Title: USDA Patent License Application.

OMB Number: 0518-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2022.

Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The USDA patent licensing program grants patent licenses to qualified businesses and individuals who wish to commercialize inventions arising from federally supported research. The objective of the program is to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from such research. The licensing of federally owned inventions must be done in accordance with the terms, conditions and procedures prescribed under 37 CFR part 404. Application for a license must be addressed to the Federal agency having custody of the invention. Licenses may be granted only if the license applicant has supplied the Federal agency with a satisfactory plan for the development and marketing of the invention and with information about the applicant's capability to fulfill the plan. 37 CFR 404.8 sets forth the information which must be provided by a license applicant. For the convenience of the applicant, USDA has itemized the information needed on Form AD-761, and instructions for completing the form are provided to the applicant. The information submitted is used to determine whether the applicant has both a complete and sufficient plan for developing and marketing the invention and the necessary manufacturing, marketing, technical and financial resources to carry out the submitted plan.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response.

Description of Respondents: Businesses or other for profit individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.

Frequency of Responses: One time per invention.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 225 hours.

This data will be collected under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Diana D. Halsey, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer by calling 301-504-6905.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments may be sent to diana.halsey@usda.gov. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

FSA will provide assistance to timber harvesting or timber hauling businesses for losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. FSA is implementing PATHH to distribute up to $200 million as authorized by Subtitle B of Title VII of Division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA; Pub. L. 116-260) to support timber harvesting and timber hauling businesses that have experienced a decrease in their gross revenue of 10 percent or more for the period of January 1, 2020, and December 1, 2020, compared to gross revenue for the period of January 1, 2019 and December 1, 2019. PATHH is intended for timber harvesting and hauling businesses that derive the majority of their income from timber harvesting or hauling activities.

Timber harvesting and hauling businesses are also commonly referred to as loggers and truckers. This document uses the terms timber harvesting and timber hauling businesses for consistency with the CAA. FSA is administering the direct payments under the general supervision and direction of the FSA Administrator, and the United States Forest Service (USFS). USFS will provide technical assistance to FSA, which includes, but is not limited to, sharing expertise on the timber sector, connecting with stakeholders, and providing outreach and training materials.

For PATHH, the following definitions apply:

Gross revenue means the business's gross receipts. Gross receipts are the total amounts the timber harvesting business or timber hauling business received from timber harvesting and timber hauling activities, without subtracting any costs or expenses. For PATHH, applicants should not include sale of physical assets, such as machinery or equipment, when calculating gross revenue.

Legal entity means for the purposes of administering PATHH, a timber harvesting business or timber hauling business that is a corporation, joint stock company, association, limited partnership, irrevocable trust, estate, charitable organization, or other similar organization including any such organization participating in a business structure as a general partnership, a joint venture, a grantor of a revocable trust, or as a participant in a similar organization, is considered a legal entity, subject to the payment limitation and payment eligibility requirements described in this NOFA. A business operating as a sole proprietorship is considered a legal entity.

NAICS means the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). It is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy.

Person means an individual, natural person and does not include a legal entity.

Principal business code means a six-digit number that classifies the main type of product a business sells or service offered. It is based on NAICS codes and is synonymous in this notice with NAICS.

Timber means trees or logs harvested from forest land. It includes trees or logs that have been minimally processed onsite in the forest before transportation from the forest land (for example, wood chips, slash, etc.).

Timber harvesting business means a business, also known as a logging business, with its gross revenue derived from one or more of the following:

• Cutting timber;

• Cutting and transporting timber; or

• Producing wood chips on forest land.

In addition, the business must be classified under NAICS Code 113310 for tax purposes; or as otherwise determined by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs.

Timber hauling business means a business, also known as a log hauling business, with its gross revenue derived from transporting products harvested directly from forest land with vehicles registered (under the laws of the state or states in which the vehicle is required to be registered) as highway motor vehicles used in the transportation of timber. The business must also be classified under NAICS Code 484220 or 484230 for tax purposes and have filed IRS Form 2290 for logging vehicles for 2019 and 2020, or otherwise determined by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs.

United States means all 50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any other territory or possession of the United States.

To be eligible for a PATHH payment, an applicant must:

• Be in operation as a timber harvesting business or timber hauling business during the periods of:

○ January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019, and

○ January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020;  1

• Have had at least a 10 percent gross revenue loss when comparing the 2020 period with the 2019 period mentioned above;

• Have 50 percent or more of its gross revenue derived from timber harvesting, timber hauling, or both during the periods of:

○ January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019, and

○ January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020;

• Meet all of the requirements in this NOFA;

• Be a:

○ Citizen of the United States;

○ Resident alien, which for purposes of this NOFA means “lawful alien” as defined in 7 CFR part 1400;

○ Partnership of citizens or resident aliens of the United States;

○ Corporation, limited liability company, or other organizational structure organized under State law and solely owned by U.S. citizens or resident aliens; or

○ Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304);

• Provide names and taxpayer identification numbers of each person or legal entity that holds an ownership interest in an eligible legal entity in accordance with 7 CFR 1400.107;  2 and

• Comply with the provisions of 7 CFR part 12, “Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation,” and the provisions of 7 CFR 718.6, which address ineligibility for benefits for offenses involving controlled substances.

The following types of applicants are ineligible for PATHH:

• Any legal entity that includes a member at any level of ownership in the entity's ownership structure who is not a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101-1778);

• The following types of businesses or operations:

○ Residential or commercial tree care;

○ Landscape services;

○ Trucking businesses that do not transport trees or logs;

○ Timber broker; and

○ United States Federal, State, and local governments.

A person or legal entity cannot receive payments of more than $125,000 under PATHH. FSA may reduce the maximum payment limitation after all applications are received based on available funding. Like all other programs administered by FSA, payments made to a PATHH applicant that is a Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304), will not be subject to payment limitation.

To apply for PATHH, each eligible timber harvesting business and timber hauling business must complete the form FSA-1118, Pandemic Assistance for Timber Harvesters and Haulers (PATHH) Program Application, which is available at https://www.farmers.gov/PATHH and in FSA county offices. A complete form FSA-1118 must be submitted in person, by mail, email, OneSpan, 3 Box, 4 or facsimile to any FSA county office  5 by October 15, 2021.

In addition to the form FSA-1118, an applicant must submit the additional forms discussed below. Failure of an individual, legal entity, or a member(s) of a legal entity to submit the following payment limitation and payment eligibility forms within 60 days from the date of submitting the PATHH application may result in no payment or a reduced payment, as explained in the previous section.

Applicants will be required to complete form AD-2047 Customer Data Worksheet. This form must be filled out for all applicants, as well as members who own a share in any legal entity applicants, who have not previously provided detailed information to USDA that accurately identifies the applicant or member.

To facilitate administration of the payment limitation and eligibility requirements, an applicant that is a legal entity, such as a limited liability company, will be required to complete form CCC-901 Member Information for Legal Entities and provide names and taxpayer identification numbers of all members holding an ownership interest in the legal entity.

A highly erodible land conservation (sometimes referred to elsewhere as HELC) and wetland conservation certification (form AD-1026 Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification for PATHH applicant and applicable affiliates) will be required for all applicants.

An applicant applying as a timber hauling business must submit a copy of IRS Form 2290 Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return for logging vehicles for 2019 and 2020 or they will be ineligible for a PATHH payment. For a timber hauling business that only operates on Tribal land, Form 2290 will not be required. The timber hauling business will certify to this on the FSA-1118. Under special circumstances, as determined by FSA, a timber hauling business that does not otherwise use Form 2290 may request an exemption.

If requested by FSA, the applicant must provide additional documentation to verify eligibility of the information included on the application, such as tax records with NAICS 113310 or 484220, as well as evidence that supports the gross revenue the applicant received from timber harvesting or hauling, such as tax returns, payment receipts, and other documentation that is determined acceptable by FSA.

An applicant, whether a person or legal entity, that either fails to timely provide all required documentation or fails to satisfy an eligibility requirement for the PATHH, is not eligible to receive PATHH payments. A PATHH payment to an eligible legal entity applicant whose member(s) either fails to timely submit a separate AD-2047 form or fails to satisfy an eligibility requirement, other than the requirement that the member be a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence, 6 will be reduced proportionate to that member's ownership share.

PATHH participants are required to retain documentation in support of their application for 3 years after the date of approval.

Participants receiving PATHH payments or any other person who furnishes such information to USDA must permit authorized representatives of FSA or the Government Accountability Office, during regular business hours, to enter the participant's business and to inspect, examine, and to allow representatives to make copies of books, records, or other items for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of the information provided by the participant.

For eligible applicants, if gross revenue for the period of January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020, decreased by at least 10 percent compared to gross revenue for the period of January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019, the payment amount will be calculated as follows:

• Gross revenue received from January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019, minus gross revenue received from January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020;

• Multiplied by 80 percent.

For applicants whose business either originated between January 1, 2019, and December 1, 2019, or dissolved in between January 1, 2020, and December 1, 2020, the applicant must report the amount of time they were in business during the eligible PATHH periods of January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020, on their application, and FSA will adjust gross revenue proportionally for the purpose of payment calculation. If there was a change in the ownership of an entity in 2019, but the entity's name and business remain the same, the entity is not considered to have originated in 2019. For example, Timber Business A originated on July 17, 2019. It is still in operation today; therefore, it was in operation during PATHH periods January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020, (336 days) and July 17, 2019, to December 1, 2019 (138 days). The business's gross revenue is $140,000 for 2019, and $200,000 in 2020. Since the number of days the business existed in 2019 is not the same as the number of days it existed in 2020, the business's gross revenue for 2019 will be calculated on a daily basis, and that daily revenue will then be multiplied by the number of days it operated in 2020. This will allow an equitable comparison of the gross revenue for the 2 years to determine the loss. To calculate the business's gross revenue for 2019, $140,000, will be divided by the number of days its operation existed, 138 days, to get the business's 2019 gross revenue per day. That amount, $1,014.49275 (not rounded), is then multiplied by the number of days the business existed in 2020 if the business existed during the entire application period, 335 days. This amount, $339,855.0724 (not rounded) will then be used as the business's 2019 gross revenue in the PATHH payment calculation. Seasonal timber harvesting and timber hauling business will be considered in operation during the entire PATHH applicable period and their gross revenue will not be prorated.

FSA will issue an initial payment equal to the lesser of:

• The amount calculated above; or

• $2,000.

After the close of the application period, FSA will issue a final payment equal to the amount calculated above minus the amount of the applicant's initial payment. If total calculated payments exceed the total funding available for PATHH, the payment limitation may be adjusted and the final payment amounts will be prorated to stay within the amount of available funding. An initial payment to a recipient will not be recalculated or reduced if the factored payment to that recipient is $2,000 or less.

In the event that a PATHH payment resulted from erroneous information reported by the applicant, the payment will be recalculated, and the applicant must refund any excess payment to FSA, including interest to be calculated from the date of disbursement.

If FSA determines that the applicant intentionally misrepresented their total gross revenue, their application will be disapproved and they must refund to USDA all PATHH payments made to the applicant with interest from the date of disbursement.

If any corrections to the ownership interest in the business result in a lower PATHH payment, the applicant must refund the difference with interest from the date of disbursement.

Any required refunds must be resolved in accordance with debt settlement regulations in 7 CFR part 3.

Equitable relief and finality provisions of 7 CFR 718 subpart D apply to determinations under PATHH, as well as appeal regulations in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780. The determination of matters of general applicability that are not in response to, or result from, an individual set of facts in an individual participant's application for payment are not matters that can be appealed. Such matters of general applicability include, but are not limited to, program definitions, payment limitation, the method of determining gross revenue loss, and the PATHH payment calculation.

A timber hauling business or timber harvesting business may file an application with the FSA county office after the PATHH application deadline, along with a statement as to why the application is being filed after the deadline. In such case the application and statement will be considered a request to waive the application deadline. If funding is available, the Deputy Administrator has the discretion and authority to consider the case and waive or modify application deadlines and other requirements or program provisions not specified in law, in cases where the Deputy Administrator determines it is equitable to do so and where the Deputy Administrator finds that the lateness or failure to meet such other requirements or program provisions do not adversely affect the operation of PATHH. Although applicants have a right to a decision on whether they filed applications by the deadline or not, applicants have no right to a decision in response to a request to waive or modify deadlines or program provisions. The Deputy Administrator's refusal to exercise discretion to consider the request will not be considered an adverse decision and is, by itself, not appealable.

PATHH payments will be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the timber harvesting or hauling business. The regulations governing offsets in 7 CFR part 3 do not apply to PATHH payments.

In either applying for or participating in PATHH, or both, the applicant is subject to laws against perjury and any penalties and prosecution resulting therefrom, with such laws including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 1621. If the applicant willfully makes and represents as true any verbal or written declaration, certification, statement, or verification that the applicant knows or believes not to be true, in the course of either applying for or participating in PATHH, or both, then the applicant is guilty of perjury and, except as otherwise provided by law, may be fined, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, regardless of whether the applicant makes such verbal or written declaration, certification, statement, or verification within or without the United States.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the emergency information collection request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB approved the 6-month emergency PATHH information collection activity. FSA is providing direct payments to eligible applicants who have suffered a gross revenue loss of at least 10 percent for the period of January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020, compared to the period of January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019.

The environmental impacts have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the FSA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799).

As previously stated, PATHH is providing payments to eligible timber harvesting and hauling businesses who have suffered a gross revenue loss of at least 10 percent for the period of January 1, 2020, through December 1, 2020, compared to the period of January 1, 2019, through December 1, 2019. The limited discretionary aspects of PATHH do not have the potential to impact the human environment as they are administrative. Accordingly, these discretionary aspects are covered by the FSA Categorical Exclusions specified in 7 CFR 799.31(b)(6)(iii) that applies to price support programs and § 799.31(b)(6)(vi) that applies to safety net programs.

No Extraordinary Circumstances (§ 799.33) exist. As such, the implementation of PATHH and the participation in PATHH do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this document serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision for this federal action.

The title and number of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this document applies is 10.137—Pandemic Assistance for Timber Harvesters and Haulers Program.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or (844) 433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or email: OAC@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

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

Title: 7 CFR part 225, Summer Food Service Program.

OMB Number: 0584-0280.

Expiration Date: December 31, 2022.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is authorized under section 13 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1761). The Program is directed toward children in low-income areas when school is not in session and is administered by FNS in partnership with State agencies and local program sponsors. Approved sponsors may include public or private non-profit school food authorities (SFAs), public or private non-profit residential summer camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, or other private non-profit organizations that develop a special summer program and provide meal service similar to that available to children during the school year under the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Collection of information is required to administer and operate SFSP in accordance with the NSLA.

FNS will seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise the reporting burden in the information collection for the SFSP under OMB Control Number 0584-0280 to include two existing monitoring requirements that were omitted in previous ICRs. Under current regulations, sponsors are required to visit each of their sites at least once during the first week of operation under the program (7 CFR 225.15(d)(2)), and to conduct a full review of food service operations at each site within the first four weeks of operation ((7 CFR 225.15(d)(3)). The burden associated with these existing monitoring requirements was overlooked in previous ICRs and has not yet been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This revision corrects these omissions. In addition, FNS is taking this opportunity to correct rounding errors in the total estimated burden hours currently approved for the collection.

