammals close to the construction activity while also preventing an impracticable amount of shutdowns (thus facilitating the Navy's objectives). The interruption of pile installation can present potential safety concerns; therefore, the Navy requested the ability to continue construction activities should visibility deteriorate following pre-clearance and consistent monitoring of the area in good visibility. If a shutdown does occur, the Navy's ability to resume construction activity once the marine mammal has voluntarily left the shutdown zone or has not been sighted for 15 minutes assumes that, based on their relatively small size and associated lung capacity, the species likely to occur ( i.e., phocids and harbor porpoises) would surface to breathe within that timeframe and would, therefore, be visible to PSOs.

Finally, because dimensional limitations currently impede operations and maintenance of Dry Dock 1, failure to complete the expansion and modification project would limit the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard's ability to service the Navy's Virginia class submarines.

NMFS has increased total take of harbor porpoises from 0 to 2, harbor seals from 31 to 128, gray seals from 3 to 32, harp seals from 0 to 1, and hooded seals from 0 to 1. These changes are described in detail in the Estimated Take section. In addition, PSO locations have been specified (see Monitoring Requirements section).

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA for the 2019 authorization (84 FR 13252; April 4, 2019). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and has determined that there is no new information that affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the 2019 IHA.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized may be found in the Federal Register notices for the proposed initial IHA (84 FR 13252; April 4, 2019). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Federal Register notices for the initial IHA, including the proposed 2019 IHA (84 FR 13252; April 4, 2019) and final 2019 IHA (84 FR 24476; May 28, 2019). Marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of estimating take, and types of take remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA, though minor changes in the take estimates have been made since the proposed renewal based on consideration of public comment. As mentioned previously, due to the use of slightly different pile sizes, the source levels included in renewal IHA (Table 1) are nearly identical, rather than identical, to those analyzed in the 2019 IHA and included in the initial IHA. In addition, the number of construction days and piles in the renewal IHA (Tables 2 and 3) are fewer than those included in the initial IHA. Finally, the maximum ensonified area (after adjusting for interception by land and existing structures), or Region of Influence (ROI), is smaller (0.418 km 2 ) than that analyzed in the initial IHA (0.854 km 2 , also adjusted for interception by land and existing structures at that time) because completed construction ( e.g., southern closure wall and majority of the caisson seat foundation) created additional barriers to sound produced by construction activities.

Table 2 includes information for both the subset of activities using vibratory pile driving the Navy did not complete before the initial IHA expired ( e.g., completion of the caisson seat foundation and installation of the guide dolphins for the caisson seat float-in structure) as well as the new activity, construction of a temporary blast wall.

The Enforcement Committee will review Council agenda item D3 RQE funding mechanism discussion paper. The paper examines a mechanism for the RQE to fund the purchase of halibut quota share be selling halibut stamps to charter operators. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1965 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1965.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1965.

The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association (AOLA) submitted a complete application requesting Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on February 12, 2021, to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. The EFP would authorize one vessel to conduct larval sampling in Lobster Conservation Management Area 3. A map of this area is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/lobster-management-areas.

The study would provide information on the spatial and temporal distribution and abundance of early and late stage American lobster larvae and their likely zooplankton prey to investigate factors affecting recruitment in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank stock area.

Funding for this research has been awarded under a National Sea Grant Lobster Initiative grant (NA20OAR4170505). For this project, AOLA is requesting exemptions from the following Federal lobster regulations:

1. Lobster gear prohibitions in 50 CFR 697.7(c)(1)(xxii) to allow for the use of multiple gear types capable of catching lobsters;

2. Lobster possession restrictions in § 697.17(a) to allow the harvest of lobster above the non-trap limit; and

3. Lobster possession restrictions in § 697.20(a) to allow for the collection of larval lobsters below the minimum size.

If the EFP is approved, this study would hire one federally-permitted lobster vessel to conduct a single day of lobster larval sampling on 14 multi-day (5-10 day) commercial fishing trips, spanning from the first week in June through the last week in September. When sampling, the vessel crew would conduct three replicate neuston tows for lobster larvae and record physical parameters. Samples from the nets will be preserved in ethanol, bottled, landed, and mailed to the principal investigator. Legal lobsters from the commercial portion of the trip will be landed and sold.

If approved, AOLA may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study period. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, an incidental harassment authorization is issued.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

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

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

2. The request for renewal must include the following:

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

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

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

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

On March 10, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to CTJV to take marine mammals incidental to the PTST in Virginia Beach, Virginia (85 FR 16061), effective from March 10, 2020, through March 9, 2021. On December 15, 2020, NMFS received an application for the Renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for Renewal, the activities for which incidental take is requested are identical to, and consist of a subset of, those covered in the initial authorization. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-chesapeake-tunnel-joint-venture-parallel-thimble-shoal-0 ) which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted.

CTJV's planned activities include construction associated with the PTST project. Specifically, the location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the initial IHA. The project consists of the construction of a two-lane parallel tunnel to the west of the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel, connecting Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 of the CBBT facility which extends across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay near Virginia Beach, Virginia. The PTST project will address existing constraints to regional mobility based on current traffic volume along the facility. Planned construction associated with the initial IHA included the driving of 812 piles over 198 days as shown below:

Of these planned activities, under the initial IHA CTJV installed a total of 76 36-inch pipe piles and installed and removed 58 42-inch steel casings over approximately 64 construction days. Additionally, 52 36-inch interlocking pipe piles have been eliminated from the construction plan. This is due to a design change which increased the elevation of stone placement on the West berm on Portal Island 1, decreasing the number of piles being installed below Mean High Water (MHW). Remaining piles will be installed using impact driving, vibratory driving and drilling with down-the-hole (DTH) hammers. Some piles will be removed via vibratory hammer. Accounting for work conducted under the initial IHA and the planned design change resulting in a reduction in total piles, CTJV plans to drive 684 piles over an estimated 140 days under this Renewal IHA.

Similarly, the anticipated impacts are identical to those described in the initial IHA. NMFS anticipates the take of the same five species of marine mammal (harbor seal, gray seal, bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, and humpback whale) by Level A and Level B harassment incidental to underwater noise resulting from construction associated with the planned activities. For additional detail, please see the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (86 FR 8594; February 8, 2021).

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019). Updated information regarding stock abundance was provided in the Federal Register notice announcing issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020). NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events (UME), and other scientific literature. The draft 2020 Stock Assessment Report states that estimated abundance has increased for the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales, from 1,380 (CV = 0) to 1,393 (CV = 0.15). NMFS has determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities sections contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized may be found in the Federal Register notice for the proposed initial IHA (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019). NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant UMEs, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Federal Register notices for the proposed and final initial IHAs (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019 and 85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020). The source levels and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. CTJV conducted approximately 64 days of the planned work and has eliminated a small number of originally planned piles, reducing the approximate total number of operational days for this Renewal IHA. However, a commenter highlighted a change in the analytical method NMFS now uses specifically to assess the impacts of DTH pile installation that would result in a larger Level B harassment zone when those activities are conducted. Therefore, because the take numbers developed for most species for which take is authorized involve qualitative elements, because the reduction in total days of work may not result in a substantive decrease in the take number for bottlenose dolphin due to the potentially larger Level B harassment zone under the alternative DTH approach, and because the monitoring results do not suggest take higher than that initially authorized even in consideration of the potentially larger Level B harassment zones (all of which is discussed below in the Comments and Responses section), we carry forward the take numbers unchanged for this Renewal IHA. The stocks taken, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the initial IHA, as do the number of takes, which are indicated below in Table 1.

The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020), and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate. Further detail regarding the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements prescribed through the IHA can be found in the notice of issuance for the initial IHA (85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020). The following measures are included in this renewal:

In summary, mitigation includes implementation of shutdown procedures if any marine mammal approaches or enters the established shutdown zones. Shutdown zones for species authorized for take during pile driving are as follows: 100 meters (m) for harbor porpoise and bottlenose dolphin; 15 m for harbor seal and gray seal. For humpback whale, shutdown distances during pile driving correspond with the estimated Level A harassment zones. For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. One trained observer must monitor to implement shutdowns and collect information at each active pile driving location (whether vibratory or impact driving of steel or concrete piles).

Soft start procedures must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. Use of an air bubble curtain system will be implemented by the CTJV during impact driving of 36-inch steel piles except in water less than 10 feet (3.3 m) in depth.

The CTJV will be required to station between two and four Protected Species Observers (PSOs) at locations offering the best available views of the monitoring zones. At least two PSOs will be required to monitor before, during, and after the pile-driving and -removal activities. At least one PSO must be located in close proximity to each pile driving rig during active operation of single or multiple, concurrent driving devices. At least one additional PSO is required at each active driving rig or other location providing the best possible view if the Level B harassment zone and shutdown zones cannot reasonably be observed by one PSO.

A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days (and associated PSO data sheets), and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a Renewal IHA to CTJV was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2021 (86 FR 8594). That notice either described, or referenced descriptions of, the applicant's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, estimated amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures. NMFS received comment letters from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and a private citizen. The private citizen expressed general concern regarding ecological effects of the activity and, in particular, potential effects of the activity to fish. We acknowledge the comments and refer the commenter to the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA (84 FR 64847), which addresses in detail the potential effects of the activity on marine mammals, including to marine mammal habitat (including prey species such as fish). A summary of the comments and our responses are provided below, and the comment letters are available online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-chesapeake-tunnel-joint-venture-parallel-thimble-shoal-0.

Comment: The Commission recommended that NMFS deny CTJV's request to renew its incidental harassment authorization. The Commission bases its recommendation on its assessment that certain Level B harassment zones were underestimated in the initial IHA.

Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's recommendation, and does not adopt it. The Commission correctly points out that NMFS' practice with regard to analysis of sound output from DTH pile installation has changed during the interval between issuance of the initial IHA to CTJV and NMFS' receipt of CTJV's request for renewal of that IHA. DTH is an installation technique that is poorly understood from the perspective of sound output characteristics. In this context of data scarcity, NMFS historically considered DTH installation to be a non-impulsive sound source, as it was believed to be essentially a drilling technique. With the availability of some of the first acoustic monitoring data for the DTH technique, NMFS determined that it would be more appropriate to treat DTH as an impulsive sound source, due to the percussive hammering element of the technique, and analyzed the potential effects of marine mammal exposure to noise produced through use of the DTH technique accordingly. This was the approach taken in evaluating the effects of DTH in support of issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 16061). As additional acoustic monitoring data became available, NMFS evaluated that the DTH technique produces sound with both impulsive and continuous characteristics. Therefore, as referenced by the Commission, NMFS began in 2020 its current practice of treating DTH pile installation as both impulsive (more conservative for the purposes of evaluating Level A harassment) and continuous (more conservative for the purposes of evaluating Level B harassment). NMFS has adopted this approach in the context of significant uncertainty regarding DTH installation source characteristics because it is the most precautionary approach, recognizing that it likely overestimates potential take of marine mammals. This approach ensures that the largest potential ranges to effect for both Level A and Level B harassment are accounted for in producing a conservative effects analysis.