FNS estimates that each of the 5,524 sponsors that participate in SFSP (3,314 local and tribal government sponsors, and 2,210 business sponsors) complete, on average, nine first week site visit reports and nine food service reviews annually, for a total of 99,432 responses. In addition, FNS estimates that the average number of burden hours per response is 30 minutes (0.50 hours) for first week site visits, and two hours for food service reviews, resulting in an estimated total of 124,290 additional burden hours annually (5,524 × 9 × 2.5). As a result of program adjustments for these two monitoring requirements, the reporting burden associated with this collection increases from 328,870 hours and 185,884 responses to 453,160 hours and 285,316 responses. These adjustments do not affect the currently approved recordkeeping and public disclosure burdens.

Furthermore, in preparation for this ICR, FNS discovered erroneous rounding errors in the burden chart submitted as part of the previous renewal request, which resulted in an additional two hours to the total burden estimate for the collection. During that renewal, which was approved by OMB on December 2, 2019, the total public disclosure burden was entered as 1,395 hours when it should have more accurately been rounded to 1,394 hours. In addition, the total burden hours estimate for the collection was rounded up an additional hour when it should have been rounded down. Because of these two rounding errors, current OMB inventory for this collection totals 338,411 hours rather than the more accurate total of 338,409 hours.

As a result of the program adjustments subject to this notice, due to the addition of previously omitted reporting requirements, as well as the administrative adjustment for rounding errors, FNS estimates the revised total burden for the collection to increase by 124,288 hours (124,290 for the two monitoring requirements−2 to correct rounding errors) and 99,432 responses, to a total of 462,699 hours and 391,795 responses. The adjusted average burden per response and the annual burden hours for reporting, recordkeeping, and public disclosure are explained below and summarized in the charts that follow. The charts reflect the changes in reporting burden at the State/Local/Tribal Government and Business Sponsors levels and the correction of rounding errors in the public disclosure burden. No changes were made in the recordkeeping burden.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments and Businesses or Other For Profit, or Not for Profit. Respondent groups identified include State Agencies and local, tribal, and business sponsors.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 63,942.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 6.13.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 391,795.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.18.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 462,699.

Current OMB Inventory: 338,411.

Difference (Burden Revisions Requested): 124,288.

Refer to the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10, the Director of the Census Bureau is seeking nominations for the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (NAC). The NAC will operate under the provisions of FACA and will report to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce through the Director of the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau's National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations will advise the Director of the Census Bureau on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities. The Advisory Committee will provide race, ethnic, and other population expertise from the following disciplines: Economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, and behavioral and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.

1. The NAC advises the Director of the Census Bureau (the Director) on the full range of economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral, and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.

2. The NAC advises the Census Bureau on the data needs of underserved communities and how census data products might address such needs.

3. The NAC provides guidance on census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs.

4. The NAC reviews and provides formal recommendations and feedback on working papers, reports, and other documents related to the design and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys.

5. In providing insight, perspectives, and expertise on the full spectrum of Census Bureau surveys and programs, the NAC examines such areas as hidden households, language barriers, students and youth, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, poverty, race/ethnic distribution, privacy and confidentiality, rural populations and businesses, individuals and households with limited access to information and communications technologies, the dynamic nature of new businesses, minority ownership of businesses, as well as other concerns impacting Census Bureau survey design and implementation.

6. The NAC uses formal advisory committee meetings, webinars, web conferences, working groups, and other methods to accomplish its goals, consistent with the requirements of the FACA. The NAC will consult with regional office staff to help identify regional, local, tribal and grass roots issues, trends and perspectives related to Census Bureau surveys and programs.

7. The NAC functions solely as an advisory body under the FACA.

1. The NAC consists of up to 32 members who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Census Bureau is seeking eight qualified candidates to be considered for appointment.

2. The NAC aims to have a balanced representation among its members, considering such factors as geography, age, sex, race, ethnicity, technical expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census programs and/or activities.

3. The NAC aims to include members from diverse backgrounds, including state, local and tribal governments; academia; research, national and community-based organizations; and, the private sector.

4. Members will be selected from the public and private sectors. Members may serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or representatives who are selected to represent specific organizations.

5. SGEs and representatives will be selected based on their expertise in or representation of specific areas to include: Diverse populations (including race and ethnic populations); national, state, local, and tribal interest organizations serving hard-to-count populations; researchers; community-based organizations; academia; business interests; marketing and media professionals; researchers; and, members of professional associations. Members will be individually advised of the capacity in which they will serve through their appointment letters.

6. Membership is open to persons who are not seated on other Census Bureau stakeholder entities ( i.e., State Data Centers, Census Information Centers, Federal State Cooperative on Populations Estimates Program, other Census Advisory Committees, etc.). People who have already served one full-term on a Census Bureau Advisory Committee may not serve on any other Census Bureau Advisory Committee for three years from the termination of previous service. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the NAC.

7. Members will serve for a three-year term. All members will be reevaluated at the conclusion of each term with the prospect of renewal, pending the committee needs. Active attendance and participation in meetings and activities ( e.g., conference calls and assignments) will be factors considered when determining term renewal or membership continuance. Members may be appointed for a second three-year term at the discretion of the Director.

8. Members will be selected on a standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

1. Members of the NAC serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for committee-related travel and lodging expenses.

2. The NAC meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Officer. All NAC meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.

1. Nominations should satisfy the requirements described in the Membership section above.

2. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (réesumée or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special committee activities.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse NAC membership.

Ron S. Jarmin, Acting Director, Census Bureau, approved the publication of this Notice in the Federal Register .

The Commodity Flow Survey, a component of the 2022 Economic Census, is the only comprehensive and publicly available source of multimodal, system-wide data on the volume and pattern of goods movements in the United States. The Commodity Flow Survey is conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Commodity Flow Survey data are used by policy makers and transportation planners in various federal, state, and local agencies to assess the demand for transportation facilities and services, energy use, safety risks, and environmental concerns. Additionally, business owners, private researchers, and analysts use the Commodity Flow Survey data for analyzing trends in the movement of goods, mapping spatial patterns of commodity and vehicle flows, forecasting demands for the movement of goods, and determining the needs for associated infrastructure and equipment.

The survey provides data on the movement of commodities in the United States from their origin to destination. The survey produces summary statistics on value, tons, ton-miles and average miles by commodity, industry, and mode of transportation. The Census Bureau will publish these shipment characteristics for the nation, census regions and divisions, states, and CFS defined geographical areas.

Primary strategies for reducing respondent burden in the Commodity Flow Survey include: Employing a stratified random sample of business establishments, requesting data on a limited sample of shipment records from each establishment with the option to provide all shipments in the week, accepting estimates of shipping activity, applying machine learning to code products based on their descriptions, providing electronic reporting and including the option for consolidated reporting of multiple locations through a single login for larger companies.

The Commodity Flow Survey will be conducted on a sample of business establishments classified in mining, manufacturing, wholesale, and select retail and services industries, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The survey will also cover auxiliary establishments ( i.e., warehouses and managing offices) of multi-establishment companies. Each selected establishment will be surveyed four times, once during each calendar quarter of 2022. Quarters one and four will include a supplement with questions on hazardous materials packaging for companies that ship hazardous materials. Each questionnaire will ask the establishment to report data for up to 100 shipments for a predetermined reporting week. These data will include the value, net weight, commodity, and origin and destination of each selected shipment. Survey responses will be collected electronically, and respondents will have the option to provide all shipments for the reporting week instead of sampling shipments.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0932.

Form Number(s): CFS 1000 (2022).

Type of Review: Regular submission, Request for a Reinstatement, with Change, of a Previously Approved Collection.

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit, small businesses or organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 160,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.5 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,600,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 8(b), 131 and 193; Title 49 U.S.C., Section 6302.

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

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

On December 2, 2020, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. 1 Pursuant to requests from interested parties, on February 4, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to 83 companies, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 Subsequent to the initiation of the administrative review, the petitioner  3 timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of 19 companies on May 5, 2021. 4 Eight  5 of the 19 companies requested their own review of their entries and did not withdraw their requests for review. 6 Thus, Commerce will only be rescinding this review with respect to the 11 companies for which a review request was received and subsequently withdrawn by the party(ies) requesting review.

BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. (BYD) also withdrew its self-requested review on May 5, 2021. 7 However, the petitioner also requested a review of BYD and has not withdrawn the request; therefore, Commerce will not rescind the review with respect to BYD. There are active review requests on the record for the remaining 72 companies.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. All requests for an administrative review were withdrawn by the established deadline of May 5, 2021, for the companies listed in the appendix. As a result, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The administrative review will continue with respect to the remaining 72 companies listed in our Initiation Notice. 8

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the Federal Register .

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On August 2, 2017, Commerce found Midwest's strike pin anchors, which consist of four components—a steel pin, a threaded body, a nut, and a flat washer—to be within the scope of the AD order on certain steel nails from the People's Republic of China. 1

Midwest appealed Commerce's Final Scope Ruling. On October 19, 2018, the CIT remanded Commerce's scope ruling to Commerce for further consideration. 2 On April 25, 2019, Commerce issued its First Remand Redetermination, determining that the “pin” portion “of the product is subject to the { Order }, while the additional pieces, i.e., the outer-body anchor, hex nut, and washer anchor, would not be subject.”  3

On March 4, 2020, the CIT again remanded Commerce's scope determination. 4 Pursuant to the Second Remand Order, on June 17, 2020, Commerce issued its Second Remand Redetermination, finding that Midwest's strike pin anchors, in their entirety, are covered by the scope of the Order. 5

On August 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its final decision in OMG. 6 In light of the CAFC's decision, on January 21, 2021, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce. 7

In its final remand redetermination, issued in March 2021, Commerce found Midwest's strike pin anchors to be outside the scope of the Order. 8 The CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 9

In its decision in Timken, 10 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 11 the CAFC held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's July 12, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Scope Ruling. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

In accordance with the CIT's July 12, 2021, final judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Scope Ruling and finds that the scope of the order does not cover the products addressed in the Final Scope Ruling.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that, pending any appeals, Midwest's strike pin anchors will not be subject to a cash deposit requirement.

In the event that the CIT's final judgment is not appealed or is upheld on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Midwest's strike pin anchors without regard to antidumping duties and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries.

At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT from liquidating entries included in the scope of the Order by the Final Scope Ruling. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act.

On March 16, 2018, Commerce issued the final results of the administrative review for the period August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. 1 In the Final Results, Commerce determined a weighted-average dumping margin for the two mandatory respondents, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), based on total facts available with an adverse inference, of 60.81 percent. Further, Commerce determined the weighted-average dumping margin for the three companies that were under review but not selected for individual examination, ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd. (LSIS), based on the rates determined for the mandatory respondents.

On August 5, 2019, the CIT remanded various aspects of the Final Results to Commerce. 2 Specifically, the CIT directed Commerce to further explain or reconsider its reliance on total facts available with adverse inferences for both Hyundai and Hyosung. For Hyundai, the Court directed Commerce to further explain or reconsider its reliance on total facts available with adverse inferences with respect to Hyundai's failure to: (1) Provide information on accessories; (2) report home market gross unit prices properly; and (3) disclose an affiliated sales agent. For Hyosung, the Court directed Commerce to further explain or reconsider its reliance on total facts available with adverse inferences with respect to Hyosung's failure to: (1) Report service-related revenues contained on order acknowledgement forms (OAFs); (2) report certain discounts and rebates; and (3) explain the use of one invoice for multiple sales across multiple administrative reviews.

Pursuant to the First Remand Order, Commerce reconsidered and further explained its finding regarding Hyundai's failure to: (1) Provide information regarding accessories; (2) report home market gross unit prices properly; and (3) disclose an affiliated sales agent. Commerce also reconsidered and further explained its findings regarding Hyosung's failure to: (1) Report service-related revenues recorded on OAFs; (2) report certain discounts and rebates; and (3) explain the use of one invoice for multiple sales across multiple administrative reviews. 3 With respect to Hyosung, Commerce determined that the issues related to service-related revenues recorded on OAFs and the use of one invoice for multiple sales across multiple reviews were no longer a basis for Commerce's application of total facts available with adverse inferences but that the failure to report certain discounts and rebates continued to constitute a basis for Commerce's application of total facts available with adverse inferences. For Hyundai, Commerce found that Hyundai's reporting with respect to accessories was not a basis for Commerce's application of total facts available with adverse inferences, but continued to find that the application of total facts available with adverse inferences was warranted due to the understatement of home market prices and inconsistent treatment of merchandise under consideration. 4

On November 18, 2020, the CIT remanded Commerce's Final First Results of Redetermination with respect to the application of total adverse facts available for both Hyundai and Hyosung, finding that Commerce's redeterminations were not supported by substantial evidence. 5 Pursuant to the Second Remand Order, Commerce reconsidered its reliance on total facts available with adverse inferences for both Hyundai and Hyosung. Commerce determined that the application of partial facts available with no adverse inferences was warranted with respect to both Hyundai and Hyosung. 6 Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of zero percent for both Hyundai and Hyosung. 7 Commerce also applied an average of these two rates, i.e., zero percent, to ILJIN Electric, which was not selected for individual examination during the period of review and which was party to this litigation. 8

On July 9, 2021, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final Second Results of Redetermination. 9

In its decision in Timken, 10 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 11 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's July 9, 2021, judgment sustaining Commerce's Final Second Results of Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with the Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Hyundai, Hyosung and ILJIN Electric. Based on the Final Results of Second Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT, the revised weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric, from August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016, are as follows:

In the event that the CIT's final judgement is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the weighted-average dumping margins listed above for the Amended Final Results.

Since the Final Results, Commerce has established new cash deposit rates for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric. 12 Therefore, this Final Results of Second Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT, and as published in this notice, does not prospectively change the existing cash deposit rates for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric.

On May 6, 2016, Commerce published the CVD orders on PET resin from China and India in the Federal Register . 1 On March 31, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from DAK Americas, LLC, Indorama Ventures USA Inc., and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, domestic interested parties) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 Each claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic producers engaged in the production of PET resin in the United States.

On April 30, 2021, Commerce received a substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 4 On May 3, 2021, two respondent interested parties, CG Roxane, LLC (CG Roxane) and Niagara Bottling, LLC (Niagara), filed substantive responses pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3), to the record of the China sunset review. 5 However, for the substantive responses of respondent interested parties to be considered adequate under this regulation, the respondents must account for, on average, more than 50 percent (volume or value) of total exports during the five-year period preceding the year of publication of the initiation notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). CG Roxane and Niagara failed to demonstrate this. We did not receive a substantive response from any other interested party in these proceedings.

On May 21, 2021, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 6 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these Orders.

The merchandise covered by these orders is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process. The merchandise subject to these orders is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by these orders is dispositive.

All issues raised in these sunset reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. 7 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of the issues discussed in the decision memorandum is attached at the appendix to this notice.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following rates:

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

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On March 4, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary affirmative determination in the LTFV investigation of methionine from Japan, in which we also postponed the final determination until July 19, 2021. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The product covered by this investigation is methionine from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

All the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd. (Sumitomo Chemical). For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Sumitomo Chemical. Therefore, the only rate which is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act is the rate calculated for Sumitomo Chemical. Consequently, the rate calculated for Sumitomo Chemical is also assigned as the rate for all other producers and exporters.