To reiterate, NMFS has adopted the aforementioned approach on an interim basis in a context of significant uncertainty. Work is ongoing to better understand DTH pile installation and to develop tools to facilitate impact assessments for this activity. However, the apparent certitude with which the Commission treats this topic in making their recommendation is misplaced. NMFS does not agree that the actual Level B harassment zones are likely to be as large as asserted by the Commission. Although NMFS would indeed treat a new application involving DTH pile installation according to the newer, more precautionary analytical approach, it is not inappropriate to carry forward the existing analysis from the initial IHA in support of this renewal.

The purpose of estimating harassment zones is to inform both the development of appropriate numbers of take for authorization and of mitigation and monitoring requirements. Concerns regarding the adequacy of authorized take numbers and of mitigation and monitoring requirements apply in this circumstance only to Level B harassment, as treatment of the source as impulsive results in the same approach to evaluating potential Level A harassment as would be used under the newer method. The initial IHA authorized take for five marine mammal species. Of these five, a density-based approach, in which a density value is applied over some area ( i.e., the estimated harassment zone), was taken for only one species. While the size of the harassment zone is one consideration in estimating a potential take number when use of a density value is not possible or is inappropriate, it is not determinative of the take number. Therefore, for the humpback whale, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and gray seal, NMFS has reviewed all of the applicable information, including that used in lieu of density in determining the take number, and found that it remains appropriate. We note that no individuals of these four species, with the exception of a lone humpback whale observed outside of the estimated harassment zone, were observed during required monitoring under the initial IHA.

For bottlenose dolphins, a density-based approach was used in estimating the take number for authorization. Therefore, the size of the harassment zone may be influential on the take number. However, the initial IHA authorized 28,388 incidents of take for bottlenose dolphin, while CTJV reported having observed only 100 dolphins despite completing roughly one-third of the previously planned activity days. Preliminary monitoring data shows marine mammal detections reported from as much as 2.1 km distant from the PSO location, indicating that PSOs were not limiting their observational effort to the estimated Level B harassment zones. In NMFS' judgment, the difference between authorized take and actual dolphin detections indicates that the analysis performed in support of the initial IHA likely overestimated the potential effects of the specified activity on bottlenose dolphin, potential underestimation of certain Level B harassment zones notwithstanding. The authorized take number for bottlenose dolphin provided in the initial IHA is sufficient to provide an adequate basis for analysis of both negligible impact and small numbers and, therefore, the findings made in support of the initial IHA remain valid.

Prescription of appropriate mitigation and monitoring requirements are at NMFS' discretion, within the bounds of the MMPA's requirement to prescribe the means of effecting the “least practicable adverse impact” on the species or stock and its habitat. The Commission's assertion that potential underestimation of certain Level B harassment zones results in application of “inappropriate” monitoring measures, or monitoring measures that are inconsistent with other similar IHAs, is unfounded. The IHA includes requirements to establish monitoring locations and to report, among other things, “[t]he number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location . . .” CTJV is required to report observations of marine mammals at any distance from the pile driving activity in conjunction with behavioral observations and, therefore, the prescribed monitoring is appropriate regardless of the estimated harassment zone size. The existing monitoring requirements do not constrain or provide inappropriate direction to the applicant or PSO team, and NMFS expects that the information required to be reported will be sufficient to enable an evaluation of whether the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

In making its recommendations, the Commission sets up a false dichotomy between increased efficiency— i.e., issuance of the requested renewal IHA in support of the continuation of a critical infrastructure project—and the protection of marine mammals afforded by the MMPA. As demonstrated herein, both the mandatory satisfaction of statutory requirements and the objective of increased efficiency are appropriately accomplished through issuance of the requested renewal IHA. The criteria for renewal are clearly met, as (1) the request was received in a timely fashion; (2) the activities to be conducted under the authorization renewal are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA; and (3) the preliminary monitoring report does not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized. Moreover, satisfaction of these criteria and review of other pertinent information, including available information regarding DTH pile installation, indicates that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, that the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and that the findings in the initial authorization remain valid. As such, it is appropriate to issue the renewal IHA.

Comment: The CBD commented that NMFS should not approve the requested renewal IHA unless NMFS ensures that this and other projects and activities in the area will in aggregate have a negligible impact on marine mammal populations. CBD suggests in particular that the issuance of concurrent incidental take authorizations for two separate construction projects would increase the likelihood of injurious vessel interactions for humpback whales. CBD also states its opposition to the use of a categorical exclusion under NEPA.

Response: NMFS does not agree with CBD's comments. We first address the notion that, under the MMPA, the “aggregate” effects of multiple activities must be evaluated in making a finding of negligible impact in support of issuance of a particular incidental take authorization. Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing regulations call for consideration of other unrelated activities and their impacts on populations. The preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in response to comments that the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS has factored into its negligible impact analysis the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline, e.g., as reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species, population size and growth rate, and other relevant stressors. The 1989 final rule for the MMPA implementing regulations also addressed public comments regarding cumulative effects from future, unrelated activities. There NMFS stated that such effects are not considered in making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible impact. In this case, both this renewal IHA as well as the IHA currently in effect and issued in association with the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT) Expansion Project in Norfolk, Virginia, are appropriately considered an unrelated activity relative to the other. The IHAs are unrelated in the sense that they are discrete actions under section 101(a)(5)(D), issued to discrete applicants.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a determination that the take incidental to a “specified activity” will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS' implementing regulations require applicants to include in their request a detailed description of the specified activity or class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals. 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). Thus, the “specified activity” for which incidental take coverage is being sought under section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and described by the applicant. Here, CTJV was the applicant for the initial IHA (as well as this renewal), and we are responding to the specified activity as described in that application (and making the necessary findings on that basis).

Regarding the specific issue of concern in CBD's comments, we acknowledge CBD's concern regarding the ongoing UME involving humpback whales, and that a portion of the whales involved in the UME have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike. However, CBD does not offer any evidence that the specified activity here (the PTST project) is likely to result in a vessel strike of a humpback whale, or that the two projects in aggregate (the separate PTST and HRBT projects) would in aggregate result in increased likelihood of vessel strike. Typical marine construction projects involve use of slow-moving vessels, such as tugs towing or pushing barges, or smaller work boats maneuvering in the vicinity of the construction project. These vessel types are not typically associated with vessel strikes resulting in injury or mortality. We acknowledge the data presented by CBD (24 humpback whale strandings in Virginia over 5 years; these represent approximately 16 percent of total humpback whale strandings over the 5-year period), but posit that vessel strike incidents in the area are most likely caused by commercial traffic through the Hampton Roads. For example, during 2018-2019, a significant majority of total vessels exceeding 65 m in length transiting through the Chesapeake Seasonal Management Area (a management area within which speeds for vessels > 65 m in length are to be reduced at certain times of year to reduce strikes of North Atlantic right whales) was by commercial cargo vessels ( e.g., container vessels, tankers, bulk cargo; NMFS, 2020). In summary, it is extremely unlikely that construction project-related vessel traffic would result in a marine mammal strike and CBD provides no evidence to the contrary.

Although there is no evidence to suggest that vessel strike would occur as a result of the specified activity, the UME is a relevant consideration in making a negligible impact determination. We discussed the UME and its effects in the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, and expand that discussion here in response to CBD's comments. The UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts for humpback whales. Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback whales (the West Indies breeding population, or distinct population segment (DPS)) remains healthy. Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review (Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS established 14 DPSs with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The West Indies DPS, which consists of the whales whose breeding range includes the Atlantic margin of the Antilles from Cuba to northern Venezuela, and whose feeding range primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and western Greenland, was delisted. The status review identified harmful algal blooms, vessel collisions, and fishing gear entanglements as relevant threats for this DPS, but noted that all other threats are considered likely to have no or minor impact on population size or the growth rate of this DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015). As described in Bettridge et al. (2015), the West Indies DPS has a substantial population size ( i.e., approximately 10,000; Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999; Bettridge et al., 2015), and appears to be experiencing consistent growth. In context of this status, the approximately 145 recorded strandings during the UME do not provide concern that the effects of the specified activity would be greater than negligible.

We address finally CBD's contention that it is not appropriate to categorically exclude the action of issuing the renewal IHA from further analysis under NEPA. A categorical exclusion (CE) is a category of actions that an agency has determined does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and is appropriately applied for such categories of actions so long as there are no extraordinary circumstances present that would indicate that the effects of the action may be significant. Extraordinary circumstances are situations for which NOAA has determined further NEPA analysis is required because they are circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have significant effects. A determination of whether an action that is normally excluded requires additional evaluation because of extraordinary circumstances focuses on the action's potential effects and considers the significance of those effects in terms of both context (consideration of the affected region, interests, and resources) and intensity (severity of impacts). Potential extraordinary circumstances relevant to this action include (1) adverse effects on species or habitats protected by the MMPA that are not negligible; (2) highly controversial environmental effects; (3) environmental effects that are uncertain, unique, or unknown; and (4) the potential for significant cumulative impacts when the proposed action is combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The relevant NOAA CE associated with issuance of incidental take authorizations is CE B4, “Issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for the incidental, but not intentional, take by harassment of marine mammals during specified activities and for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated.” This action falls within CE B4. In determining whether a CE is appropriate for a given incidental take authorization, NMFS considers the applicant's specified activity and the potential extent and magnitude of takes of marine mammals associated with that activity along with the extraordinary circumstances listed in the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and summarized above. The evaluation of whether extraordinary circumstances (if present) have the potential for significant environmental effects is limited to the decision NMFS is responsible for, which is issuance of the incidental take authorization. While there may be environmental effects associated with the underlying action, potential effects of NMFS' action are limited to those that would occur due to the authorization of incidental take of marine mammals. NMFS prepared numerous Environmental Assessments (EAs) analyzing the environmental impacts of the categories of activities encompassed by CE B4 which resulted in Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSIs) and, in particular, numerous EAs prepared in support of issuance of IHAs related to similar construction actions are part of NMFS' administrative record supporting CE B4. These EAs demonstrate the issuance of a given incidental harassment authorization does not affect other aspects of the human environment because the action only affects the marine mammals that are the subject of the incidental harassment authorization. These EAs also addressed factors in 40 CFR 1508.27 regarding the potential for significant impacts and demonstrate the issuance of incidental harassment authorization for the categories of activities encompassed by CE B4 do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

In particular, the issuance of a renewal IHA to CTJV is expected to result in minor, short-term behavioral effects to five species and minor auditory injury to four species due to exposure to underwater sound from pile driving and removal activities. Behavioral disturbance and auditory injury are expected to occur intermittently in the vicinity of the PTST project site during the one-year timeframe. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced through use of mitigation measures described herein. The issuance of this renewal IHA will not result in highly controversial environmental effects or result in environmental effects that are uncertain, unique, or unknown—the paucity of data regarding DTH pile installation notwithstanding—because numerous entities have been engaged in pile driving and removal activities that result in Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammals in the United States. This type of activity is well documented; prior authorizations and analysis demonstrates issuance of an IHA for this type of action only affects the marine mammals that are the subject of the authorization. Although the lack of data concerning DTH pile installation leads to some uncertainty regarding the most appropriate analytical approach to estimating harassment zones resulting from use of the technique, the potential effects associated with DTH pile installation are the same as those associated with other typical construction techniques. The ongoing humpback whale UME does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance demanding additional analysis under NEPA.

Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that CTJV is aware of the reporting requirements set forth in section 6(a) of CTJV's 2020 IHA for the draft and final monitoring reports.

Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and will ensure that CTJV is aware of all requirements of the 2020 IHA.

Comment: The Marine Mammal Commission expressed continuing concern with NMFS' use of the Renewal process.

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

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

NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) CTJV's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species is expected to result from this activity, and none would be authorized. Therefore, NMFS has determined that consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

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

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

NMFS has issued a Renewal IHA to CTJV for the take of marine mammals incidental to construction associated with the PTST at Virginia Beach, Virginia, for a period of one year.

The subject amendment to Permit No. 18786-05 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

Permit No. 18786, issued on June 30, 2015 (80 FR 44939), authorizes the permit holder to: (1) Carry out response, rescue, rehabilitation and release of threatened and endangered marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction ( Cetacea and Pinnipedia (excluding walrus)), and disentanglement of all marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction, pursuant to sections 109(h), 112(c), and Title IV of the MMPA; and, carry out such activities as enhancement pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA; (2) Conduct health-related, bona fide scientific research studies on marine mammals and marine mammal parts under NMFS jurisdiction pursuant to sections 104(c) and Title IV of the MMPA and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, including research related to emergency response that may involve compromised animals, and research on healthy animals that have not been subject to emergency response ( e.g., baseline health studies); (3) Conduct Level B harassment on all marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction incidental to MMHSRP activities in the U.S.; and (4) Collect, salvage, receive, possess, transfer, import, export, analyze, and curate marine mammal specimens under NMFS jurisdiction for purposes delineated in numbers (1) and (2) above. The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include authorization to extend the duration of the permit for 12 months through December 31, 2022.

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the original permit (No. 18786) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), to examine whether significant environmental impacts could result from issuance of the proposed scientific research permit. Based on the analyses in the EA, NMFS determined that issuance of the permit would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on June 29, 2015. The activities in this proposed amendment are consistent with the analyses in the original EA and no additional NEPA analysis is required for the issuance of this amendment. The original EA and FONSI are available upon request.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee is chartered by the Department of Commerce under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and pursuant to Section 105(b) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The committee will continue as provided in Executive Order 13889 effective September 27, 2019. The Department of Commerce re-chartered the CSMAC on October 1, 2019, for a two-year period. The CSMAC advises the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on a broad range of issues regarding spectrum policy. In particular, the current charter provides that the committee will provide advice and recommendations on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management in order to: License radio frequencies in a way that maximizes their public benefit; keep wireless networks as open to innovation as possible; and make wireless services available to all Americans. The CSMAC functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. Additional information about the CSMAC and its activities may be found at http://www.ntia.gov/category/csmac.

Under the terms of the committee's charter, it will have no fewer than five (5) members and no more than thirty (30) members. The members serve on the CSMAC in the capacity of Special Government Employee (SGE). As SGEs, members must comply with certain federal conflict of interest statutes and ethics regulations, including some financial disclosure requirements. Members will not receive compensation or reimbursement for travel or for per diem expenses. No member may be a registered federal lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 ( codified at 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ). See Office of Management and Budget, Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions, 79 FR 47482 (Aug. 13, 2014). No member may be an agent of a foreign principal required to register pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended ( codified at 22 U.S.C. 611 et seq. ).

The Secretary of Commerce appoints members of the committee who serve at the Secretary's pleasure and discretion for up to a two-year term and may be reappointed for additional terms. NTIA currently seeks applicants for new two-year terms that will commence in approximately April 2021 and continue for two years, subject to the anticipated timely renewal of the committee's charter or its termination by proper authority.

The committee's membership will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented by members and the functions to be performed. Accordingly, its membership will reflect a cross-section of interests in spectrum management and policy, including non-federal spectrum users; state, regional, and local sectors; technology developers and manufacturers; academia; civil society; and service providers with customers in both domestic and international markets. A description of factors that will be considered to determine each applicant's expertise is contained in the committee's Membership Balance Plan ( available at http://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2019/csmac-membership-balance-plan ).

In particular, NTIA seeks applicants with strong technical and engineering knowledge and experience, familiarity with commercial or private wireless technologies and associated businesses, or expertise with specific applications of wireless technologies. The Secretary may consider factors including, but not limited to, educational background, past work or academic accomplishments, and the industry sector in which a member is currently or previously employed. All appointments are made without discrimination on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.

Each application must include the applicant's full name, address, telephone number, and email address, along with a summary of the applicant's qualifications that identifies, with specificity, how his or her education, training, experience, expertise, or other factors would support the CSMAC's work and how his or her participation would help achieve the balance factors described above. Each application must also include a detailed resume or curriculum vitae.

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: U.S. Department of Education Grant Performance Report Form (ED 524B).

OMB Control Number: 1894-0003.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,595.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 169,390.

Abstract: The ED 524B form and instructions are used by many ED discretionary grant programs to enable grantees to meet ED deadline dates for submission of performance reports to the Department.

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: Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) Cycle II 2022 Operational Field Test.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0870.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,250.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 293.