Commerce preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist for Sumitomo Chemicals and with respect to all other producers/exporters. 4 Parties submitted comments regarding our preliminary critical circumstances determination and we have modified our critical circumstances finding for Sumitomo Chemicals and all other producers/exporters for this final determination. Thus, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce finds that critical circumstances do not exist for Sumitomo Chemicals or for all other producers/exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend the liquidation of all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 4, 2021, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), where appropriate, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Further, because our final critical circumstances determination is negative, in accordance with section 735(c)(3) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to terminate the retroactive suspension of liquidation ordered at the Preliminary Determination for Sumitomo Chemicals and all other producers/exporters and to refund any cash deposits required with respect to entries of subject merchandise covered by the retroactive suspension of liquidation.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of methionine no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

This notice will serve as a final reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

On March 4, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary affirmative determination in the LTFV investigation of methionine from Spain, in which we also postponed the final determination until July 19, 2021. 1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The product covered by this investigation is methionine from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

During the course of this investigation, Commerce received no scope comments from interested parties. Therefore, Commerce is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. See Appendix I for the final scope of the investigation.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn.

Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings related to our request for information in lieu of verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations with respect to Adisseo España, the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation. In light of these changes to the margin calculations and the resulting revised estimated weighted average dumping margin for Adisseo España, we have also revised the all-others rate. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist for Adisseo España or for all others. 4 Commerce did not receive any comments in response to its preliminary determination with respect to critical circumstances. However, for this final determination, Commerce determines that critical circumstances exist, within the meaning of section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, for imports of methionine from Spain exported and/or produced by Adisseo España and imports of methionine from Spain produced and/or exported by all other companies. For a full description of methodology and results of Commerce's final affirmative critical circumstances analyses, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminary identified three criteria for the physical characteristics of the subject merchandise: (1) Type; (2) form; and (3) concentration level of methionine content. 5 For this final determination, we made no changes to physical characteristics in our analysis. However, because Commerce made a change with respect to packaging characteristics in the final determination of Methionine from Japan, 6 if Commerce were to issue an antidumping duty order in this case, we expect to reexamine this issue during the first administrative review conducted in this proceeding.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters.

Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the sole mandatory respondent, Adisseo España. Therefore, for the purposes of determining the all-others rate, and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Adisseo España, which is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 735 of the Act, the final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of methionine from Spain, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 4, 2021, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination.

Section 735(c)(4) of the Act provides that if there is an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) The date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As noted above, Commerce finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Adisseo España and by all other producers and exporters. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(4) of the Act, suspension of liquidation shall continue to apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Adisseo España and by all other producers and exporters that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register .

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of this final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of methionine from Spain no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

This notice will serve as a final reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

The purpose of the meeting is for the MSB Committee and MSB Advisory Panel to provide recommendations regarding Atlantic mackerel, potentially including: 2021/22 emergency action, future specifications, and/or rebuilding plan modifications and options.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Council Office, (302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

This is a request for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Ocean Service (NOS) on behalf of the NOAA's Education Council is revising and extending a voluntary multi-question survey used to assess the needs of educators pertaining to the development of future NOAA multimedia products and programs. In developing multimedia materials that convey NOAA's science, service, and stewardship, the Agency must ensure that these resources are of the highest quality and meet the needs of formal and informal educators across the United States. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to conduct surveys identifying the types of educational programs and products that are of the highest interest and greatest need by formal and informal educators. By surveying external educators to gather this information, budget expenditures will be used optimally to develop appropriate products and programs most desired by educators to support and enhance Ocean and Earth science, in addition to other related STEM education subjects throughout our nation. NOAA will use the data to plan, design, and create multimedia products and programs.

The proposed revisions would expand the level of detail in the currently approved information collection. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, learning and teaching have changed. The proposed revisions would expound upon previously collected data, giving a better indication of educators' needs regarding multimedia products and programs in their teaching as well as the educator's professional development.

The voluntary needs assessment mechanism will be distributed via email with a link to a Google form to external educators subscribed to NOAA education programs as well as their partners' email distribution lists. The voluntary needs assessment mechanism will also be distributed in person (paper and electronically) at education conferences, workshops, and other venues hosting educators.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0784.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission [revision and extension of a currently approved collection].

Affected Public: Individuals or households and business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200 annually.

Estimated Time per Response: Five minutes per survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act SEC. 315(c).

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

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

The timing of U.S. SAS and GAC meetings is dependent on when IATTC annual meeting(s) occur. This year, the 98th Annual Meeting of the IATTC will take place from August 23-27, 2021. As such, the combined U.S. SAS and GAC Meeting will be held before the 98th IATTC Annual Meeting. It should be noted that while the 97th (Extraordinary) IATTC Meeting was focused solely on tropical tuna ( i.e., bigeye, yellowfin, skipjack tuna) measures, the 98th Annual Meeting of the IATTC will cover additional topics.

In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. ), the U.S. Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of State (the State Department), appoints a GAC to the U.S. Section to the IATTC and a SAS that advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and representatives of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce, other U.S. Government agencies, and stakeholders. The GAC advises the U.S. Section with respect to U.S. participation in the work of the IATTC, focusing on the development of U.S. policies, positions, and negotiating tactics. The purpose of the SAS is to advise the GAC on scientific matters. NMFS West Coast Region staff provide administrative support for the SAS and GAC. The meetings of the SAS and GAC are open to the public, unless in executive session. The time and manner of public comment will be at the discretion of the Chairs for the SAS and GAC.

For more information and updates on these upcoming meetings, please visit the IATTC's website: https://www.iattc.org/MeetingsENG.htm.

This meeting will have a reduced agenda to prepare for the 98th IATTC Meeting that is expected to focus on tropical tuna, but will cover other topics as well.

The meeting agenda will include, but is not limited to, the following topics:

(1) Relevant scientific information from the IATTC scientific staff and the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) for tuna, tuna-like species, and other species caught in association with those fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean;

(2) Discussion of management measures for tropical tuna, temperate tuna ( e.g., North Pacific albacore and Pacific bluefin tuna), and sharks as well as administrative topics;

(3) Recommendations and evaluations by the SAS and GAC; and

(4) Other issues as they arise.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to William Stahnke (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

Nordic, Inc. submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from: Day-at-sea requirements at 50 CFR 648.53; crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); scallop fishing restrictions in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area—South at § 648.60(g); scallop trawl restrictions at § 648.51(a)(1) and (f); scallop dredge restrictions at § 648.51(b)(2) and (b)(3); and minimum size and possession restrictions for onboard sampling and scallop transplanting in § 648 subparts B and D through O.

Nordic, Inc., Eastern Fisheries, Quinn Fisheries, and Fulcher Trawling applied for an EFP on April 22, 2021, to work with the Coonamessett Farm Foundation (CFF) on a scallop transplanting study. This project would continue previous scallop transplanting work done by CFF and investigate the feasibility of using scallop transplanting to increase scallop growth by moving them from deep, scallop dense areas to shallower, less populated areas.

The proposed EFP would allow Nordic, Inc. and CFF to transplant 750,000 scallops in the Nantucket Lightship Access Area-South with trawls and a dredge. A subsample of the catch would be tagged ( i.e., 10,000 scallops), along with a subsample of previously transplanted scallops caught in the proposed research area. Transplanting work would begin when an EFP is issued, and monitoring of the harvest and transplant areas would occur during scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) funded surveys conducted by CFF, the Virginia Institute of Technology, and the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology.

CFF would provide scientific staff to oversee transplant operations, tag scallops, and collect data during field operations. Scallops would be harvested by a commercial scalloping vessel that already preformed transplanting operations. Four vessels would harvest scallops with a two-panel box net towed between 2.5 and 3.5 knots (4.6 and 6.5 km per hour) for 10 minutes per tow. These vessels would steam to the transplant area with the trawl doors closed and the net remaining in the water. One vessel would harvest scallops by towing two, 4.57-meter wide New Bedford style dredges for 10 minutes per tow. No catch will be landed for sale.

Once catch is brought on board, it would be sorted by size, marked, and stored in cooled fish totes. A subsample of scallops would be tagged with disc tags. Tagging would occur between dusk and dawn to minimize mortality. Scallops would be released overboard at the transplanting area.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. 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.

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

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused Mortality and Serious Injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level or PBR (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 (OSP)); (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.

Prior to public review, the updated SARs under NMFS' jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NMFS Fisheries Science Centers and by members of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups (SRG), established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS on information and uncertainties related to the status of marine mammals.

The period covered by the 2020 SARs is 2014-2018. NMFS reviewed all strategic stock SARs and others as appropriate and updated 80 SARs representing 84 stocks in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information. The 2020 revisions to the SARs consist primarily of updated or revised estimates of human-caused M/SI new stock names, new methodology and updated abundance estimates. Four stocks changed status from “non-strategic” to “strategic” (Eastern Bering Sea beluga whale, Gulf of Mexico spinner dolphin, Gulf of Mexico striped dolphin, and Gulf of Mexico Clymene dolphin).

The revised draft 2020 SARs were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (85 FR 78307, December 4, 2020). NMFS received comments on the draft 2020 SARs through March 8, 2021 and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of 80 final 2020 reports, which are available on NMFS' website (see ADDRESSES ). The Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR was not finalized because of a technical error; the corrected report will be published in a subsequent SAR cycle. NMFS also announces the availability of the revised final 2019 NARW SAR that includes a typographic correction.

NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2020 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission); Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); Makah Indian Tribe (Makah); Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC); Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); two fishing industry associations (Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) and Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA)); and a coalition comment letter from four non-governmental organizations (Center for Biological Diversity, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Conservation Council for Hawai'i, and Conservation Law Foundation, referred to hereafter as “the Coalition”). Responses to substantive comments are below; responses to comments not related to the SARs are not included. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2020 SARs.

Comment 1: The Coalition notes that the MMPA requires that NMFS revise stock assessments for strategic stocks annually and comments that the public is not able to timely contribute to the SARs. For those stocks, which are especially important to conserve, the public is not able to timely contribute to the SARs. The publication of the draft SARs is same month as the Scientific Review Groups are reviewing the draft 2021 marine mammal SARs and the coalition commented that undermines the public's ability to participate in a meaningful manner.

Response: The MMPA requires NMFS to review, not revise, SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available. Following this review, NMFS revises SARs as necessary. We acknowledge and agree with this comment regarding the importance of following the SAR process timeline so the current year's draft SARs do not overlap with the final SARs from the previous year. Unfortunately, the publication of the draft 2020 SARs was delayed until the end of the year, largely due to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The public comment period of 90 days, however, remained unchanged.

Comment 2: The Commission continues to be concerned about NMFS' performance in meeting several of the requirements of Section 117 of the MMPA. Without a minimum abundance estimate (Nmin) derived from recent data, PBR cannot be calculated and is considered “unknown.” Including the revised 2020 draft SARs, the Commission comments that an Nmin estimate is lacking for 81 of the 252, or 32 percent of identified stocks. The lack of data for over one third of the stocks recognized by NMFS is a serious shortcoming in meeting statutory obligations. The Commission reiterates its recommendation that NMFS continue its efforts to prioritize and coordinate requests to secure the necessary survey resources across regions.

Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and will continue to prioritize our efforts for the collection of data to address outdated Nmin estimates, as resources allow.

Comment 3: The Commission notes that in a few of the individual SARs ( e.g., Eastern North Pacific gray whale, CA/WA/OR fin whale, and all of the Northeast stocks), M/SI data are lumped for the five-year analysis period. The Commission feels strongly that M/SI data should be presented individually for each year of the analysis period, and comments that the detection of short-term trends or extreme events affecting M/SI are difficult to discern if five-year averages are the only data available. The Commission recommends that NMFS present estimates for each year of a five-year analysis period for all SARs with M/SI data.

Response: For two of the stocks highlighted by the Commission (Eastern North Pacific gray whale and CA/WA/OR fin whales), the number of observed bycatch events in the most-recent five-year period (one and zero respectively) are highlighted in the SAR bycatch table for the California swordfish drift gillnet fishery that is observed annually. For the sake of visual simplicity in the SAR (rather than parsing out five zeros or four zeros and a one), these data are pooled into a five-year time frame and individual annual totals may be found in supporting citations (bycatch and serious injury reports). In cases where there has been a large spike in bycatch, or major changes in fishery effort or observer coverage, these details are reflected in the SAR text. Where MS/I data are collected opportunistically from strandings or at-sea sightings, the five-year sum of observed totals is assessed against PBR and individual year data is published in annual serious injury reports. We agree that in some cases where observer coverage is sporadic or highly-variable within a five-year period, parsing out such annual data may be useful to highlight potential data gaps or changes in bycatch levels. However, these benefits are outweighed by the costs of parsing and presenting annual data that is prone to high levels of statistical noise.

Comment 4: Over the past decade, the Commission has repeatedly recommended that NMFS, in collaboration with its co-management partners, improve its monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting in Alaska. While there have been improvements in the number of communities reporting take levels for some ice seals in the SARs in recent years, the majority of communities that hunt or may hunt ice seals are still unaccounted for. Therefore, the Commission continues to recommend that NMFS pursue additional mechanisms to gather reliable information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and handicraft purposes, including by securing adequate funding for comprehensive surveys of subsistence use and Native hunting effort in collaboration with co-management partners and the State of Alaska.

Further, the Commission encourages NMFS to continue to provide updated information in the SARs whenever it becomes available, even if it pertains only to a limited number of villages or a subset of years. The Commission has previously recommended that NMFS include all available data about harvest numbers, including struck and lost, in the SARs for beluga whales, and that NMFS work with the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee to improve the completeness of and consistency in reporting harvest data, with a focus on struck and lost information for these stocks. The Commission understands that, in response to a recommendation from the Alaska SRG, struck and lost numbers will be included in the final 2020 SARs and the Commission looks forward to seeing those numbers.

Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to collect reliable information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and handicraft purposes. Funding for subsistence use surveys remains limited; thus, in most cases, the best available data are not comprehensive. Nevertheless, we continue to work with our Alaska Native co-management partners (and the State of Alaska in some cases) to conduct surveys of subsistence use as resources allow, including animals struck and lost, and we incorporate that information into the SARs as it becomes available.

Comment 5: The Coalition emphasizes that, in the Humpback Whale, Central North Pacific Stock SAR, the section on habitat concerns should include Currie et al. (2021), which showed that in the presence of vessels, humpback whales increase swim speed and respiration rate and decrease dive times, which has been shown to be an energetically demanding avoidance strategy. In order to ensure recovery to OSP, the Coalition comments that the SARs must include non-lethal effects of human disturbance, as described in Currie et al. (2021) and believes that recording those interactions is a first step toward assessing and mitigating the severity of impact. The Coalition also requests that the Habitat Concerns section include the increasing overlap between whales and high concentrations of marine debris.

Response: NMFS has added information on (1) the behavioral responses of humpback whales to vessel presence in Southeast Alaska and Hawaii (Schuler et al. 2019, Currie et al. 2021), and (2) the overlap between humpback whales and high concentrations of marine debris (Currie et al. 2017) to the Habitat Concerns section of the final 2020 Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR.

Comment 6: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) notes that Entanglement Mortality #3893 (1/22/2018) was discovered on a U.S. beach (1/22/2018) with no gear recovered but was assigned to Canada. DFO is not aware of any conclusive evidence to support this death being attributed to Canada.

Response: NMFS thanks the reviewer for the detailed examination of individual cases. Gear was recovered from #3893 and identified as Canadian snow crab fishing gear.

Comment 7: DFO comments on Entanglement Prorated Injury #3312, which was sighted in Canadian waters (7/13/2018) with no gear recovered and then assigned to Canada (CN). Entanglement Prorated Injury #3843 was sighted in Canadian waters (7/30/2018), also with no gear recovered, and it was unassigned as a first sighting in Canada (XC). DFO is not aware of any conclusive evidence to suggest that #3312 would reasonably be assigned to Canada. Moreover, a seemingly similar case of Entanglement Prorated Injury in U.S. waters (12/20/2018, #2310, Nantucket, MA), where there was also no gear recovered but was first sighted in the United States, is marked as unassigned (XU).

Response: Entanglement Prorated Injury #3312 was sighted in Canada earlier in the day on 7/13/2018 gear free. NMFS determined the entanglement occurred within a 2-hour window that day, thus it was assigned to CN. The other two whales sighted as examples had pre-entanglement sighting histories >1 month; therefore, there was much more uncertainty about when and where the entanglement may have occurred.

Comment 8: DFO comments on the summary in Table 3. Confirmed human-caused M/SI records of right whales: 2014-2018a assigns a 1.55 average M/SI over 5 years due to entanglement to Canada. Looking at the incidents in the table marked EN (entanglement) CN (Canada) there are 6.75 incidents (4 mortalities + 2 serious injuries + 0.75 prorated injury), resulting in an average of 1.35 per year rather than 1.55. The discrepancy is carried over from the 2019 draft SAR, when #3694 mortality was assigned to Canada. However, in response to DFO's comment related to the mortality assignment of #3694 (published 85 FR 149; August 3, 2020.), the entry for #3694 was changed from CN (assigned to Canada) to XC (Unassigned first sighted in Canada) in the final 2019 North Atlantic right whale Stock Assessment Report. DFO points out that the total counts have not been updated in the summary for the 2020 draft SAR.

Response: Right whale #3694 was changed from XU (unassigned, first sighted in US) to CN in the 2019 draft that went out for public comment based on identification of the gear as Canadian snow crab gear. In the conversion from draft to final, this was inadvertently changed to XC (unassigned, first sighted in Canada). A correction has been issued and we have made the changes to the final 2019 report which is now available. Summary statistics have also been corrected in the final 2020 report.

Comment 9: DFO is not aware of any conclusive evidence used in assigning the following to Canada: Serious Injury #4057 (8/13/2016) and Serious Injury #4094 (07/19/2017).

Response: The gear involved with Serious Injury #4057 (8/13/2016) was identified as Canadian crab pot by DFO. For Serious Injury #4094 (07/19/2017), the gear was identified as Canadian crab pot in Daoust et al. (2018).

Comment 10: The Coalition recommends that the section “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” be changed to reflect the current habitat use of right whales. As written, it is confusing to discern between historic and more recent data. For example, the introduction states that foraging habitat is in New England and Canadian waters, which does not address the year-round use of waters south of Cape Cod as a foraging habitat as reflected in the NOAA Expert Working Group Report, or the detections in all seasons of right whales in the near shore waters of New Jersey during which right whales were documented skim feeding. The Coalition comments that the mid-Atlantic is increasingly used by the species as more than a migratory corridor, which should be reflected in the SAR. The current references to the mid-Atlantic in the draft SAR precede 2010, the time when a significant shift in right whale habitat use was first noted. More recent sightings of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Canary Islands should also be included. The Coalition also notes that it is important to consider that population demographics may dictate habitat use, which could impact associated risks to those individuals.

Response: Although NMFS considers the description of the right whale range and habitat use to be an accurate reflection of published findings to date, we acknowledge that new observations indicate additional changes in the species' seasonal distribution. We also agree that demographics are an important consideration. Several studies have been recently completed; but, until published, our ability to utilize this information in the SAR is limited. In addition, we have no evidence to suggest that “changing habitat use” has settled into a new stable state. Still, we endeavor to consider all significant changes in habitat use. When it comes to management decisions based on habitat use, the agency uses the most current habitat use models available including those from the Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab at Duke University, which does reflect an increase in habitat use in the mid-Atlantic region.

Comment 11: The Coalition comments that the “Population Size and PBR” section is outdated and does not reflect the most recent analysis indicating that the Nmin for 2019 is 347. Even considering 2018, the value in the SAR is higher than the best population estimate of 383 based on the Pace method (Pace et al. 2021). As such, PBR is below 0.8.

Response: NMFS strives to update the SARs with as timely data as possible, to ensure the SARs are based upon the best available scientific information. As noted in previous years, as a result of the review, revision, and assessment of available data, the data used typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR. The agency recognizes the lags in SAR processing time, but this is necessary to achieve the appropriate peer review. To that extent, we are finalizing a NMFS technical memorandum to provide up-to-date population estimates. We expect to include these data and information in the 2021 SAR.

Comment 12: The Coalition appreciates NMFS' inclusion of cryptic mortality as calculated by Pace et al. (2021). The current reference in the document should be updated from submitted to reflect its publication.

Response: Now that Pace et al. (2021) is published, we have updated the reference.

Comment 13: The Coalition asks NMFS to update the “Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury” section to include Hamilton et al. (2019), from which NMFS determined that “11.04 percent of the right whale population is entangled annually in U.S. federal fishing gear.” The Coalition requests that NMFS include its findings that an average of 6.724 right whales are seriously injured or killed in U.S. fishing gear each year.

Response: We have updated language in the final 2020 SAR referencing observations by Hamilton et al. (2019) that 30.25 percent of the population was entangled annually between 2010 and 2017. We recognized in the text of the document that MS/I is likely much higher than observed. However, the estimates above are based on a NMFS 2021 analysis that is still a draft and was not reviewed by the Atlantic SRG at the time of writing. Approaches to these issues were discussed with recommendations made by the Atlantic SRG in 2021 that will be considered in the 2021 SAR.

Comment 14: The Coalition asks NMFS to include the findings in the recently published North Atlantic Right Whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) Vessel Speed Rule Assessment, which concluded that voluntary measures did not have a meaningful impact on reducing vessel collisions, small vessel collisions can seriously injure right whales, and that the current SMAs should be modified.

Response: We appreciate this comment; the implications of the Vessel Speed Rule Assessment are being considered for the 2021 SAR.

Comment 15: The Coalition requests that the 2018 prorated injuries for the following whales be changed to a value of 1 against PBR to reflect NMFS' determination that these individuals meet the criteria of Seriously Injured, as reflected on the Agency's Unusual Mortality Page: #3312 (entanglement), #3843 (entanglement), and #2310 (entanglement).

Response: NMFS' Unusual Mortality Event (UME) web page is currently tallying prorated injuries and serious injuries together; but, for the SARs, NMFS follows the assessment guidelines here: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/02-238-01.pdf.

Comment 16: NRDC requests that NMFS revise the draft North Atlantic right whale SAR to reflect the most up-to-date estimate of population size. The best population estimate for the end of 2019 is now just 356 individuals, representing a more “precipitous drop [in the population size] than previous years.” Moreover, the best population estimate for the end of 2018 has been revised down from 409 individuals to 380 individuals. NRDC comments that the new 2019 and revised 2018 estimates indicate a significant decrease in survivorship during the last three years as a result of the ongoing unusual mortality event. NRDC emphasizes that NMFS should update the draft SAR according to the best available scientific information on North Atlantic right whale population size.

Response: See our response to comment 11.

Comment 17: NRDC requests that NMFS revise the PBR level downward for the NARW. The updated population size estimate has implications for the calculation of the PBR level for the North Atlantic right whale. NMFS' draft SAR states that PBR for the species is currently 0.8; however, the agency has acknowledged in other fora that the most recent population estimate has further reduced PBR to 0.7. NMFS must revise the PBR level in the draft SAR downwards to reflect the best available scientific information.

Response: We appreciate this comment; please see our response to comment 11.

Comment 18: NRDC comments that NMFS must accurately account for cryptic mortalities in its calculation of “total” estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury. The number of observed mortalities is a significant underestimate of actual deaths. A scientific study published this year by Richard Pace and colleagues (Pace et al. 2021) concludes only 29 percent (2 standard errors = 2.8 percent) of right whale carcasses were detected from 2010 to 2017. The same study found that entanglements accounted for the “vast majority” of detected serious injuries (87 percent), but only about half of detected deaths (49 percent) from 1990 to 2017. Thus, “cryptic deaths due to entanglements significantly outnumbers cryptic deaths from vessel collisions or other causes.” NMFS must update the estimates of “total” mortality included in the draft SAR based on the findings of the new Pace et al. (2021) model.

Response: NMFS appreciates this request. While Pace et al. (2021) make reference to the regime period of 2010-2017, the SARs—which work on 5-year rolling averages—make use of the time period 2013-2017. As such, the numbers in the SAR are not in disagreement with the estimates in Pace et al. 2021. Recognizing the significance of the population decline, we intend to publish a NMFS Technical Memorandum (Pace, in press) to provide an update on these estimates, as resources allow. We expect to reference this NMFS Technical Memorandum in a future SAR.

Comment 19: NRDC notes that NMFS must include the best available scientific information on sublethal impacts of entanglement. Entanglement remains the leading cause of North Atlantic right whale mortality and a major factor in reproductive loss. NRDC notes the pervasive sub-lethal effects of entanglement, including impaired reproductive potential and negative health effects, currently undermine any opportunity for the species to recover and may eventually lead to individual mortalities. NRDC emphasizes that NMFS must include, and should more thoroughly consider, the best available scientific information on sub-lethal effects of entanglement and the implications for the survival of the North Atlantic right whale in the draft SAR.

Response: This is a valid point, and sub-lethal effects of entanglement was acknowledged in the “Current and Maximum Net Productivity Rates” section. NMFS had not yet cited the work by Christiansen et al. (2020), so we added that reference in the final 2020 SAR.

Comment 20: The Commission is hopeful that its recommendations and those of other experts will compel NMFS to take decisive and effective steps toward enabling right whales to recover. In that effort, it is imperative that NMFS apply the best available data and science to its estimation of population size and the M/SI rate. The best available population estimates are provided by the population model developed by Pace et al. (2017), and NMFS is making use of those estimates. NMFS has always done an excellent job of estimating the number of known M/SI due to entanglement in fishing gear and due to vessel strikes. However, a secondary finding of the Pace et al. (2017) population model was that only 60 percent of the total mortality estimated by the model was accounted for by the known M/SI. It was long suspected that some mortalities were going undetected, and the Pace et al. (2017) model suggested that the undetected proportion was 40 percent. Therefore, the Commission recommends that NMFS immediately take steps to include the best available science by incorporating the Pace et al. (2021) estimates of undetected mortalities in its estimates of total human-caused mortality and serious injuries of right whales in the final 2020 SAR.

Response: Please see NMFS response to comment 18.

Comment 21: MLA comments that the draft SAR must include more information regarding NARW entanglements in fishing gear. The draft SAR contains none of the statutorily required information on commercial fisheries that interact with the stock (16 U.S.C. 1386(a)(4)). As a result, the public has no information about the fisheries that interact with the NARW and the levels, types, and seasonal and geographic patterns of entanglement that occur within and among those fisheries. This information must be included in the final SAR.

The draft SAR presents only M/SI entanglement data—non-serious injury entanglements are omitted. This highly important information is relevant to assess the effectiveness of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (TRP). For example, the TRP requires certain measures that are intended to reduce the severity of fishery interactions, rendering them non-serious injuries. MLA emphasizes that a comparison of M/SI and non-serious injury data over time, by area, and by fishery, is relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of measures intended to reduce the severity of fishery interactions. This information must be included in the final SAR.

Response: Because there are multiple species interactions with multiple fisheries, the fisheries are summarized in Appendix 3—Fishery Descriptions. They are also available online https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables with focus on Table II category I and II fisheries. The SAR reports to the extent possible what information is available for describing commercial fisheries that interact with the stock, in accordance with Section 117 of the MMPA ( i.e., M/SI levels by fishery, seasonal/area differences in M/SI, and M/SI rates calculated using standardized fishing effort). However, because only a small fraction of entanglements have gear recovered and a smaller fraction of that is traceable to the fishery, the agency has not been able to estimate the annual MS/I to the resolution of fishery/region. Given new recommendations from the Atlantic SRG meeting in 2021, and additional analysis resulting from Pace et al. (2021), NMFS is working to improve our reporting of this issue in future SARs. For now, this topic is addressed to the extent that data can support it in the SAR's Table 3. The issue of non-serious injuries is discussed in the third paragraph of the section titled “Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury.” The draft SAR cites Knowlton et al. (2016) and more recently Hamilton et al. (2019), which have consistently tracked 26 percent to now 30 percent of the population receiving non-serious injuries annually, which is an increasing trend. Despite roughly 100 injuries per year in recent years, injuries are almost never observed at the time they occur, but the wounds persist for periods of weeks to months/years, during which time animals may travel thousands of miles. Additional language to address this concern has been added to the first paragraph of the “Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury” section of the SAR.

Comment 22: MLA requests that the SAR include data on the severity of entanglements. The New England Aquarium (2020) reports that from 2010 to 2017, the annual average serious entanglement rate ranged from 1.4 percent to 3.8 percent, and that from 2014-2018 the majority of NARW entanglements were minor (62 percent), with less than half either moderate or severe (19 percent and 19 percent, respectively). None of this important information is reported in the draft SAR, but it should be.

Response: Table 3 of the NARW SAR provides considerable detail on each entanglement case that merited a prorated serious injury or greater. The New England Aquarium applies different criteria than defined in NMFS' Serious Injury Policy (NMFS 2014). While there is often agreement between institutions, inconsistencies occur based on different criteria. The “rates” quoted above are based upon observed events. However, Pace et al. (2021) stated, “We used an abundance estimation model to derive estimates of cryptic mortality for NARW and found that observed carcasses accounted for only 36 percent of all estimated deaths during 1990-2017. We found strong evidence that total mortality varied over time, and that observed carcass counts were poor predictors of estimated annual numbers of whales dying.” As such, focusing on the rates above would amount to `cherry picking' and misleading conclusions that under-represent the true scale of the entanglement problem, given that Pace et al. (2021) indicate only 36 percent of mortalities have been observed since 1990, and given the bias that most serious injuries are entanglements (vs. ship strikes) that are never seen again. This indicates hundreds of entanglement mortalities have gone undetected even in just the past decade.

Comment 23: MLA points out that the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) instruct authors to include in the SAR “[a] summary of mortality and serious injury incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries . . . presented in a table, providing the name of the fishery and, for each appropriate year, observed mortality and serious injury, estimated extrapolated mortality and serious injury and associated CV, and percent observer coverage in that year, with the last column providing the average annual mortality and serious injury estimate for that fishery.” Although the draft SAR presents a table of entanglements showing “country” and “gear type,” this falls well short of the detailed and well-organized table recommended by GAMMS (and included in numerous other SARs). MLA notes that such a table should be included in the SAR. This information is important for assessing individual fisheries, which has even more significance given that NMFS' revised “negligible impact determination” policy includes a process for assessing individual fisheries.

Response: Table 3 provides all known information on injuries. The requested table is not provided because the data are not available to populate it. Appendix 3 describes the U.S. fisheries and their observer coverage level (or the complete lack thereof, in the case of the lobster fishery). Additional language to address this concern has been added to the first paragraph of the “Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury” section of the SAR.

Comment 24: With respect to the lobster fishery, MLA requests that the SAR include data showing that there has been a 90 percent decline in instances where lobster gear was removed from entangled NARW since 2010. There were four known cases of lobster gear removed from NARW from 1997 to 2000, six from 2000-2010, and one from 2010 to 2019. MLA notes that the only confirmed M/SI resulting from entanglement in lobster gear occurred in 2002 and none of this is reported in the draft SAR.

Response: The right whale SAR provides summaries of all available data relating to right whale serious injury and mortalities during 2014-2018, including all identified fisheries. NMFS has included in the narrative the primary points and statistics. Because right whale injuries are rarely witnessed, we have relied on opportunistic reports to build our understanding of impacts to the population and provide a minimum number of deaths. However, 11 opportunistic records since 1997, as cited by the commenter, are insufficient to assess trends in entanglement rates, especially without context on fishing effort during the same time period. Specifically, gear was only retrieved from 13 percent of the right whale entanglement incidents from 2010 to 2018 (22/167). Of those, most (73 percent) are identifiable to a fishery. However, the work by Pace et al. (2021) shows there is no evidence of observed rates/causes of mortality corresponding to cryptic mortality rates. As such, the reporting of “trends” for observed cases is misleading.

Comment 25: MLA comments that the draft SAR omits data and information collected by NMFS showing that more entanglements occur with Canadian fishing gear. The draft SAR is virtually silent on the outsized role of Canadian fisheries in a significant spike in M/SI incidents since 2017, even though relevant data, scientific observations, and expert analyses are available to NMFS. This should be included in the final SAR in order to provide a full and accurate picture of the known and/or probable origin of entanglements outside U.S. waters.

Response: The final SAR assigns fishing gear to fishery type, e.g., pot/trap and country of origin, when sufficient data are available. Given the low frequency at which such data are available, and the lack of a statistical relationship between observed and actual mortalities (Pace et al. 2021), no annual serious injury and mortality statistics are derived on a `by fishery' basis. All confirmed Canadian mortalities were identified in Table 3. Differences in survey effort between Canada and the United States need to be considered when attempting to compare incidents of M/SI. The apparent increase in M/SI incidents in Canadian fisheries since 2017 is influenced in part by the increased detection of mortalities that happened within the confines of a relatively closed body of water that had several aircraft surveying it beginning in 2017, and as many as 5 aerial survey platforms conducting regular surveys since then. Increased Canadian monitoring efforts were in response to this being an area of significant mortality. However, the coastal waters of New England represent a similar length of area, with a similar number of vertical lines. The lack of fishery observers, much more limited aerial survey capacity over an open section of coast with currents that can carry carcasses offshore, and gear that is heavy enough to anchor whales below the surface contributes to making coastal New England waters an area where the odds of detecting mortality are quite low. However, spatial models suggest a high risk of mortality in this area. As above, we note that many of these comments recommend placing strong correlation value on limited observations, which is ill advised based upon the findings of Pace et al. (2021).

Comment 26: MLA comments that although the draft SAR acknowledges that “[a]n Unusual Mortality Event was established for North Atlantic right whales in June 2017 due to elevated st[r]andings along the Northwest Atlantic Ocean coast, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence region of Canada,” it omits discussion of significant relevant information showing that a large number of NARW have altered their migratory patterns because their preferred prey has responded to altered oceanographic conditions by moving into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where NARW are at very high risk of entanglement in snow crab gear that is heavier and more lethal than gear fished in U.S. waters. This relates directly to the severity of injury resulting from entanglement, as noted in previous MLA comments. This information provides important insights into the source of entanglement risk and severity of entanglement for North Atlantic right whales, and MLA requests NMFS include the best available scientific information.

Response: NMFS has addressed this comment in the “Stock Definition/Geographic Range,” “Current Population Trend,” and “Habitat Issues” sections.

Comment 27: MLA suggests that the draft SAR should be revised to incorporate the best available scientific information regarding the increasing proportion of M/SI from Canada as a result of altered North Atlantic right whale migratory patterns to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These data are critical to understanding the increase in M/SI. Specifically, MLA requests the inclusion of data concerning the country of origin of NARW entanglements during the relevant time period, taking into account scientific observations of entangling gear, depicting differentiating attributes of that gear (such as rope diameter and strength) which make it so lethal, and describing the differences between the conservation programs and relative effectiveness of measures to protect NARW in each country.

Response: NMFS has applied the best available science to the narrative of right whale distribution and entanglement rates, but the scientific understanding of right whale movement in the western North Atlantic is limited. Also, the timeline of mortality data for this SAR is through 2018. As future data become available and statistically meaningful trends emerge, they will be discussed in future SARs as resources allow. Although roughly a third of the population currently visits the Gulf of St. Lawrence, their residency in surveyed areas appears to be highly variable, and we have little idea where the other two-thirds of the population is residing. We do not know the relationship between detected entanglement and mortality and what the levels are for the population as a whole. We know that mortality rates are significantly higher than the number of observed cases, but currently do not have sufficient evidence to support apportioning undetected mortality to one country or another.

Comment 28: MLA states that the draft SAR omits best available scientific information about NARW behavior that affects its risk of harm from fishing gear. MLA suggests that NMFS has not taken account of significant variances in North Atlantic right whale behavior across its migratory range. MLA requests that NMFS provide greater detail on these known foraging areas, including the number and proportion of North Atlantic right whales sighted in these areas in recent years, to ensure adequate protections are in place.

To address seasonal or area differences in incidents of M/SI, MLA requests the final SAR incorporate information such as that described above detailing geographic shifts in NARW and differing behavior in these habitats in response to oscillating oceanographic conditions across their migratory range, which places North Atlantic right whales at varying levels of risk from gear entanglement.

Response: NMFS agrees that risk is elevated where high right whale density overlaps with fishing gear. Higher gear densities also elevate risk, and heavier gear likely increases injury severity. The SAR presents our current understanding of right whale distribution and population assessment for the public and management decisions. It also describes our level of understanding of entanglement risk. Although more than 80 percent of right whales bear evidence of entanglement, there are few events where the location or depth that the whale encountered the gear is known. All reported entanglement events from 2014 to 2018 are presented in Table 3.

Comment 29: MLA notes that the draft SAR must reincorporate deleted text and include supplemental information to provide a full appreciation of the status of the North Atlantic right whale population. On page 42, the draft SAR strikes text indicating that “the existence of important habitat areas is not presently well described,” but nonetheless states that “long-range matches indicate an extended range for at least some individuals” and “the location of much of the population is unknown during the winter.” In the absence of new data, the MLA recommends that the deleted text remain in the document to help the reader understand that much of North Atlantic right whale habitat remains poorly understood.

Response: The new text represents NMFS' evolving understanding of right whale habitat. We continue to close knowledge gaps. Some blanket statements retained from previous versions of the SAR are no longer accurate. We endeavor to provide the most pertinent information for the reader.

Comment 30: MLA comments that on page 42, NMFS has removed language stating that the majority of right whale sightings occur within 90 kilometers (km) of the shoreline of the southeastern United States. However, at page 43, the draft SAR states that “telemetry data have shown rather lengthy excursions, including into deep water off the continental shelf (Mate et al. 1997; Baumgartner and Mate 2005).” Has NMFS received new data that warrants noting North Atlantic right whale excursions into deeper water but not that North Atlantic right whales are known to occur within 90 km of the shoreline? The MLA recommends that both are important to include in the final SAR, and NMFS should provide additional details on the number of North Atlantic right whales known to use these habitats.

Response: The SAR includes both text and a figure that describes the distribution of sightings. The statement that the majority of sightings occur within 90 km of the shoreline was misleading because it does not account for effort; most right whale sightings occur close to shore because that is where most people are present to see and report the sightings. The excursions into deep water are not otherwise well represented. Telemetry data provide another dimension to NMFS' understanding and are important to note.

Comment 31: MLA noted that, on page 43, the draft SAR states that “New England waters are important feeding habitats for right whales, where they feed primarily on copepods (largely of the genera Calanus and Pseudocalanus ).” MLA believes the best available information allows NMFS to be more specific in this statement. Given the pending regulatory focus on offshore Maine, MLA believes it would be appropriate to distinguish where these feeding grounds occur.

Response: The narrative in the SAR is meant to provide only a general description of right whale distribution. NMFS is providing other products with detailed information on right whale densities throughout the right whales' range for management and Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team consideration.

Comment 32: On page 44, the draft SAR states: “In 2016, the Northeastern U.S. Foraging Area Critical Habitat was expanded to include nearly all U.S. waters of the Gulf of Maine (81 FR 4837, 26 February 2016).” MLA requests that NMFS clarify that critical habitat is designated because it contains at least one physical or biological feature to support foraging, and not necessarily because NARW have been observed to forage in all designated areas throughout the entire Gulf of Maine. Some readers may not understand the regulatory criteria for designating critical habitat, which are not dependent upon whale presence.

Response: NMFS agrees with this distinction, and language has been added to this point in the final 2020 NARW SAR.

Comment 33: MLA noted, on page 44, the draft SAR states: “An important shift in habitat use patterns in 2010 was highlighted. . . The number of individuals using Cape Cod Bay in spring increased, (Mayo et al. 2018). In addition, right whales apparently abandoned the central Gulf of Maine in winter (see Cole et al. 2013), but have since been seen in large numbers in a region south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands. . . . Aerial surveys of the Gulf of St. Lawrence during the summers of 2015, 2017, and 2018, documented at least 34, 105, and 131 unique individuals using the region, respectively (NMFS unpublished data).” MLA believes NMFS should provide as much detail as possible to help the public understand the spatial distribution of North Atlantic right whales. MLA requests the inclusion of the number of North Atlantic right whales and proportion of the population sighted in Cape Cod Bay (as noted in previous MLA comments), clarify what is meant by central Gulf of Maine (which MLA interprets to be the portion of the Gulf of Maine located off the Maine coast), and include the proportion of North Atlantic right whales represented by Gulf of St. Lawrence sightings.

Response: Clarification has been added to text regarding the central Gulf of Maine location. Describing the proportion of individuals sighted in various habitats may provide a false impression of our level of knowledge of right whale use of these areas. Photographic capture of individuals and maximum likelihood models of these data indicate considerable immigration and emigration of individuals. A tally of individuals seen in a habitat does not accurately convey the spatial distribution of right whales, or potential risk. There is a significant difference in risk levels if 10 whales occupy an area for a day versus 10 whales occupying an area for 100 days. NMFS' level of understanding is evolving and is currently better in some areas than others. The text is an accurate reflection of our current understanding when considering the combined effects of sightings, survey effort, and potential residency of right whales.

Comment 34: MLA commented that, on pages 44-45, the draft SAR strikes the language: “an additional interpretation of paternity analyses is that the population size may be larger than was previously thought. Fathers for only 45 percent of known calves have been genetically determined; yet, genetic profiles were available for 69 percent of all photo-identified males (Frasier 2005). The conclusion was that the majority of these calves must have different fathers that cannot be accounted for by the unsampled males, therefore the population of males must be larger (Frasier 2005).” MLA comments it is unclear why this text citing data from Frasier (2005) is struck from the SAR and why Fitzgerald (2018) now represents the best available information?

Response: NMFS has determined that Fitzgerald (2018) best represents the current understanding of pedigree-informed abundance estimation; however, Frasier (2005) has not been conclusively refuted. We have restored Frasier (2005), and added Frasier et al. (2007), to the text and references.

Comment 35: MLA points out that on page 56, the draft SAR states: “Whales often free themselves of gear following an entanglement event, and as such scarring may be a better indicator of fisheries interaction than entanglement records.” As noted previously, this statement falls short of providing a useful and complete understanding of scarring data for the relevant time period. As described above, the New England Aquarium (2020) states that the majority of entanglements between 2014 and 2018 are minor (62 percent).

Response: This is a valid point, and NMFS will include more detailed results from entanglement scar-coding research in a future draft NARW SAR, as resources allow.

Comment 36: MLA noted, on page 56, the SAR cites three studies concluding that North Atlantic right whales mitigation measures implemented prior to 2009 have not worked, and that the effectiveness of measures implemented since 2009 have not yet been evaluated. NMFS has reported on multiple occasions in conversations with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team that the 2009 groundline rule has been effective, citing data that no groundlines have been identified as the primary entangling gear on right whales since its implementation, yet the SAR states that the effectiveness of these measures has yet to be evaluated. In addition, as noted above, the SAR should report data showing that there has been a 90 percent decline in instances of lobster gear removed from entangled North Atlantic right whales since 2010. There were four known cases of lobster gear removed from North Atlantic right whales from 1997 to 2000, six from 2000 to 2010, and one from 2010 to 2019. The only confirmed M/SI resulting from entanglement in lobster gear occurred in 2002.

Response: In this instance, the SAR is reporting on the population level effect of the groundline rule, that is, if the 2009 rule has significantly reduced entanglement rates. The absence of groundline as primary entangling gear is a positive result, but a comprehensive evaluation of effectiveness of the rule requires a long time series for a statistically robust analysis. Opportunistic records cannot provide any rate change information, such as injury rate relative to fishing levels, because the variables affecting detection are largely unknown.

Comment 37: MLA comments that the draft SAR contains errors in Table 3. First, the entanglement that occurred on 9/23/2016 (ID 3694) has been confirmed to have involved Canadian trap/pot gear since the draft SAR was published. The country code in Table 3 for this entry and the M/SI for entanglement by country of origin should be updated accordingly. Second, there is a minor clerical error that should be corrected for consistency. The entanglement that occurred on 7/30/2018 (ID 3843) is miscoded as “-”. The correct coding for this entry is “GU”.

Response: The gear retrieved from #3694 was identified as Canadian snow crab in April 2018. It was previously reported as XU with unknown gear but has been updated to CN pot/trap in the final 2020 SAR. The coding for 7/30/2018 (ID 3843) has been updated to “GU” in the final 2020 SAR.

Comment 38: MLA requests that the draft SAR disclose the current limits of the Pace model. MLA comments that the draft SAR (p. 46) could be construed by the public to mean that Pace et al. (2017) fully accounts for changes in capture probability. However, the Pace model is relatively new and highly sensitive to additional years of data, in part because subsequent re-sightings influence the probability of recapture and estimate of mortality.

Response: The Pace model does account for changes in capture probability (see Figure 3 in the final 2020 SAR), and builds on the full sighting history of all individual right whales to provide population estimates that are robust to changes in whale distribution and survey effort. This approach, coupled with high levels of effort to photographically capture individuals each year, provides relatively precise estimates and the ability to detect small changes in the population from year to year.

Comment 39: MLA comments that the draft SAR should make clear that while Pace et al. (2017) assumes no natural mortality, natural mortality has been documented by Taylor et al. (2013) and Curtis et al. (2014). The fact that there is a significant amount of neonate mortality (see draft SAR, p. 55) is critical for the public to understand. By ignoring neonate mortality, as done by the Pace model, MLA believes the below-expected number of individuals recruited into the population could be construed as a reflection of the NARW calving rate when, in fact, natural mortality is occurring. The appropriate regulatory and management responses to an anomalously low calving rate are different from elevated neonate mortality from natural predators. MLA requests the SAR cite relevant literature on natural mortality and put it in the context of studies such as Pace et al. (2017).

Response: First, the Pace et al. (2017) model does not assume any particular cause of death (natural or human-caused); it simply allows one to estimate total mortality using sighting histories as described in the draft SAR. Second, we agree that there are likely neonate mortalities that go undetected, some of which may due to natural causes. However, since these undetected neonates would not have a sighting history, including these instances would only add to the total mortality derived from the Pace et al. (2021) method and would not change the findings of Sharp et al. (2019) that all non-calf mortality for which cause of death could be determined was human-caused. To date, only one neonate mortality was determined to be from white shark predation. Pre-mortem shark attack was determined to be a contributing cause of death of two other calves that were entangled in fishing gear (Taylor et al. 2013). In general, calving rate in this population is determined by extensive survey effort along the coast of the Southeastern United States, with very few individuals found to “enter the population” without having been detected as calves in recent years.

Comment 40: MLA points out that the SAR concludes 100 percent of the estimated mortality of 18.6 animals per year is assumed to be human-caused and comments that this may be somewhat positively biased ( i.e., a slight overestimate) given that some calf mortality is likely not human-caused. Although the draft SAR acknowledges this is likely a “slight overestimate,” its conclusion that all mortality is human-caused is not supported by Sharp et al. (2019). The draft SAR ignores the underlying data that of 124 whales examined, 42 percent were confirmed to be anthropogenic (26 due to vessel strikes, 26 due to entanglement), and 58 percent were due to natural or unknown cause (18 neonates died of natural causes, while 54 died of unknown causes). With natural causes constituting a total of 14.5 percent of all examined individuals and 25 percent of those incidents where cause was confirmed, it is not a “slight overestimate” and the best available scientific information does not support attributing all mortalities of unknown cause to human activity. MLA reiterates that the SAR must be revised to accurately reflect the best available science.

Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that Sharp et al. (2019) does not support the assignment of all estimated mortality to human causes. Only 6 deaths of the 124 (2 percent) documented between 1970 and 2018 were attributed to natural causes, and all 6 were calves. For one calf, shark predation was implicated; the other natural deaths were determined to have been stillbirth, dystocia, or malnutrition. Conversely, 100 percent of all examined, non-calf carcasses for which cause of death could be established were determined to have died from either entanglement or vessel collision. Cause of death could not be verified for the remaining carcasses due to either decomposition or logistical constraints, such as distance from shore or poor field conditions. While it is possible that some of these unexamined deaths were due to natural causes, existing evidence indicates right whales rarely die of natural causes. Also see response to comment 39.

Comment 41: MLA states that the report by Kenney (2018) is fundamentally flawed and should not be cited in the SAR. The draft SAR cites Kenney (2018) to support the statement that “[p]rojection models suggest that the [maximum net productivity rate] could be 4 percent per year if female survival was the highest recorded over the time series from Pace et al. (2017).”

Response: The Kenney (2018) reference is a relevant, peer-reviewed study that helps provide context for the impacts of fishery-related mortality on the right whale population. The study does account for other mortality, removing only confirmed fishery-related deaths. Several scenarios are provided with varying levels of hypothetical entanglement mortality rates corresponding to degrees of compliance with MMPA regulations. While the paper presents a very simple representation of complex processes, the model parameters are reasonable and the results are valid.

Comment 42: The Commission requests improved reporting of serious injury data for gray seals. Human-caused serious injury data are reported by source within the SARs, including both observations and extrapolations, if possible. Summaries of observations of human-caused injuries may include some uncertainty of the specific source, but the Commission believes these should still be included in the total M/SI summaries reported in the Status of the Stock section relative to PBR level.

The Commission is concerned that numerous observations of potentially serious injuries of gray seals are not being accounted for in the SAR. Based on unmanned aerial surveys of gray seals hauled out on shore, Martins et al. (2019) reported the minimum total number of entangled gray seals could range from 192 to 857 (or 0.83 percent to 3.7 percent of the population in U.S. Atlantic waters). It appears that these seriously injured animals are not being counted in either the commercial fisheries observer M/SI data or the stranding data. Zero serious injuries were reported for 2014-2018 in the commercial fisheries observer data (for both gillnet and trawl fisheries in which mortality is known to occur), and only mortalities are being reported in the human-interaction stranding table. Further, because no serious injuries are reported in fisheries observer data, these injured animals are not accounted for in the extrapolated M/SI estimates either.

The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that these observations of injured seals are being accurately quantified and included in the SAR, consistent with the agency's 2012 guidelines on injury determinations (including consultation with staff from other Science Centers). The Commission also believes NMFS should continue to collaborate with the Northwest Atlantic Seal Research Consortium, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, and regional stranding responders on efforts to better photo-document and identify injured and dead seals.

Response: NMFS is actively collaborating on this issue both internally and externally with the Northwest Atlantic Seal Research Consortium. NMFS plans to address how to better document the number of animals living with fisheries entanglements in order to account for them in the SAR, via a standardized system for data collection and entry into the National Stranding Database. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center, in partnership with other organizations, has also submitted a proposal to utilize artificial intelligence to identify specific individuals with entanglements from photographs, which is necessary to avoid double reporting of animals that may live with serious entanglements for several years.

Comment 43: The Coalition appreciates the inclusion of cryptic mortality in this analysis, which appropriately elevates the stock to strategic as a result. The Coalition reiterates their comments from last year that the distribution map, while based on NOAA survey data, does not accurately depict the distribution of humpback whales, particularly in the near shore mid-Atlantic areas.

Response: There is a technical error with the Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR and, as a result, this report has not been finalized. An updated draft report will be published in a subsequent SAR cycle.

Comment 44: The Coalition appreciates the extensive updates to the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale SAR and reminds NMFS that, as an ESA-listed species, the SAR for these whales should be updated every year. The Coalition also reiterates their introductory comments on the general timing of review and comment for the 2020 SARs and the substantial delay in including new information, as it is now known that these whales have been designated as a new species: Rice's whales. The Coalition requests that this new designation be recognized and the 2021 SAR updated accordingly.

Response: Section 117 of the MMPA requires NMFS to review annually, and update as necessary with any new information, SARs for strategic stocks, which would include stocks of ESA-listed species. NMFS will review the Bryde's whale SAR annually to ensure that applicable updates are incorporated.

The 2021 SARs were drafted in fall of 2020, prior to the publication of the new species recommendation, and the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale SAR is not being updated in the 2021 cycle. In order to change the name of the species listed under the ESA, NMFS must update the common and scientific name of this species in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR; see 50 CFR 224.101) by publishing a technical correction in the Federal Register (FR), a process that is currently underway. After the CFR has been updated, we will make the name change in the SAR. Prior to initiating this technical correction, NMFS awaited notification from the Taxonomy Committee of the Society for Marine Mammalogy that they had reviewed the new publication recommending recognition of the Bryde's whales in the Gulf of Mexico as a different species, and that they agreed with the findings and would place the new species on the accepted list of taxonomic names. NMFS received that notification on March 4, 2021. Importantly, the name of the species does not affect the protections it receives under the ESA or the MMPA.

Comment 45: The Coalition states that the Harting et al. (2020) analysis provides important information to guide recovery planning by comparing the impact of multiple threats, and should be cited. Their analysis demonstrates that anthropogenic causes of death of Hawaiian monk seals have a larger impact than either natural or disease causes of death. The Coalition also requests that the recent decision by NMFS that the two monk seals found dead off Kauai in late 2020 likely drowned in lay nets be included in the SAR.

Response: Since these human-caused mortalities are outside the time period for the final 2020 SAR (2014-2018), Harting et al. (2020) will be cited in the draft 2021 SAR. Human-caused deaths that occurred in 2020 will be reported in the 2022 SAR.

Comment 46: The Coalition suggests there are several studies about bottlenose dolphin population abundance and health that should be included in the SARs. First, Van Cise et al. (in press) observed a decline in abundance in three out of four stocks and lower-than-expected survival rates in all stocks. For these small populations that experience concentrated anthropogenic disturbances, the authors recommended closely monitoring trends in abundance. Second, Stack et al. (2019) encouraged the use of bent dorsal fin observations as an indicator of population health for odontocetes. In the case of 164 bottlenose dolphins sighted during the study, none included a bent dorsal fin. The study noted that one bottlenose dolphin with a bent dorsal fin in Hawaii was reported in Alves et al. (2018). The Coalition encourages the SARs for these species to include an account of sightings of bent dorsal fins. Third, in a study of coastal waters and marine debris, bottlenose dolphins had the largest area of interaction risk out of all odontocete species (Currie et al. 2017). The SARs should include this study as a high-concern threat to bottlenose dolphin habitat.

Response: NMFS is aware of the new abundance estimates for bottlenose dolphins of the Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex presented in Van Cise et al. (in press). These estimates will be included in the 2022 draft SARs along with appropriate caveats about the potential influence of sampling variability and bias on the estimates and associated trends. We appreciate the work done by Stack et al. (2019), although we interpreted their conclusions as calling for a consideration of the impacts of bent dorsal fins on population health given the potential for long-term effects on individuals, as opposed to suggesting that bent dorsal fins should be used as an indicator of population health. As the authors note, bent dorsal fins are also extremely rare, which makes them less reliable as a measure of population health compared to an attribute such as body or skin condition that could be readily measured across individuals. That said, bent dorsal fins can be indicators of impacts such as fishery interactions. When bent dorsal fin observations are made and linked to human-caused injuries, these could be cited in the SARs of relevant species, as is currently done with other information that provides evidence of potential threats. In that respect, we agree that the threat posed by marine debris described in Currie et al. (2017) should be considered for inclusion in the SARs of relevant species.

Comment 47: The Coalition reiterates previous comments that the change in return timing and overall use of core summer habitat complicates the established census schedule that the SAR relies on. The Coalition requests that NMFS use the most recent population estimate for Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) and urges NMFS to include the most recent full count from the Center for Whale Research in the SAR, regardless of the date that count was reached. The Coalition asks that NMFS clearly state the decline observed following the “peak census count of 99 animals in 1995,” with average decrease per year, and specifically for the time period included in this SAR. Recent Population Viability Assessments completed in both the U.S. and Canada should be used to describe the current population trend as well as future outlook.

Response: NMFS has helped support the Center for Whale Research's annual Southern Resident killer whales census since 2004. The census technically ends on 1 July of each year (that date continues to be used in order to maintain comparability to prior years). We note that that Center for Whale Research does not provide their 1 July results until 1 October of that year, hence they have the benefit of two additional months, in particular September (for which SRKW still have a relatively high occurrence rate in inland waters), to confirm if animals are missing or assess the survivability of calves. In recent years NMFS has been providing additional support to the Center for Whale Research for surveys outside inland waters to allow them to complete the census by 1 July. As well, in recent years DFO has been working at the west entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca from mid-July to mid-August and has provided the Center for Whale Research with photo-identifications from their fairly frequent encounters. However, given that mortalities are relatively rare events ( e.g., 4 mortalities in 2019, or approximately one every 3 months), a delay of a month or two in the Center for Whale Research's ability to complete the census only fractionally raises the likelihood that a mortality that occurred after 1 July would be inappropriately “assigned” to the prior year census.

Section 117(2) of the MMPA specifies that SARs shall include information on the current population trend. The Population Viability Assessments for SRKW are only projections of the population size, and reporting this information herein has no statutory requirement associated with the SAR and is not included. Language on the population's annual rate of decline following the peak census count in 1995 is included in the SAR, along with the current census value. In addition, Figure 2 displays the population census since 1974, including how the population has increased and decreased in size following the peak census in 1995. Originally, the caption of Figure 2 provided the citation to Center for Whale Research 2019. However, given the Coalition's comment, we have corrected this citation to be Center for Whale Research 2020, which provides annual census values since 1974 from which specific annual changes in population abundance can be easily calculated if desired.

Comment 48: The Coalition notes that growth rates and productivity in different Resident killer whale populations may be affected by variability in diet, environmental conditions, and habitat range. The Coalition points out that Alaskan Resident killer whales consume Chinook salmon, similar to Northern Resident killer whales (NRKW) and SRKW but appear to have a more diverse diet and benefit from larger and healthier salmon runs. The maximum net productivity rate for NRKW has been updated and is now estimated to be 2.9 percent. The Coalition recommends using the same rate for SRKW, which yields a PBR of 0.11 (1 animal every 9 years) for a population level of 73 whales, as included in this SAR.

Response: NMFS raised this issue with the Pacific SRG in 2020. The Pacific SRG recommended the continued use of Rmax = 0.035 until a better estimate is available for review. We agree with this assessment and will continue to use this Rmax, reviewing it when new information is available.

Comment 49: The Coalition urges NMFS to revise the CA/OR/WA stock to reflect that the Central America distinct population segment (DPS) is a demographically independent population (DIP) separate from the Mexico DPS and to provide abundance estimates for both.

The Coalition requests the inclusion of the record of two dead humpback whales caught in Pacific whiting midwater trawl nets in separate incidents in July 2020. Seen only on electronic monitoring (EM), the whales could neither be identified to DPS nor necropsied to determine cause of death. The Coalition notes that as EM programs continue to expand, and more vessels opt to use EM instead of observers, it will be increasingly difficult to track marine mammal interactions as cameras are not currently designed to monitor marine mammal interactions. This will in turn decrease the amount of data on marine mammal interactions with commercial fisheries and increase uncertainty in M/SI estimates in several marine mammal stock assessments. The Coalition recommends NMFS improve the quantity and quality of information collected on marine mammal interactions.

Response: NMFS appreciates this recommendation regarding designating humpback whale stocks. In late 2019, NMFS finalized a new Policy Directive: Reviewing and Designating Stocks and Issuing Stock Assessment Reports under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (NMFS 2019). This directive established that DIP delineation and stock designation are separate processes. DIP delineation is the process of interpreting the scientific lines of evidence supporting whether groups of animals are demographically independent, including determining the geographic range of the groups. DIP delineation occurs outside the SAR process, and is described in Martien et al. (2019). Stock designation is the process of officially classifying a stock as a management unit that will then be described and assessed in SARs and considers whether individual DIPs can be effectively managed as stocks. In light of the 2016 ESA humpback whale DPS listings, the MMPA humpback whale stock designations are currently being re-evaluated according to the process laid out in NMFS (2019). NMFS is reviewing the best available science on humpback whale population structure in the Pacific and evaluating the lines of evidence to, where possible, delineate humpback whale DIPs as guided by Martien et al. (2019). This review and evaluation is currently underway and following its completion, we will follow the process to revise stock designations following NMFS (2019) as resources allow.

Both the humpback whale incidents referred to in the comment were outside the time frame of this SAR. Regarding EM technologies, NMFS believes these can provide valuable supplementary data in addition to traditional fisheries observers for collecting data on fishing effort and catch (landings and discards), including bycatch of protected species. While we have made significant strides in assessing the technology and potential applications of EM, there are continuing policy and data-related challenges that come with new technologies. These include how to process and store the enormous amount of electronic data, enforcement of compliance issues, privacy concerns of fishery participants, costs, and image processing. As research and development efforts continue, we are actively working to include protected species in those efforts. In time, we expect to see EM technologies available for wider applications, including select fisheries for monitoring bycatch of protected species.

Comment 50: HLA appreciates that NMFS has updated the False Killer whale SAR to incorporate the results of the line transect survey that occurred in 2017, as well as NMFS' associated modeling work. For future surveys, HLA requests that the results be processed and reported in the SAR more promptly. HLA comments that it is not consistent with the MMPA, or otherwise acceptable, to update a SAR with key information four years after the data has been gathered. HLA believes the results presented in the draft SAR, which reflect the best available scientific information, demonstrate that the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate for the Hawaii Pelagic False Killer whale Stock (Pelagic Stock) is far below the stock's PBR. Specifically, the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate in the U.S. EEZ (6.5) is less than half of the PBR for the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ (16), and the fishery's overall Pelagic Stock M/SI rate (35.3 [combining inside and outside the EEZ]) is less than 15 percent of NMFS estimated PBR for the central Pacific (259). These results confirm the positions HLA has taken since the False Killer whale Take Reduction Team formed in 2009— i.e., that NMFS has consistently underestimated the abundance of the Pelagic Stock and that the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate does not exceed, and has never exceeded, the PBR for that stock. HLA comments that it presented a detailed statistical analysis performed by Dr. Ray Hilborn showing that NMFS had substantially underestimated the population size of the Pelagic Stock in the Hawaii EEZ. At that time, NMFS estimated the EEZ stock size to be 484 whales. Dr. Hilborn's analysis concluded that a more accurate abundance estimate was 2,066 whales in the EEZ. After HLA presented those results, HLA believes NMFS wrongly criticized and discarded Dr. Hilborn's analysis.

HLA comments that NMFS current estimate for the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ is 2,086 whales (only 20 more than Dr. Hilborn estimated in 2009). HLA comments that the best available science, as reported in the draft SAR, shows that the population size of the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ has consistently been approximately 2,100 animals going back to 2002. Specifically, the draft SAR, based on Bradford et al. (2020), estimates that the stock numbered 2,144 animals in 2010 and 2,122 animals in 2002. This demonstrates that the Pelagic Stock has never been “strategic” because the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate has never exceeded a PBR based on those abundances. This also shows that there was no basis, as HLA argued in 2009, to include the Pelagic Stock within the scope of the False Killer whale Take Reduction Team. Finally, HLA believes the best available science also shows that the Pelagic Stock is either increasing or, at worst, remaining stable. If NMFS' pre-2010 estimate of 484 whales for the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ is to be believed, then the stock has increased in size dramatically over the ensuing years. Alternatively, based on the current best available science (Bradford et al. 2020), the stock has remained stable at a high abundance (of approximately 2,100 whales) within the Hawaii EEZ since at least 2002. Either way, HLA believes there is no evidence that the Hawaii-based longline fisheries are having any noticeable impact on the stock.

Response: NMFS agrees that the timely publication of results that inform SARs is important. Surveys were completed at the end of 2017, and the collected data were quality-checked and verified into 2018. New data protocols designed to improve abundance estimates for this species had to be integrated with existing line-transect methodology and updated analysis approaches to obtain the most robust estimates of abundance. After undergoing peer review, the final results were published in 2020, with the time between data collection and publication consistent with other studies using new approaches to generate estimates of abundance.

False killer whale assessments are complex. We have learned a lot about false killer whale social structure and behavior over the past 10-15 years that has significantly changed the way we collect and analyze survey data for this species. While we have much greater confidence in our 2002, 2010, and 2017 estimates now than we did when the 2002 or 2010 estimates were originally formulated, the older estimates were the best available estimates at the time they were published and used in the SARs. We no longer refer to those estimates in the SAR because they are no longer the best available. To refer to them now as rationale for arguing the stock has increased is inappropriate. The MMPA calls for using the best available scientific data available at the time that the assessments are to be completed. PBR is designed to deal with great uncertainty and is inherently precautionary. Although it is coincidental that the Hilborn 2009 analysis produced an abundance estimate that is close to our current estimate, our assessment of that analysis has not changed. There were documented problems with the Hilborn analysis, and it used what are now severely outdated data and parameter estimates, such that it is inappropriate to compare the outdated Hilborn 2009 estimate with our current estimate representing years of targeted improvements in data collection, analytical approach, g(0) estimation, etc.

With regard to comparing the current PBR to fishery mortality, we are clear within the SAR and in all other communications about our pelagic stock abundance estimates that the full central Pacific estimate provided in Bradford et al. (2020) and in the SAR represents more than one stock of false killer whales. The Palmyra stock, Hawaii pelagic stock, and any Eastern Pacific stocks are all also partially included here. Since we do not presently have high-seas boundaries for any of these stocks, we are not able to partition the full central Pacific estimate to the Hawaii pelagic stock, and, therefore, cannot meaningfully compare the full Hawaii pelagic stock abundance and PBR with fishing mortality.

Comment 51: HLA comments that the draft 2020 SAR assigns a recovery factor of 0.5 to the Hawaii pelagic stock, which is the value typically assigned to depleted or threatened stocks or stocks of unknown status with a mortality estimate CV of 0.3 or less. However, the Hawaii pelagic stock is not depleted or threatened, nor is its status unknown. This status should be accurately reflected with a recovery factor that is greater than 0.5 ( i.e., closer to 1.0 than to 0.5).

Response: A recovery factor of 0.5 is appropriate for the Hawaii pelagic stock. There are no estimates of population trend for this stock, and the model used to produce the new 2002, 2010, and 2017 could not accommodate a trend term given the sparse dataset. Stable or increasing levels of bycatch and depredation may be driven by a number of factors, including increasing overlap in the occurrence of false killer whales and fishing activity, learning by whales to approach fishing boats, increasing false killer whale population, or changes in the fishery that allow for higher rates of depredation or observed bycatch.

Comment 52: HLA comments there have been no Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery interactions with the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular false killer whale stock and comments that the draft SAR incorrectly attributes M/SI to the deep-set fishery in 2017 and in 2018. HLA requests that, if NMFS nevertheless proceeds to attribute M/SI to the deep-set fishery (which HLA strongly disagrees with), then HLA requests the draft SAR should at a minimum state that there are no confirmed deep-set fishery interactions with the MHI insular stock, and that no deep-set fishery interactions with the MHI insular stock have occurred in the very limited area where longline effort might overlap with the assumed range for the stock.

Response: NMFS has addressed this concern in previous responses to comments on the SARs. NMFS' Observer Program does not observe every deep-set trip. With ~20 percent coverage, some statistical extrapolation/approximation of what is observed is required. False killer whale takes are relatively rare. The rarity of observed takes, together with the sampling design mean that the lack of observation does not equate to the lack of actual interactions. We agree that we can more explicitly state that no confirmed MHI insular false killer whales have been observed as taken in this fishery, though this needs to be balanced by the fact that very few of the observed takes are identified to stock due to the lack of tissue samples or adequate photographs. NMFS is not attributing interactions that occur outside of the MHI insular stock area to the MHI insular stock. We are prorating the estimated portion of the take to account for fishing effort that occurs within the MHI insular stock range and based on the relative density of the false killer whale stocks in this area. In reality, if an MHI insular false killer whale were taken by the fishery, we would very likely be underestimating the impact on this stock given our current proration method.

Comment 53: HLA notes that the draft SAR estimates the MHI insular stock abundance to be 167 animals, based upon Bradford et al. (2018), which found that the population size of the MHI insular stock in certain study areas has consistently ranged between 144 and 187 animals over a 16-year period. HLA comments that the draft SAR's reported abundance estimate of 167 animals underestimates the MHI insular stock's abundance, perhaps to a very significant degree. HLA comments that it is unscientific and contrary to the MMPA for NMFS to report the estimated abundance for only a portion of the MHI insular stock. HLA notes that the MMPA requires the SAR to “describe the geographic range of the affected stock” and to provide minimum population estimates for “such stock” (not a “portion of such stock”). HLA states in its comments that NMFS has made no attempt to estimate the abundance of the MHI insular stock across its range or to apply “appropriate correction factors” to do so. HLA notes that the draft SAR is therefore legally deficient and must be corrected.

If NMFS nonetheless retains the MHI insular stock abundance estimate of 167 animals, then HLA believes that number should be considered the “minimum population estimate.” HLA notes that as Bradford et al. (2018) acknowledges, the estimate of 167 animals is an underestimate, so there is no need to apply an additional reduction factor to this number for purposes of reporting the “minimum population estimate” because NMFS already has a scientifically published “reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than” 167 animals. HLA comments that to report an even lower “minimum population estimate” is arbitrary and contrary to the MMPA.

Finally, HLA believes should NMFS retain the MHI insular stock population estimate of 167 animals with no additional information about the actual population size, it must, consistent with its obligation to report the best available scientific information, disclose what specific portion of the MHI insular stock's range was surveyed in the Bradford et al. (2018) study. HLA believes if NMFS is going to report an abundance estimate for only a portion of an MMPA stock's range, then at the very minimum it must disclose to the public what portion of the range is at issue.

Response: The second excerpt from Bradford et al. (2018) was incomplete. The remainder of the quoted paragraph is: “However, movement analyses of 2 of the 3 social clusters have shown that individuals satellite-tagged by CRC [Cascadia Research Collective] on the leeward sides of the MHI regularly use both leeward and windward waters throughout the chain (Baird et al. 2010, 2012), which suggests there are unlikely to be individuals in the population that never use the predominantly leeward sampling areas [that were clearly identified relative to the stock range in Figure 1 of the paper]. Therefore, it is likely that all individuals in the population have been exposed to sampling efforts at some point during the study period, although not necessarily in each year.” In general, this paper appropriately acknowledges that unavoidable sampling biases led to some degree of underestimation in the annual abundance estimates, but that all supporting evidence indicates the population is small. Thus, there is no basis to suggest that this underestimation is substantial. NMFS has, and will continue to work towards understanding and addressing the availability issues discussed at length in Bradford et al. (2018), though we do not believe the underestimation is equal in all years or that it is substantial in any year. We will continue to use the point estimates and CV provided there to compute an Nmin.

Comment 54: WPRFMC comments that in the draft 2020 SAR, NMFS uses only the most recent abundance estimate to calculate the PBR. WPRFMC recommends that using a tiered approach for calculating PBR based on data availability would allow for the use of all available abundance estimates to estimate the minimum population estimate (Nmin) and recovery factor, and reduce the uncertainty in the PBR estimates. WPRFMC therefore requests that NMFS include all available abundance estimates for the pelagic false killer whale stock using the approach developed by Brandon et al. (2017).

Response: NMFS appreciates the request for more expediency in generating false killer whale abundance estimates and reporting them in the SARs. We understand the importance of these estimates and their bearing on management, which underscores our commitment to ensure our results are as robust and reliable as possible. Please see our response to comment 50.

Regarding the tiered PBR approach, the MMPA calls for using the best available scientific data available at the time that the assessments are to be completed. The NMFS Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stock (GAMMS 2016), provide guidance on the calculation of Nmin to the 20th percentile of a log-normal distribution. This approach is designed to deal with great uncertainty and is inherently precautionary.

Comment 55: The Makah Tribe notes that the draft SAR compounds contextual ambiguity by using the name Western Breeding Stock (WBS) to identify the “third unnamed stock” in the description of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee's stock structure hypothesis 4a. They recommend that NMFS either name the third implied stock based on its feeding and wintering grounds, e.g., Sakhalin Eastern Breeding Stock which will distinguish it from the WBS and Eastern Breeding Stock (EBS), or use the same phrase as the IWC Scientific Committee: “WFG (Western Feeding Group) whales that interbreed largely with each other while migrating to the Mexican wintering ground” (IWC 2020b).

Response: NMFS has aligned the stock hypothesis language used in the IWC stock structure document (IWC 2020b) with that appearing in both the Eastern North Pacific (ENP) and Western North Pacific (WNP) gray whale SARs. This should eliminate the previously confounding reference to the WBS for the implied third breeding stock. The unnamed third breeding stock referenced by the IWC is now referred to as “WFG (Western Feeding Group) whales that interbreed largely with each other while migrating to the Mexico wintering ground.”

Comment 56: The Makah Tribe comments that the new abundance estimate for the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) was completed in late 2019 and should be included in the 2020 SAR in the section on Population Size, Potential Biological Removal, and other appropriate sections to reflect current information (Calambokidis et al. 2019). The SAR should also include the recently published abundance estimate for the ENP stock based on the 2019-20 survey (Stewart and Weller 2021). Also, the Makah Tribe recommends removing the description of the stranded whales as emaciated in the description of the Unusual Mortality Event (UME) in the Population Size section.

Response: NMFS appreciates reference to new documents that became available during the public comment period for the draft 2020 SARs. New abundance estimates for ENP and PCFG whales will be included the next time the ENP SAR is revised. This will allow for thorough peer review by the SRG and adequate public comment. Language has been changed in the final 2020 SAR to better reflect the variable body conditions of stranded whales during the UME. Figures that pertain to the UME have been removed from the SAR and the reader is now pointed to the UME website, which includes periodic updates to the UME status.

Comment 57: The Makah Tribe recommends the first sentence of the Subsistence/Native Harvest Information section be modified to remove the geographic limitation to the Bering Sea. Furthermore, the Makah Tribe requests that the sentence should recognize that gray whales were once hunted in Canada (Monks et al. 2001). Additionally, in the new text describing NMFS' proposed waiver, the Makah Tribe recommends two changes. First, in the reference to three annual strikes, the SAR should explain that this is the maximum number of strikes allowed under the proposed regulations, e.g., “based on the maximum allowed 3 strikes annually.” Second, the description of the post-hearing comment period should reflect that it ended in March 2020, e.g., “NMFS requested public comment.” Also, the description of the IWC's approval of a gray whale catch limit should be revised to reflect current terminology, e.g, replacing “quota” with “catch limit,” and should reflect changes to the catch limit made in 2018.

Response: NMFS has included new language in the final 2020 SAR to incorporate these suggestions.

Comment 58: The draft SAR refers to unpublished reports that have since been published in peer-reviewed journals. The Makah Tribe recommends that the following replacement citations for unpublished reports be used where applicable: Lang et al. (2011b) should be updated to Lang et al. (2014) and Mate et al. (2010) should be updated to Lagerquist et al. (2019).

Response: These references have been updated in the final 2020 SAR.

Comment 59: Please see the Makah Tribe's recommended changes to IWC stock structure hypotheses in the draft SAR for the ENP stock, as the draft WNP SAR incorporates identical text.

Response: See response to comment 57.

Comment 60: The tribe comments that the draft SAR updates text regarding the estimated probabilities of a Makah hunt taking a WNP gray whale to reflect the conclusions of Moore and Weller (2018). However, in making the update, the draft SAR fails to carry forward an explanation of the probabilities that is helpful to laypeople reading the SAR and makes clear that the estimated probability of such a take is very low. The Makah Tribe recommends that an updated version of that explanatory sentence (“This corresponds to an expectation of greater than 1 WNP whale strike in one of every 83 to 167 years”), which is stricken in the raft SAR, be included in the revision. NMFS also needs to correct the 95 percent Bayesian Credible Interval (CRI) for the probability for a 10-year hunt to “(95 percent CRI 0.030-0.093).” Because the same text is used in the draft ENP SAR, the changes above should be made in revising that SAR as well.

Response: NMFS has added language to reflect statements from the proposed rule (84 FR 13604; April 5, 2019) that provides details on the WNP risk assessment by Moore and Weller (2018).

Comment 61: The Status of Stock section of the draft SAR begins with the assertion that “[t]he WNP stock is listed as `Endangered' under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and is therefore also considered `strategic' and `depleted' under the MMPA.” As with previous SARs for the WNP stock, no explanation of the listing status is provided, but the draft SAR does note an ongoing 5-year Status Review initiated by NMFS in 2018. The Tribe believes NMFS never addresses the crux of the issue, i.e., the agency's description of the WNP stock in the 1994 ESA delisting decision as geographically and reproductively isolated from the ENP stock is fundamentally inconsistent with the draft SAR's classification of whales migrating from Sakhalin to Mexico as part of the same WNP stock and, therefore, “Endangered.”

In the draft SAR, intermittent observations of gray whales in Asian waters are cited as evidence of continued migration to an Asian breeding ground. Further, Cooke et al. (2019) found that up to 20 percent of WNP whales migrate to breeding grounds in Asian waters, providing support for their conclusion that “it is likely that a western breeding population that migrates through Asian waters still exists.” At the same time, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed stock structure hypotheses where in the most plausible hypotheses the WBS, which in Makah's view corresponds to the WNP stock described in the ENP stock's delisting documents, has either been extirpated (3a and 4a) or is extant but exists solely in Asian waters (5a). The same hypotheses postulate that whales that feed at Sakhalin and migrate to North America are either the WFG, which interbreeds with other whales of the EBS (3a and 5a) or breeds largely with other WFG whales while migrating to Mexico (4a). NMFS has never provided a rational explanation for its treatment of WFG whales, i.e., those Sakhalin whales that migrate to North America, as equivalent to the WBS, which as described by the IWC matches the agency's 1994 description of the geographically isolated, “Endangered” WNP stock. Indeed, the agency's incorrect use of “WBS” for the unnamed, implied third breeding stock, as discussed above, appears related to this lack of clarity in the draft SAR. Absent an explanation in the SAR, NMFS' assertion that the WNP stock described in the draft SAR is “Endangered” is untenable and the Status of Stock should be changed to “unknown” until NMFS makes a formal determination of the status of WFG whales.

The Tribe has commented at length on this issue in previous draft SARs (2014 and 2018) and believes NMFS' response does not explain how, if at all, the agency's view of stock structure corresponds to the stock structure hypotheses of the Scientific Committee.

Response: We acknowledge that the stock structure of North Pacific gray whales is an area of active investigation, internationally and domestically, as evidenced by the IWC's Scientific Committee currently recognizing three `high plausibility' stock structure hypotheses for WNP gray whales (IWC 2020). Consistent with our responses to related comments from the Makah on the 2018 SAR, we have relied on the best available information to update the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” information in the final SAR. Also, NMFS has convened a Status Review Team to evaluate this information and the ESA status of WNP gray whales (83 FR 4032; January 29, 2018), including the delineation of any distinct population segment (DPS). Results from this evaluation will be incorporated as appropriate in future updates of the North Pacific gray whale SARs.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

The Commission is authorized under section 5(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), to conduct studies and investigations relating to the causes and prevention of deaths, accidents, injuries, illnesses, other health impairments, and economic losses associated with consumer products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that the Commission may conduct research, studies, and investigations on the safety of consumer products or test consumer products and develop product safety test methods and testing devices.

In 1992, the CPSC sponsored a national in-home survey to collect information on the number of residential smoke alarms in actual use in homes and to evaluate the operability of the sampled alarms. The results were published in the 1994 report, Consumer Product Safety Commission Smoke Detector Operability Survey Report on Findings. 1 Although the survey results were instrumental for many years in developing state and local codes and standards related to smoke alarms, subsequent changes in technology, installation codes, and state/local ordinances in the past 25 years have rendered the information outdated and less effective. Stakeholders' groups for fire loss prevention have identified a need for an updated national survey to increase the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in the United States. In addition, installations of CO alarms have increased since 1992. Accordingly, CPSC sought to update its data information collection related to smoke and CO alarm use through a new survey, the National Smoke and CO Alarm Survey (SCOA survey).

Although the SCOA survey initially commenced in January 2019, CPSC experienced lower response rates relative to expectations in the administration of the SCOA survey in fielding locations than had been established by the study's approved methodology. To correct for this challenge, and to complete the number of homes surveyed in the contract, CPSC undertook a revised sampling method and contact protocol of participant recruitment. Among the revisions to the methodology, CPSC included a redesign of the recruitment, screening, and in-home survey based on a random walk door-to-door knocking sample methodology. The SCOA survey seeks to collect information from 1,185 households within the United States. The survey will be conducted only through face-to-face, in-home interviews. Following all COVID-19 safety precautions, survey professionals will provide pre-notification door hangers requesting participation in the survey. These households will be recruited, and willing participants will be provided with consent forms, and the survey team will administer questions regarding the residence type, and smoke and CO alarm availability and functionality in the residences. The survey team also will identify, test, and examine several of the alarms in the home, as time permits, and if they are found faulty, provide new alarms or batteries, if requested by the participant. No action will be taken if participants choose not to have the alarm fixed or replaced.

CPSC entered into a contract with Eureka Facts to conduct the SCOA survey through a national in-home survey that would estimate the use and functionality of smoke and CO alarms in households, as well as assess user hazard perceptions regarding such alarms. The purpose of the SCOA survey is to collect data that will assist CPSC with better estimation of the number and types of smoke and CO alarms installed in U.S. households, the proportion of working smoke and CO alarms, the characteristics of residences and residents where the smoke and CO alarms are not operational, perceptions of residents related to the causes of “false” alarms or causes of faulty alarms, consumer hazard awareness, and consumer behavior related to alarm use and smoke and CO hazards.

The information collected from the SCOA survey would provide CPSC updated national estimates regarding the use of smoke alarms and CO alarms in households, based on direct observation of alarm installations. The survey also would help CPSC identify the groups that do not have operable smoke alarms and/or CO alarms and understand the reasons why they do not have such alarms. With this information, CPSC would be able to target better its messaging to improve consumer use and awareness regarding the operability of these alarms. In addition, the survey results would help to inform CPSC's recommendations to voluntary standards groups and state/local jurisdictions regarding their codes, standards, and/or regulations on smoke and CO alarms.

We estimate the number of respondents to be 1,185. We estimate the total annual burden hours for respondents to be 1,552 hours, based on the total time required to respond to the invitation, screener, and the actual survey. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total compensation for civilian workers in March 2021 was $39.01 per hour (Employer Cost for Employee Compensation, Table 2, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm ). Therefore, CPSC estimates the cost burden for respondents to be $60,544 ($39.01 per hour × 1,552 hours = $60,543.52). The total cost to the federal government for the contract to design and conduct the revised survey is $562,725.

The CPSC invites comments on these topics:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

USAG-HI is home to the 25th Infantry Division (ID), and other commands, whose mission is to deploy to conduct decisive actions in support of unified land operations; the Division conducts continuous persistent engagement with regional partners to shape the environment and prevent conflict across the Pacific operational environment. On orders, these units may conduct theater-wide deployment to perform combat operations in support of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). The 25th ID is based out of Schofield Barracks on the island of O`ahu and trains on a rotational basis at various training areas, including KTA, Poamoho, and MMR.

Located in northeast O`ahu, KTA has been the site of military training since the mid-1950s. Current training activities on State-owned lands at KTA include high-density company-level helicopter training in a tactical environment, large-scale ground maneuver training, and air support training.

Located in the Ko`olau Mountains in north-central O`ahu, the Poamoho Training Area has been the site of military training since 1964 and provides ideal airspace with ravines and deep vegetation vital to realistic helicopter training.

Located in northwest O`ahu, MMR has been a site for military training for nearly 100 years. Tactical training at MMR began in 1941 after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and military exercises continue to this day. Current training activities on State-owned lands at MMR include maneuver training, the establishment and use of restricted airspace for unmanned aerial vehicle training, as well as wildfire suppression and security activities.

The purpose of land retention is to secure the long-term military use of State-owned parcels, for which current leases expire in 2029. The need to retain use of these training lands is to allow the military to continue to meet current and future training and combat readiness requirements on Army-managed lands in Hawai`i.

To understand the environmental consequences of the decisions to be made, the EIS will evaluate the reasonably foreseeable impacts of a range of potential alternatives that meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Alternatives to be considered include the No Action Alternative, (1) Full Retention, (2) Modified Retention, and (3) Minimum Retention and Access. The Proposed Action does not involve new training, construction, or resource management activities. Under Full Retention, the Army would retain all State-owned lands within each training area. Under Modified Retention, the Army would retain all State-owned lands within each training area except lands on which limited training occurs. Under Limited Retention and Access, the Army would retain the minimum amount of State-owned lands within each training area that is required for USARHAW to continue to meet its current ongoing training requirements. This includes the State-owned lands with the most vital training/support facilities, infrastructure, maneuver land, all U.S. Government-owned utilities, and access to these features. Other reasonable alternatives raised during the scoping process that meet the Army mission, project purpose, and need will also be considered for evaluation in the EIS.

An EIS-level analysis is being undertaken because the land retention action could have potentially significant impacts on environmental and social resource areas including biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous and toxic materials and wastes, socioeconomics, utilities, and human health and safety. The analysis in the EIS will determine the projected level of impact on each resource area.

The Army anticipates permits and authorizations may be required for the Proposed Action, including a lease from the State of Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), National Historic Preservation Act and Hawai`i Historic Preservation Review consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Coastal Zone Management consistency determination from the Hawai`i State Office of Planning, and a Conservation District Use Permit applicability determination from the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands.

The Draft EIS will be available in the summer of 2022. The Final EIS 2023, ROD spring 2024. The Final EIS and Record of Decision are estimated to be available within three years of this notice.

Native Hawaiian organizations; Federal, State, and local agencies; and the public are invited to be involved in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS by participating in a scoping meeting and/or submitting written comments. The Army requests assistance with identifying potential alternatives to the Proposed Action to be considered and identification of information and analyses relevant to the Proposed Action. Written comments must be sent within 40 days of publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register . In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States and the Center for Disease Control's current recommendations for social distancing and avoiding large public gatherings, the Army may not hold in-person public scoping meetings for this action. In lieu of in-person public scoping meetings, the Army may provide virtual scoping opportunities that will include an online presentation and collaboration tools, as appropriate, and reasonable accommodations for the public to view information and provide oral or written comments subject to COVID-19 limitations. An EIS Scoping Virtual Open House will be held at Leilehua Golf Course (199 Leilehua Golf Course Rd., Wahiawa, HI 96786) on August 9 and 10, 2021 from 6 to 9 p.m. During the EIS Scoping Virtual Open House, video presentations describing the Proposed Action can be viewed online at: https://home.army.mil/hawaii/index.php/OAHUEIS and oral comments will be taken via an accompanying call-in option. Written comments will be accepted during the EIS Scoping Virtual Open House and throughout the duration of the 40-day scoping process through an online comment platform or by mail or email. Additional in-person public comment stations may be made available, subject to procedural compliance with governmental guidance and restrictions related to COVID-19. Notification of the EIS Scoping Virtual Open House and in-person public comment stations will also be published and announced in local news media outlets and on the EIS website: https://home.army.mil/hawaii/index.php/OAHUEIS. Hard copy scoping materials are available by making a request to Amy Bugala, USAG-HI Public Affairs Officer at (808) 656-3160 or by email to: usarmy.hawaii.comrel@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Questionnaire; OMB Control Number 0720-0069.

Needs and Uses: The purpose of the DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Questionnaire is as follows: (1) Exercise due-diligence to reach out to the vast majority of our authorized vaccine eligible population (but has not received the COVID-19 vaccine per Military Health System records) with instructions on how to receive the vaccine. (2) Understand existing vaccine demand to adjust. (3) Inform future ( i.e. booster) vaccination efforts. (4) Lift an administrative burden from the military treatment facilities by executing a standardized survey at the HQ level. (5) Remind message/questionnaire recipients to have their medical record updated with their vaccination as applicable.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 19,000.

Number of Respondents: 570,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 570,000.

Average Burden per Response: 2 minutes.

Frequency: One time.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Surrogate Association for DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon; DD Form 3005; OMB Control Number 0704-0559.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is needed to obtain the necessary data to establish eligibility for a DS Logon credential and enrollment in DEERS. This information shall be used to establish an individual's eligibility for DEERS enrollment and DS Logon credential issuance as a surrogate. Information is collected via the DD Form 3005, “Application for Surrogate Association for DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon,” and used to establish a record in DEERS and issue a DS Logon credential in accordance with DoDM 1341.02, Volume 1. The information that is collected may be released to Federal and State agencies and private entities, on matters relating to utilization review, professional quality assurance, program integrity, civil and criminal litigation, and access to Federal government facilities, computer systems, networks, and controlled areas.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 834 hours.

Number of Respondents: 5,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 5,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Medical Screening of Military Personnel-Medical History Report and Accession Medical History Report; DD Form 2807-1/DD Form 2807-2; OMB Control Number 0704-0413.

Needs and Uses: This information collected is the basis for determining medical eligibility of applicants for entry in the Armed Forces. This information is needed to determine the medical qualifications of applicants based upon their current and past medical history. The information obtained on the DD Form 2807-2 ensures the recruiter that an applicant have identified any medical disqualifying condition(s) prior to application process and meets the Congressional requirements to obtain both the applicants Health Care provider and Insurance provider. Additionally, it allows the military examining physician to obtain medical records critical to evaluating the applicant's medical condition(s) prior to their medical examination. The DD Form 2807-1 is needed as part of the required medical examination to assist physicians in making determinations as to acceptability of applicants for military service and verifies disqualifying medical condition(s) noted on the accession medical history report form.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 128,834 hours.

Number of Respondents: 773,003.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 773,003.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: SAPR/SHARP Survey; OMB Control Number 0704-0608.

Needs and Uses: NORC at the University of Chicago, in collaboration with the United States Naval Academy (USNA) Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) staff and the United States Military Academy (USMA) sexual harassment/assault response and prevention (SHARP) staff, is conducting the SAPR/SHARP Surveys (a baseline survey and one follow-up survey) with USNA students (midshipmen) and USMA students (cadets) with funding support from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. The purpose of the overall study is to determine the effectiveness of the academy prevention programming in addressing sexual harassment and sexual assault. The survey assesses topics such as rape myth acceptance, descriptive behavioral norms at the respective academies, experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault, alcohol-related sex expectancies, witnessing experiences that might call for bystander intervention to prevent sexual harassment and/or sexual assault, and personal responses when exposed to these situations. The surveys are voluntary. Data are aggregated by appropriate sociodemographic categories (sex, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and varsity athletic participation; sociodemographic responses will be recoded as binary indicators to prevent anyone from figuring out an individual participant's identity based on unique characteristics). The results of this survey will be used by the Service Academies to evaluate and update their prevention programming.