Abstract: The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) is a cyclical, large-scale study of adult skills and life experiences focusing on education and employment. PIAAC is an international study designed to assess adults in different countries over a broad range of abilities, from simple reading to complex problem-solving skills, and to collect information on individuals' skill use and background. PIAAC is coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and developed by participating countries with the support of the OECD. In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED) conducts PIAAC. The U.S. participated in the PIAAC Main Study data collection in 2012 and conducted national supplement data collections in 2014 and 2017. All three of these collections are part of PIAAC Cycle I. A new PIAAC cycle is to be conducted every 10 years, and PIAAC Cycle II Main Study data collection will be conducted from August 2022 through March 2023. In preparation for the main study collection, PIAAC Cycle II begins with a Field Test in Spring of 2021 in which 33 countries will participate with the goal of evaluating newly developed assessment and questionnaire items and to test the operations for the PIAAC 2023 Main Study (2022-2023). PIAAC 2022 defines four core competency domains of adult cognitive skills deemed key to facilitating the social and economic participation of adults in advanced economies: (1) Literacy, (2) numeracy, (3) reading and numeracy components, and (4) adaptive problem solving. The U.S. will administer all four domains of the PIAAC 2022 assessment to a nationally representative sample of adults, along with a background questionnaire with questions about their education background, work history, the skills they use on the job and at home, their civic engagement, financial literacy and sense of their health and well-being. The results are used to compare the skills capacities of the workforce-aged adults in participating countries, and to learn more about relationships between educational background, employment, and other outcomes. The request to conduct the PIAAC Cycle II Field Test in April-June 2020 was approved by OMB in December 2019 (OMB# 1850-0870 v.7-8). As described in the previously approved amendment in September 2020 (OMB# 1850-0870 v.9), the 2020 PIAAC Cycle II Field Test, scheduled to begin in April 2020, was postponed due to the 2020 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic. The OECD has delayed both the Field Test and Main Study by 12 months, meaning that the Field Test was due to be carried out in respondent homes beginning in April 2021. In recognition of the continued constraints that countries face in meeting the current Field Test goals and timeline during the continuing global pandemic, the OECD has relaxed the current field test standards to allow for a smaller Operational Field Test of survey implementation. Currently, none of the 13 areas of the U.S. in the PIAAC field test sample has low enough rates of new daily cases of COVID-19 for safe and productive field interviews. After several months of careful monitoring of new daily case rates and considering OECD guidance, NCES has elected to conduct an Operational Field Test. Therefore, this request updates the package to reflect the change to an Operational Field Test. Additionally, NCES has imposed new requirements on study nomenclature that require changes to the U.S. outreach and recruitment materials and program nomenclature in the instruments. The revisions made do include changes to respondent burden and the cost to the federal government.

Every student in America deserves a high-quality education in a safe and inclusive environment. The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened this promise, which was already out of reach for many of this Nation's historically underserved students. In the wake of the pandemic, PreK-12 and higher education administrators, teachers, faculty, staff, early childhood education providers, counselors and advisors, custodians, school bus drivers, information technology, housing and food service, and other staff, and families have mobilized to go above and beyond to support the well-being and safety of all of our children and students during this crisis. Students and teaches, faculty, and staff alike have found new ways to teach and learn.

On January 21, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14000, “Supporting the Reopening and Continuing Operation of Schools and Early Childhood Education Providers.” The E.O. directs the Department to take several actions to support States to safely open schools, PreK through IHEs, and ensure that all students receive a high-quality education. One of those actions is the development of a Safer Schools and Campuses Best Practices Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) to enable teachers, faculty, staff, schools, districts, IHEs, early childhood education providers, other places of educational instruction, and States to share lessons learned and best practices for operating safely during the pandemic. The Clearinghouse will include a collection of lessons learned and best practices submitted by teachers, faculty, staff, schools, districts, IHEs, early childhood education providers, other places of educational instruction, and States describing approaches to operating during the COVID-19 pandemic that the submitters believe to have worked well in their contexts. It will also include a wide variety of resources that the Department and other Federal agencies have published in response to the pandemic. The purpose of this information sharing is so that teachers, faculty, staff, schools, districts, IHEs, early childhood education providers, other places of educational instruction, and States may learn from what others are doing around the Nation, and accelerate the return to safe in-person teaching and learning.

Through this request for information (RFI), we seek lessons learned and best practices for review and inclusion in the Clearinghouse on three topics: Safe and healthy environments; providing support to students to meet their social, emotional, mental health, academic, financial, and other needs, including access to food and other basic needs; and teacher, faculty, and staff well-being, professional development, and supports. The submissions should include substantive materials such as fact sheets, step-by-step guidance, policies or regulations, sample agreements among partners ( e.g., between a local education agency and a local health agency, or an employee union), ready-to-implement resources, videos or other media focused on how to implement practices, and descriptions of how strategies have been implemented. Generally, submissions from the field should not include or reference materials such as commercial advertisements, vendor solicitations or products, and editorials. Submitters may include the actual materials or links to them.

Please include the following with each submission:

(1) Contact information.

(2) Topic ( e.g., safe and healthy environments; providing supports for students; teacher, faculty, and staff well-being, professional development, and supports).

(3) Target audience ( e.g., early childhood, PreK-12, postsecondary).

(4) A short description (two to three sentences).

(5) What makes it a lesson learned or best practice ( e.g., it is based on local data regarding number of cases of COVID in the community, State or Federal guidance, research), including a summary of the impact and any evidence of positive outcomes and clarification of the type of setting the practice has been used in ( e.g., rural/urban/suburban, public/private/proprietary, 2-year or 4-year higher education institution, Historically Black College or University/Tribally Controlled College or University/Minority Serving Institution; other educational settings such as correctional facilities).

(6) Whether there is a focus on racial equity and/or another equity focus, such as a focus on historically underserved populations including students with disabilities; English learners; students from low-income backgrounds; first-generation college students; students experiencing homelessness; students in or formerly in foster care; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA) students; undocumented students; student veterans and military-connected students; student parents; and international students.

The following table provides examples of the content for which we seek best practices and lessons learned.

Each submitter will be notified of the Department's receipt of the submission. Note that the Department will not include all submissions in the Clearinghouse, and submissions that are included may be modified. Further, the Department will not include commercial product endorsements, nor any strategies that may lead a user to violate Federal law.

This is a request for information only. This RFI is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a notice inviting applications. This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, we are not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI. Inclusion of or publishing of any submissions in the Clearinghouse does not necessarily equate endorsement from the U.S. Department of Education or from the Federal Government, nor is it a certification of the effectiveness of the suggestion.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

The Department requested and was granted an emergency paperwork clearance from OMB for the data collection associated with this RFI. The Department will publish 60- and 30-day Federal Register notices as required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection.

We estimate that 300 respondents will submit materials such as fact sheets, step-by-step guidance, and ready-to-implement resources in response to this RFI. We estimate that it will take each respondent one hour and 30 minutes to review instructions, gather submission materials, and submit the requested information. This will result in a total burden of 300 responses and 450 hours to the public.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.

Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at http://www.ftc.gov/appliances.

DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a Federal Register notice entitled, “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy”, dated August 14, 2020, 85 FR 49645.

On April 16, 2021, the cost figures published in this notice will become effective and supersede those cost figures published on August 14, 2020. The cost figures set forth in this notice will be effective until further notice.

DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2021 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the February 2021, EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook (EIA releases the Outlook monthly). The representative average unit after-tax cost for kerosene is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2010 to 2013 averages of the U.S. refiner price to end users, which include all the major energy-consuming sectors in the U.S. for these fuels. The source for these price data is the February 2021, Monthly Energy Review DOE/EIA-0035(2021/2). The representative average unit after-tax cost for propane is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2021 averages of the U.S. residential sector prices found in the Annual Energy Outlook 2021, AEO2021) (February 3, 2021). The Short-Term Energy Outlook, the Monthly Energy Review, and the Annual Energy Outlook are available on the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov. For more information on the data sources used in this Notice, contact the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, EI-30, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8800, email: infoctr@eia.doe.gov.

The 2021representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 16, 2021. They will remain in effect until further notice.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 10, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 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.

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

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

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

Public Participation: The online virtual meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or within five days after the meeting by sending them to Menice Santistevan at the aforementioned email address. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

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

Title: FERC-725HH, RF Reliability Standards.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0301.

Type of Request: Three-year renewal of FERC-725HH.

Abstract: This collection of information pertains to the Commission's compliance with section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824 o ), which enables the Commission to strengthen the reliability of the “bulk-power system.”  1 The Commission's implementation of FPA section 215 involves review and approval of a system of mandatory Reliability Standards that are established and enforced by an “Electric Reliability Organization” (ERO). 2 The Commission has certified the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as the ERO. 3

Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a Regional Entity. 4 A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority from the ERO. 5 On March 17, 2011, the Commission approved a regional Reliability Standard submitted by the ERO that was developed by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF). 6

RF promotes bulk electric system reliability in the Eastern Interconnection. RF is the Regional Entity responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement in the RF region. In addition, RF provides an environment for the development of Reliability Standards and the coordination of the operating and planning activities of its members as set forth in the RF bylaws.

There is one regional Reliability Standard in the RF region. The Commission requests renewal of OMB clearance for that regional Reliability Standard, known as BAL-502-RF-03 (Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation).

On December 7, 2020, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comments on this information collection for 60 days. The Commission received no comments in response.

Type of Respondents: Planning coordinators.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   7 The estimated burden and cost  8 are as follows:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management issues of its research programs. The meeting agenda and materials will be posted to https://www.epa.gov/bosc.

Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Contaminated sites, including mine waste, solvent vapor intrusion, underground storage tanks, and lead.

Information on Services Available: For information on translation services, access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy at (202) 564-6518 or tracy.tom@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy at least ten days prior to the meeting to give the EPA adequate time to process your request.

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This guidance is provided under the authority of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ) and addresses the utility of the acute dermal toxicity study for single technical chemicals in pesticide labelling, such as the signal word and precautionary statements as described in 40 CFR 156.64 and 40 CFR 156.70.

EPA's OPP regularly receives acute lethality studies for oral, dermal and inhalation routes along with eye irritation, skin irritation, and skin sensitization—these data are required for both the registration of new and reregistration of existing pesticidal products.

In 2016, OPP published the “ Guidance for Waiving Acute Dermal Toxicity Tests for Pesticide Formulations & Supporting Retrospective Analysis” to support the Agency's goal to reduce unnecessary animal testing. The retrospective analysis supports the conclusion that the dermal acute toxicity study for formulations provides little to no added value in regulatory decision making.

In 2017 Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) released their Acute Dermal Toxicity Waiver. This policy includes both end use products and technical active ingredients. Stakeholders have requested that EPA expand its waiver guidance for technical active ingredients to support North American harmonization.

In 2019 EPA Administrator Wheeler directed Agency leadership to prioritize animal testing reduction efforts.

In 2020, the Agency published the draft guidance for public comment on October 8, 2020 (85 FR 63548), and received supportive comments from stakeholders. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the draft guidance as proposed.

This final guidance document expands the potential for data waivers for acute dermal studies to single active ingredient technical chemicals (technical chemicals) used to formulate end use products. The reasoning and analysis in this dermal waiver guidance for technical chemicals is similar to what was presented in the 2016 guidance for end-use products. While more acute toxicity studies are submitted to OPP annually for formulated pesticide products than for technical chemicals, there is still the potential for animal and resource savings from waivers for technical chemical acute toxicity studies. Further, this guidance will allow EPA to harmonize with the PMRA.

As guidance, this document is not binding on the Agency or any outside parties, and the Agency may depart from it where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in the guidance, the obligations of EPA and the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations, or other legally binding documents. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in the guidance document and any statute, regulation, or other legally binding document, the guidance document will not be controlling.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. This unit addresses those requirements that apply to a guidance document.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). The guidance was not, therefore, submitted to OMB for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This guidance document does not create any new information collection burden that require additional approval by OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The information collection activities associated with pesticide registration are already approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0060.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, as applicable.

The Privacy Act provides that an agency may only collect or maintain in its records information about individuals that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose that is required by a statute or executive order. If a system of records is comprised of records that no longer meet this standard, the Privacy Act may require agencies to stop maintaining the system and expunge the records in accordance with the requirements in the SORN and the applicable records retention or disposition schedule approved by the National Archives and Records Administration. The System manager has deemed these systems obsolete and has declared that the records are no longer relevant to accomplish an agency mission/purpose identified. The categories of records in this system are no longer collectively maintained in a system of records. Therefore, consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A.108, the FCC proposes to rescind these two systems.

I. Background

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, state governments, state Medicaid agencies, state survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Public Health Service Act. We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer and oversee the programs efficiently.

Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the Federal Register .

This quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS website or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This is the most current up-to-date information and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the website list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the website offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the websites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the website. These listservs avoid the need to check the website, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a website proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.

This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at http://www.cms.gov/manuals.

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education  1 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. CMS has had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) (collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and CHIP. Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance Marketplace®, or Marketplace®  2 ). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the Marketplace®. The APOE (the Panel) allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

The scope of this Panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5).

On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 19, 2021, and will terminate on January 19, 2023 unless renewed by appropriate action.

In accordance with the January 19, 2021, charter, the APOE will advise the HHS and CMS on developing and implementing education programs that support individuals who are enrolled in or eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace® and other CMS programs. The scope of this FACA group also includes advising on education of providers and stakeholders with respect to health care reform and certain provisions of the HITECH Act enacted as part of the ARRA.

The charter will terminate on January 19, 2023, unless renewed by appropriate action. The APOE was chartered under 42 U.S.C. 217a, section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The APOE is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

In accordance with the renewed charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the CMS Administrator concerning optimal strategies for the following:

• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP, and coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace® and other CMS programs.

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or the Health Insurance Marketplace® consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, pursuant to education and outreach programs of issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, partners and stakeholders.

• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP and the Health Insurance Marketplace® education programs, and other CMS programs as designated.

• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The current members of the Panel as of February 16, 2021, are: E. Lorraine Bell, Chief Officer, Population Health, Catholic Charities USA; Nazleen Bharmal, Medical Director of Community Partnerships, Cleveland Clinic; Angie Boddie, Director of Health Programs, National Caucus and Center on Black Aging, Inc.; Julie Carter, Senior Federal Policy Associate, Medicare Rights Center; Scott Ferguson, Director of Care Transitions and Population Health, Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital; Leslie Fried, Senior Director, Center for Benefits Access, National Council on Aging; David Goldberg, President and CEO of Mon Health System; Jean-Venable Robertson Goode, Professor, Department of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University; Ted Henson, Director of Health Center Performance and Innovation, National Association of Community Health Centers; Joan Ilardo, Director of Research Initiatives, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine; Cheri Lattimer, Executive Director, National Transitions of Care Coalition; Cori McMahon, Vice President, Tridiuum; Alan Meade, Director of Rehab Services, Holston Medical Group; Michael Minor, National Director, H.O.P.E. HHS Partnership, National Baptist Convention USA, Incorporated; Jina Ragland, Associate State Director of Advocacy and Outreach, AARP Nebraska; Morgan Reed, Executive Director, Association for Competitive Technology; Margot Savoy, Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Temple University Physicians; Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, President and CEO, Better Medicare Alliance; and; Tia Whitaker, Statewide Director, Outreach and Enrollment, Pennsylvania Association of Community Health Centers.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the March 31, 2021 meeting will include the following:

Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to registered participants. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register at the website https://www.eventbrite.com/e/apoe-march-31-2021-virtual-meeting-tickets-140075935895 or contact the DFO at the address or number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. This meeting will be held virtually. Individuals who are not registered in advance will be unable to attend the meeting.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Elizabeth Richter, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment (EE) Implementation Advanced Planning Document (IAPD) Template; Use: To assess the appropriateness of states' requests for enhanced federal financial participation for expenditures related to Medicaid eligibility determination systems, we will review the submitted information and documentation to make an approval determination for the advanced planning document. Form Number: CMS-10536 (OMB control number: 0938-1268); Frequency: Yearly, once, and occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 56; Total Annual Responses: 168; Total Annual Hours: 2,688. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Edward Dolly at 410-786-8554.)

NACMH advises, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning the activities under section 217 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 218). Specifically, NACMH provides recommendations concerning policy related to the organization, operation, selection, and funding of migrant health centers, and other entities under grants and contracts under section 330 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254b). NACMH meets twice each calendar year, or at the discretion of the DFO in consultation with the NACMH Chair.

Since priorities dictate meeting times, be advised that times and agenda items are subject to change. The agenda items for the meeting may include topics and issues related to migratory and seasonal agricultural worker health.

Refer to the NACMH website listed above for all current and updated information concerning the May 2021 NACMH meeting, including draft agenda and meeting materials that will be posted 30 calendar days before the meeting.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. Oral comments will be honored in the order requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to the NACMH meeting should be sent to Esther Paul using the contact information above at least 5 business days before the meeting.

Individuals who need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Esther Paul using the contact information listed above at least 10 business days before the meeting. Registration is required to attend the meeting prior to entry. Registration and meeting attendance instructions will be posted on the NACMH website 30 business days before the meeting date.

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before March 6, 2021. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

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 can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers: