The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that Rural Development is submitting to OMB for a new collection.

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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent by the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “RHS” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select RHS-21-Admin-0018 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov , including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link.

Title: 7 CFR 1924—Common Forms Package for Rural Development Construction Forms.

OMB Number: 0575-New.

Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval date.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Abstract: The information collection under OMB Number 0575-New will enable the Agencies to effectively administer the policies, methods, and responsibilities in the planning and performing of construction and other development work for the related construction programs.

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is authorized under various sections of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, to provides financial assistance to construct, improve, alter, repair, replace, or rehabilitate dwellings, which will provide modest, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to eligible individuals in rural areas. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, authorizes the credit programs of the RHS, RBCS and RUS to provide financial assistance for essential community facilities such as construction of community facilities and water and waste systems; and the improvement, development, and financing of businesses, industries, and employment.

In several sections of both acts, loan limitations are established as percentages of development costs, requiring careful monitoring of those costs. Also, the Secretary is authorized to prescribe regulations to ensure that Federal funds are not wasted or dissipated and that construction will be undertaken economically and will not be of elaborate or extravagant design or materials. The collection of information covered by the forms allows for the planning and performing of construction and other development work.

Information for the RD forms and their usage in this collection package are included in this supporting statement.

The Agencies provide forms and/or guidelines to assist in the collection and submission of information; however, most of the information may be collected and submitted in the form and content which is accepted and typically used in normal conduct of planning and performing development work in private industry when a private lender is financing the activity. The information is usually submitted via hand delivery or U.S. Postal Service to the appropriate Agency office. Electronic submittal of information is also possible through email or USDA's Service Center eForms website.

If the information were not collected and submitted, the Agencies would not have control over the type and quality of construction and development work planned and performed with Federal funds. The Agencies would not be assured that the security provided for loans is adequate, nor would the Agencies be certain that decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling or other adequate structures were being provided to rural residents as required by the different acts.

Estimate of Burden: RD is requesting approval for one respondent and a one-hour place holder in order for OMB to issue a control number for these forms. The burden for each of the forms will be accounted for within the individual Rural Development program collection packages using the form(s).

Respondents: Individuals or private entities; businesses or other for profit; not-for profit; small businesses; Federal, state, local or tribal governments; institutions of higher education or other research organizations and others.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent per Form in Package:

Comments from interested parties are invited on: (1) 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; (2) 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; (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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

These meetings are available to the public through the WebEx link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing. may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the call-in number found through registering at the web link provided for these meetings.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meetings. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara de La Viez at bdelaviez@usccr.gov . Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 539-8246. Records and documents discussed during the meetings will be available for public viewing as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov . Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

On December 2, 1986, Commerce issued the AD order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China. 1 On August 11, 2016, Commerce published the most recent continuation of the AD order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China. 2 On July 1, 2021, Commerce initiated the current sunset review of the Order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3

We did not receive a notice to participate in this sunset review from any domestic interested party, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), Commerce has determined that no domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset review. On July 21, 2021, Commerce notified the ITC in writing that we intend to revoke the AD order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China, consistent with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). 4

The merchandise covered by the Order is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party responds to a notice of initiation, Commerce shall, within 90 days after the initiation of review, revoke the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate in this sunset review, we determine that no domestic interested party is participating in this sunset review. Therefore, we are revoking the AD order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, on or after August 11, 2021, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication of the last continuation notice. 5 Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and AD deposit requirements. Commerce will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective orders 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 these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3) and 19CFR 351.222(i)(1)(1).

On June 25, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from Korea. 1 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The products covered by the antidumping duty Order are certain CTL plate from Korea. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows as an appendix to this notice. 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 https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we did not make changes to the preliminary calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin for the mandatory respondent, Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), and the margin assigned to non-selected respondents.

Commerce determines the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2019, through January 31, 2020:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For the individually examined respondent, Hyundai Steel, whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

For all non-selected respondents identified above, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR at the rates listed above.

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai Steel for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by companies not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 0.98 percent, 5 the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation, adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On May 24, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary affirmative determination in the LTFV investigation of wind towers from India. 1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On June 24, 2021, we received case briefs from Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited (Vestas India); Anand Engineering Products Private Limited, Windar Renewable Energy Private Limited, and GRI Towers India Private Limited (collectively, Other Producers); and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (the petitioner). 2 On August 17, 2021, we held a public hearing at the request of Vestas India, the Other Producers and the petitioner. 3 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

The products covered by this investigation are wind towers from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

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 https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Because the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, Vestas India, did not cooperate in this investigation by failing to file a complete response to Commerce's supplemental section D questionnaire by the established deadline, Commerce reached the Preliminary Determination entirely on the basis of facts available with the application of adverse inferences (AFA). As such, because the Preliminary Determination was based entirely on AFA, we did not conduct a verification.

In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce found that the mandatory respondent, Vestas India, did not cooperate in this investigation by failing to file a complete response to Commerce's supplemental section D questionnaire by the established deadline. We also found that five other companies did not cooperate in this investigation by failing to provide timely responses to Commerce's quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire. These companies are: Acciona Wind Power India Pvt. Ltd.; Nordex India Pvt. Ltd.; Prommada Hindustan Private Ltd.; Vinayaka Energy Tek; and Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, in the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we assigned Vestas India and the five companies which failed to timely respond to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire a dumping margin based on total AFA. In applying total AFA, we assigned an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 54.03 percent, the sole dumping margin alleged in the Petition, 5 which Commerce corroborated to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. We continue to find the application of total AFA to Vestas India and the five companies which failed to respond to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is warranted in the final determination.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we made no changes to the Preliminary Determination.

As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce based the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters on the only dumping margin alleged in the Petition, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. We made no changes to this rate for this final determination.

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

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Vestas India and the non-responsive companies in this investigation are based on total AFA. These rates are based on information from the Petition, and are unchanged from the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, there are no calculations to disclose for this final determination.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of wind towers from India, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 24, 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), 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 companies 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 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 listed above.

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 wind towers from India 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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

On April 1, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on magnesium metal from China for the POR. 1 On June 11, 2021, in response to a timely request from US Magnesium LLC (the petitioner), 2 and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the Order with respect to TMI and TMM. 3

The product covered by the Order is magnesium metal from China, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by the Order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”  4 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from China (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

The scope of the Order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”;  5 (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 6 The merchandise subject to this Order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

We received timely submissions from TMI and TMM certifying that they did not have sales, shipments, or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 7 On June 14, 2021, we requested the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data of subject merchandise imported into the United States during the POR, and exported by TMM and/or TMI. 8 This query returned no entries during the POR. 9 Additionally, on June 23, 2021, Commerce submitted a no-shipments inquiry to CBP with regard to TMI and TMM, to which CBP responded that it found no shipments of subject merchandise by TMI and TMM during the POR. 10

Accordingly, and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine that TMI and TMM had no shipments and, therefore, no reviewable entries during the POR. In addition, we find it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to these companies, but rather to complete the review with respect to TMI and TMM and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review, consistent with our practice in non-market economy (NME) cases. 11

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 12 ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 13 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities. 14 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain portions of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 15

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to Commerce within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 16 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, the telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held. 17 Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register , unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 18 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). Pursuant to Commerce's practice in NME cases, if we continue to determine in the final results that TMI and TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from these companies will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 19

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including TMM, which claimed no shipments, but has not been found to be separate from China-wide entity), the cash deposit rate will be China-wide rate of 141.49 percent; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On May 24, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register a preliminary negative determination in the LTFV investigation of wind towers from Malaysia. 1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. 2 On August 23, 2021, we issued a post-preliminary determination to address the petitioner's  3 allegation that Commerce should determine normal value (NV) under section 773(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), with respect to CS Wind Corporation and CS Wind Malaysia Sdn Bhd (collectively, CS Wind). 4 5 On August 31, 2021, we received case briefs from CS Wind and the petitioner. 6 On September 8, 2021, we received rebuttal briefs from CS Wind and the petitioner. 7 On September 22, 2021, we held a public hearing at the request of the petitioner. 8 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9

The products covered by this investigation are wind towers from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

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 https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

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 Act. 10

Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to our calculation of CS Wind's dumping margin. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, provides that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Commerce determined an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the individually-examined respondent, i.e., CS Wind, that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, we are assigning the dumping margin calculated for the sole mandatory respondent as the all-others rate for this final determination.

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

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of wind towers from Malaysia, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice 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 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 the 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 listed above.

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)(3) 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 wind towers from Malaysia no later than 75 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 “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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

On March 25, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, which aligned the final determination in this CVD investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of wind towers from India. 1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On July 20, 2021, we received case briefs from the Government of India, Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited (Vestas); Anand Engineering Products Private Limited, Windar Renewable Energy Private Limited, and GRI Towers India Private Limited (collectively, the tollers); and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (the petitioner). 2 On July 27, 2021, we received rebuttal briefs from Vestas, the tollers, and the petitioner. 3 On September 1, 2021, we held a public hearing at the request of Vestas, the tollers, and the petitioner. 4

A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5

The products covered by this investigation are wind towers from India. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised 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 http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

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). 6

Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because several respondents did not act to the best of their ability in responding to our requests for information, we drew adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act. The respondents Naiks Brass & Iron Works, Nordex India Pvt., Prommada Hindustan, Suzlon Energy, Vinayaka Energy Tek, Wish Energy Solutions Pvt Ltd, and Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd. did not respond to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire, and we have continued to use an adverse inference in our selection of facts available for determining the subsidy rates for these companies, pursuant to section 776(d) of the Act. For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties and our verification findings, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for Vestas. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we continue to assign the countervailable subsidy rate calculated for Vestas as the all-others rate applicable to all exporters and/or producers not individually examined. 8

In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated an individual estimated subsidy rate for Vestas. We determine that the following total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates exist:

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

As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after July 23, 2021, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from March 25, 2021 through July 22, 2021.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) 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 of wind towers from Indonesia no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing 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.

In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 subject to sanction.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Background: The NCCoE, part of NIST, is a public-private collaboration for accelerating the widespread adoption of integrated cybersecurity tools and technologies. The NCCoE brings together experts from industry, government, and academia under one roof to develop practical, interoperable cybersecurity approaches that address the real-world needs of complex Information Technology (IT) systems. By accelerating dissemination and use of these integrated tools and technologies for protecting IT assets, the NCCoE will enhance trust in U.S. IT communications, data, and storage systems; reduce risk for companies and individuals using IT systems; and encourage development of innovative, job-creating cybersecurity products and services.

Process: NIST is soliciting responses from all sources of relevant security capabilities (see below) to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project. The full project can be viewed at: https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography .

Interested parties can access the template for a letter of interest by visiting the project website at https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography and completing the letter of interest webform. On completion of the webform, interested parties will receive access to the letter of interest template, which the party must complete, certify as accurate, and submit to NIST by email or hardcopy. NIST will contact interested parties if there are questions regarding the responsiveness of the letters of interest to the project objective or requirements identified below. NIST will select participants who have submitted complete letters of interest on a first come, first served basis within each category of product components or capabilities listed below, up to the number of participants in each category necessary to carry out this project. When the project has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project website at https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/ projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography announcing the completion of the project and informing the public that it is no longer accepting letters of interest for this project.

Completed letters of interest should be submitted to NIST and will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. There may be continuing opportunity to participate even after initial activity commences for participants who were not selected initially or have submitted the letter of interest after the selection process. Selected participants will be required to enter into a consortium CRADA with NIST (for reference, see ADDRESSES section above).

Project Objective: The advent of quantum computing technology will compromise many of the current cryptographic algorithms, especially public-key cryptography, which are widely used to protect digital information. Work on the development of quantum-resistant public-key cryptographic standards is underway, and algorithm selection is expected to be completed in the next one to two years ( https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography ). Replacement of cryptographic algorithms is both technically and logistically challenging. It can take years or even decades to complete. In order to address these challenges, the NCCoE is undertaking a practical demonstration of technology and tools that can provide a head start on executing a migration roadmap in collaboration with a public and private sector community of interest.

To meet the need to accelerate migration to quantum-resistant cryptography, the NCCoE Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project will demonstrate tools for discovery of quantum-vulnerable cryptographic code or dependencies on such code. The tools to be demonstrated provide automation assistance in identifying where and how public-key cryptography is being used in data centers on-premises or in the cloud and distributed compute, storage, and network infrastructures. The project can also contribute to updates to standards, guidelines, regulations, hardware, firmware, operating systems, communication protocols, cryptographic libraries, and applications that employ cryptography. The audience for the project includes developers of products that use public-key cryptographic algorithms, integrators of such products, customer organizations that acquire or configure such products, and bodies that standardize protocols that employ or are dependent on public-key cryptographic algorithms.

The proposed proof-of-concept solution(s) will integrate commercial and open source products that leverage cybersecurity standards and recommended practices to demonstrate the use case scenarios detailed in the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project description at https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography . This project will result in a publicly available NIST Cybersecurity Practice Guide as a Special Publication 1800 series, a detailed implementation guide describing the practical steps needed to implement a cybersecurity reference implementation. Supporting outputs may include playbook, tools, code, and white papers.

Requirements for Letters of Interest: Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify which security platform component(s) or capability(ies) it is offering. Letters of interest should not include company proprietary information, and all components and capabilities must be commercially available. Components are listed in section 3 of the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project description at https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography and include, but are not limited to:

Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their products help address one or more of the following demonstration scenarios in section 2 of the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project description at https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography :

Considerations for desired characteristics include:

• All candidate quantum-resistant replacements for quantum-vulnerable public-key algorithms should have a security strength at least equivalent to that possessed by the quantum-vulnerable algorithm being replaced, where the security strength of the algorithm being replaced is measured in the absence of quantum computing.

• Any suggestion for replacement of a quantum-vulnerable public-key algorithm by a compensating control(s) should be accompanied by an explanation of how the compensating control provides relevant confidentiality and integrity protection commensurate with that currently being provided in the absence of quantum computing.

• Any projected performance degradation resulting from a suggested replacement of a quantum-vulnerable public-key algorithm by a NIST candidate quantum-resistant algorithm should be characterized in the project findings.

In their letters of interest, responding organizations need to acknowledge the importance of and commit to provide:

1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.

2. Support for development and demonstration of the Migration to Post- Quantum Cryptography project, which will be conducted in a manner consistent with the most recent version of the following standards and guidance: FIPS 200, SP 800-37, SP 800-52, SP 800-53, SP 800-63, and SP 1800-16. Additional details about the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project are available at https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building-blocks/post-quantum-cryptography .

NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project. These descriptions will be public information.

Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.

The dates of the demonstration of the Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography project capability will be announced on the NCCoE website at least two weeks in advance at https://nccoe.nist.gov/ . The expected outcome will demonstrate how the components of the solutions that address Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography can enhance security capabilities that provide assurance of mitigation of identified risks while continuing to meet industry sectors' compliance requirements. Participating organizations will gain from the knowledge that their products are interoperable with other participants' offerings.

For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE website https://nccoe.nist.gov/ .

Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests for a permit or permit amendment had been submitted by the below-named applicants. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the activities, go to www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in Table 1 below.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

Authority: The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable.

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

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.

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

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

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

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

On September 21, 2021, NMFS received an application from CTJV requesting an IHA to take small numbers of five species (harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ), gray seal ( Halichoerus grypus ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) and humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae )) of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with the PTST Project. The application was deemed adequate and complete on September 30, 2021. CTJV's request is for take of a small number of these species by Level A or Level B harassment. Neither CTJV nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. NMFS previously issued IHAs to CTJV for similar work (83 FR 36522; July 30, 2018; 85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020; and 86 FR 14606; March 17, 2021). However, due to design and schedule changes only a small portion of that work was conducted under those issued IHAs. This proposed IHA covers 1 year of a 5 year project.

The purpose of the project is to build an additional two lane vehicle tunnel under the navigation channel as part of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel (CBBT). The PTST project will address existing constraints to regional mobility based on current traffic volume, improve safety, improve the ability to conduct necessary maintenance with minimal impact to traffic flow, and ensure reliable hurricane evacuation routes. In-water pile driving is needed to create vessel moorings, temporary work trestles and Support of Excavation walls on islands at either end of the tunnel. The work in this application involves the installation of 722 36-inch and 42 42-inch steel piles. The project will take no more than 252 days of in-water pile work.

The pile driving/removal can result in take of marine mammals from sound in the water which results in behavioral harassment or auditory injury.

This project is ongoing under an existing IHA (86 FR 14606; March 17, 2021). Because of new understanding of the geology of the area, significant revisions have been made to the plans and required work including switching some piles from wood to steel (which produces louder sound on installation), and increasing the size and number of piles. The IHA proposed here will thus supersede the existing IHA once it is issued and be effective for 1 year from the date of issuance.

The PTST project is located between Portal Islands 1 and 2 of the CBBT as shown in Figure 1. A 6,525 lineal foot (ft) (1989 m) tunnel will be bored underneath the Thimble Shoal Channel connecting the Portal Islands located near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The CBBT is a 23-mile (37 km) long facility that connects the Hampton Roads area of Virginia to the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Water depths within the PTST construction area range from 0 to 60 ft (18.2 m) below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The Thimble Shoal Channel is 1,000 ft (305 m) wide, is authorized to a depth of -55 ft (16.8 m) below MLLW, and is maintained at a depth of 50 ft (15.2 m) MLLW.

The PTST project consists of the construction of a two lane tunnel parallel and to the west of the existing tunnel, connecting Portal Islands 1 and 2. A tunnel boring machine (TBM) will both excavate material and construct the tunnel as it progresses from Portal Island No. 1 to Portal Island No. 2. Precast concrete tunnel segments will be transported to the TBM for installation. The TBM will assemble the tunnel segments in-place as the tunnel is bored. After the tunnel structure is completed, final upland work for the PTST Project will include installation of the final roadway, lighting, finishes, mechanical systems, and other required internal systems for tunnel use and function. In addition, the existing fishing pier will be repaired and refurbished.

Descriptions of additional upland activities may be found in the application but such actions will not affect marine mammals and are not described here.

Proposed in-water activities during this IHA include the following and are shown in Table 1:

• Mooring piles: These are constructed of 28 36-inch steel pile piles on Portal Island No. 1 and 16 36-inch steel pile piles on Portal Island No. 2. Installation will be by vibratory hammer with a bubble curtain;

• Two engineered berms: Approximately 1,395 ft (425 m) in length for Portal Island No. requiring 316 36-inch steel interlocked pipe piles (209 on west side; 107 on east side) and approximately 1,354 ft (451 m) in length for Portal Island No. 2 requiring 338 piles of the same size and type (204 piles on west side; 134 on east side). Each berm will extend channelward from its portal island. Construction methods will include impact pile driving as well as using a down-the-hole to create holes in the substrate for the piles. Once the piles are advanced through an existing rock layer (made of rocks previously placed for the earlier tunnel) using DTH, they are driven to final grade via traditional impact driving methods. A special bubble curtain system encompasses the entire area (see Application Appendix A);

• Two temporary Omega trestles: 26 42-inch steel pipe piles on Portal Island No. 1 and 24 36 inch and 16 42-inch steel pipe piles on Portal Island No. 2. These trestles will be offset to the west side of each engineered berm, extending channelward from each island. Construction methods will include vibratory hammer with bubble curtain with impact pile driving only as needed. This will be the methods for all piles on Portal Island 1 and the 42-inch piles on Portal Island No. 2. The 36-inch piles on Portal Island No. 2 will be installed with DTH and an impact hammer with bubble curtain.

Table 1 provides a summary of the pile driving activities. Most in-water construction activities would involve multiple pile systems working simultaneously. There could be as many as three systems working simultaneously, with no more than two at a single island. Table 2 shows the potential simultaneous driving scenarios on each island and project-wide and provides best estimates of the days for each scenario.

In summary, the project period includes 252 days of pile driving and DTH activities for which incidental take authorization is requested.

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

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

Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the project area in Chesapeake Bay and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Atlantic SARs ( e.g., Hayes et al., 2021).

Humpback whales, bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and gray seal spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing take of these species. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in the CTJV's IHA application (see application, Table 4). North Atlantic right whale and fin whale could potentially occur in the area. However the spatial and temporal occurrence of these species is very rare, the species are readily observed, and the applicant would shut down pile driving if they enter the project area. Thus take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further.

The humpback whale is found worldwide in all oceans. In winter, humpback whales from waters off New England, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway migrate to mate and calve primarily in the West Indies, where spatial and genetic mixing among these groups occurs. For the humpback whale, NMFS defines a stock on the basis of feeding location, i.e., Gulf of Maine. However, our reference to humpback whales in this document refers to any individuals of the species that are found in the specific geographic region. These individuals may be from the same breeding population ( e.g., West Indies breeding population of humpback whales) but visit different feeding areas.

Based on photo-identification only 39 percent of individual humpback whales observed along the mid- and south Atlantic U.S. coast are from the Gulf of Maine stock (Barco et al., 2002). Therefore, the SAR abundance estimate underrepresents the relevant population, i.e., the West Indies breeding population.

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review (Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS established 14 DPSs with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The West Indies Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which consists of the whales whose breeding range includes the Atlantic margin of the Antilles from Cuba to northern Venezuela, and whose feeding range primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and western Greenland, was delisted. As described in Bettridge et al. (2015), the West Indies DPS has a substantial population size ( i.e., approximately 10,000; Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999; Bettridge et al., 2015), and appears to be experiencing consistent growth.

Humpback whales are the only large cetaceans that are likely to occur in the project area and could be found there at any time of the year. There has been a decline in whale sightings in the peak months since 2016/17; the distribution of whale sightings occur most frequently in the month of January through March (Aschettino et al., 2020).

There have been 33 humpback whale strandings recorded in Virginia between 1988 and 2013. Most of these strandings were reported from ocean facing beaches, but 11 were also within the Chesapeake Bay (Barco and Swingle, 2014). Strandings occurred in all seasons, but were most common in the spring. Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. The event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) with 150 strandings recorded, 7 of which occurred in or near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. More detailed information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast. Three previous UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

Humpback whales use the mid-Atlantic as a migratory pathway to and from the calving/mating grounds, but it may also be an important winter feeding area for juveniles. Since 1989, observations of juvenile humpbacks in the mid-Atlantic have been increasing during the winter months, peaking from January through March (Swingle et al., 1993). Biologists theorize that non-reproductive animals may be establishing a winter feeding range in the mid-Atlantic since they are not participating in reproductive behavior in the Caribbean.

The bottlenose dolphin occurs in temperate and tropical oceans throughout the world (Blaylock 1985). In the western Atlantic Ocean there are two distinct morphotypes of bottlenose dolphins, an offshore type that occurs along the edge of the continental shelf as well as an inshore type. The inshore morphotype can be found along the entire United States coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico, and typically occurs in waters less than 20 meters deep (NOAA Fisheries 2016a). Bottlenose dolphins found in Virginia are representative primarily of either the northern migratory coastal stock, southern migratory coastal stock, or the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System Stock (NNCES).

The northern migratory coastal stock is best defined by its distribution during warm water months when the stock occupies coastal waters from the shoreline to approximately the 20 m isobath between Assateague, Virginia, and Long Island, New York (Garrison et al., 2017). The stock migrates in late summer and fall and, during cold water months (best described by January and February), occupies coastal waters from approximately Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to the North Carolina/Virginia border. Historically, common bottlenose dolphins have been rarely observed during cold water months in coastal waters north of the North Carolina/Virginia border, and their northern distribution in winter appears to be limited by water temperatures. Overlap with the southern migratory coastal stock in coastal waters of northern North Carolina and Virginia is possible during spring and fall migratory periods, but the degree of overlap is unknown and it may vary depending on annual water temperature (Garrison et al., 2016). When the stock has migrated in cold water months to coastal waters from just north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to just south of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, it overlaps spatially with the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System (NNCES) Stock (Garrison et al., 2017).

The southern migratory coastal stock migrates seasonally along the coast between North Carolina and northern Florida (Garrison et al., 2017). During January-March, the southern migratory coastal stock appears to move as far south as northern Florida. During April-June, the stock moves back north past Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, where it overlaps, in coastal waters, with the NNCES stock (in waters ≤1 km from shore). During the warm water months of July-August, the stock is presumed to occupy coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague, Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay.

The NNCES stock is best defined as animals that occupy primarily waters of the Pamlico Sound estuarine system (which also includes Core, Roanoke, and Albemarle sounds, and the Neuse River) during warm water months (July-August). Members of this stock also use coastal waters (≤1 km from shore) of North Carolina from Beaufort north to Virginia Beach, Virginia, including the lower Chesapeake Bay. A community of NNCES dolphins are likely year-round Bay residents (Eric Patterson, pers. communication).

The harbor porpoise is typically found in colder waters in the northern hemisphere. In the western North Atlantic Ocean, harbor porpoises range from Greenland to as far south as North Carolina (Barco and Swingle, 2014). They are commonly found in bays, estuaries, and harbors less than 200 meters deep (NOAA Fisheries, 2016c). Harbor porpoises in the United States are made up of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock are concentrated in the Gulf of Maine in the summer, but are widely dispersed from Maine to New Jersey in the winter. South of New Jersey, harbor porpoises occur at lower densities. Migrations to and from the Gulf of Maine do not follow a defined route (NOAA Fisheries, 2016c).

Harbor porpoise occur seasonally in the winter and spring in small numbers near the project area. Strandings occur primarily on ocean facing beaches, but they occasionally travel into the Chesapeake Bay to forage and could occur in the project area (Barco and Swingle, 2014). Since 1999, stranding incidents have ranged widely from a high of 40 in 1999 to 2 in 2011, 2012, and 2016 (Barco et al., 2017). In most areas, harbor porpoise occur in small groups of just a few individuals.

The harbor seal occurs in arctic and temperate coastal waters throughout the northern hemisphere, including on both the east and west coasts of the United States. On the east coast, harbor seals can be found from the Canadian Arctic down to Georgia (Blaylock, 1985). Harbor seals occur year-round in Canada and Maine and seasonally (September-May) from southern New England to New Jersey (NOAA Fisheries, 2016d). The range of harbor seals appears to be shifting as they are regularly reported further south than they were historically. In recent years, they have established haulout sites in the Chesapeake Bay including on the portal islands of the CBBT (Rees et al., 2016, Jones et al., 2018).

Harbor seals are the most common seal in Virginia (Barco and Swingle, 2014). They can be seen resting on the rocks around the portal islands of the CBBT from December through April. Seal observation surveys conducted at the CBBT recorded 112 seals during the 2014/2015 season, 184 seals during the 2015/2016 season, 308 seals in the 2016/2017 season and 340 seals during the 2017/2018 season. They are primarily concentrated north of the project area at Portal Island No. 3 (Rees et al 2016; Jones et al. 2018).

Harbor seals are central-place foragers (Orians and Pearson, 1979) and tend to exhibit strong site fidelity within season and across years, generally forage close to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit specific foraging areas (Suryan and Harvey, 1998; Thompson et al., 1998). Harbor seals tend to forage at night and haul out during the day with a peak in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (London et al., 2001).

The gray seal occurs on both coasts of the Northern Atlantic Ocean and are divided into three major populations (NOAA Fisheries 2016b). The western north Atlantic stock occurs in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States, occasionally as far south as North Carolina. Gray seals inhabit rocky coasts and islands, sandbars, ice shelves and icebergs (NOAA Fisheries 2016b). In the United States, gray seals congregate in the summer to give birth at four established colonies in Massachusetts and Maine (NOAA Fisheries 2016b). From September through May, they disperse and can be abundant as far south as New Jersey. The range of gray seals appears to be shifting as they are regularly being reported further south than they were historically (Rees et al. 2016).

Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay. Only 15 gray seal strandings were documented in Virginia from 1988 through 2013 (Barco and Swingle, 2014). They are rarely found resting on the rocks around the portal islands of the CBBT from December through April alongside harbor seals. Seal observation surveys conducted at the CBBT recorded one gray seal in each of the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons while no gray seals were reported during the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons (Rees et al. 2016, Jones et al. 2018).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes ( i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4.

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

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Humpback whales are in the low-frequency hearing group, bottlenose dolphins are in the mid-frequency hearing group, harbor porpoises are in the high frequency hearing group, and both harbor and gray seals are in the phocid group.

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

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from impact and vibratory pile driving and removal and DTH. The effects of underwater noise from CTJV's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area.

The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (ANSI 1994, 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical ( e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound ( e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).

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

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

Three types of pile hammers would be used on this project: impact, vibratory, and DTH. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak Sound pressure Levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into to the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate ( i.e., it is similar to a “hammer drill” hand tool). Rock socketing involves using DTH equipment to create a hole in the bedrock inside which the pile is placed to give it lateral and longitudinal strength. The sounds produced by the DTH method contain both a continuous non-impulsive component from the drilling action and an impulsive component from the hammering effect. Therefore, we treat DTH systems as both impulsive and continuous, non-impulsive sound source types simultaneously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis )) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). The potential for TTS from impact pile driving exists. After exposure to playbacks of impact pile driving sounds (rate 2760 strikes/hour) in captivity, mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 minute exposure; recovery occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018).

Installing piles for this project requires impact pile driving. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic and does not include any Biologically Important Areas or other habitat of known importance. The area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities. The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is a small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the area. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources ( i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving and DTH) have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for pinnipeds and harbor porpoise because predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

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

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

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

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

CTJV's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory hammer and DTH) and impulsive (impact pile-driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable. However, CTJV recorded ambient sounds at the project site for over two weeks in 2019 ( https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/ctjvthimbleshoals_final_ssv_report_opr1_3-23.pdf ) and established that median ambient sounds levels were 122.78 dB. We have therefore agreed to use this value as the threshold for the continuous sources.

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

These thresholds are provided in Table 5. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

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

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

In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods (Table 6). Based on monitoring the sound source levels for some piles with versus without a bubble curtain in prior years of this project it was determined that the bubble curtain system used for this project provided a 6 db reduction in near field sound levels ( https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/ctjvthimbleshoals_final_ssv_report_opr1_3-23.pdf ) and we have agreed to apply this reduction in source levels for this proposed work.

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

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

CTJV determined underwater noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 160 dB RMS for impact driving at 136 m and the 122.78 dB rms threshold for vibratory driving at 5,598 m (Table 7). Distances to the 122.78 threshold for the various combinations of simultaneous DTH, vibratory pile driving, and/or impact pile driving range from 7,609 to 14,061 m (Table 7). It should be noted that based on the bathymetry and geography of the project area, sound will not reach the full distance of the harassment isopleths in all directions (see Application Appendix A).

When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile driving or removal and DTH using any of the methods discussed above, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. We used the User Spreadsheet to determine the Level A harassment isopleths. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet or models are reported in Table 1 and the resulting isopleths are reported in Table 7 for each of the construction methods and scenarios.

Because CTJV will use multiple simultaneous methods we need to account for the effect of this on sound levels. When two non-impulsive continuous noise sources, such as vibratory hammers or DTH, have overlapping sound fields, there is potential for higher sound levels than for non-overlapping sources. In these cases, the sources may be considered additive and combined using the rules in Table 8. For addition of two simultaneous non-impulsive continuous sources, the difference between the two sound source levels (SSLs) is calculated, and if that difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are added to the higher SSL; if difference is between 2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are added to the highest SSL; if the difference is between 4 to 9 dB, 1 dB is added to the highest SSL; and with differences of 10 or more dB, there is no addition.

For simultaneous usage of three or more continuous sound sources, the three overlapping sources with the highest SSLs are identified. Of the three highest SSLs, the lower two are combined using the above rules, then the combination of the lower two is combined with the highest of the three. For example, with overlapping isopleths from 24-, 36-, and 42-inch diameter steel pipe piles with SSLs of 161, 167, and 168 dB rms respectively, the 24- and 36-inch would be added together; given that 167−161 = 6 dB, then 1 dB is added to the highest of the two SSLs (167 dB), for a combined noise level of 168 dB. Next, the newly calculated 168 dB is added to the 42-inch steel pile with SSL of 168 dB. Since 168−168 = 0 dB, 3 dB is added to the highest value, or 171 dB in total for the combination of 24-, 36-, and 42-inch steel pipe piles (NMFS 2018b; WSDOT 2018).

Simultaneous use of two or more impact hammers or DTH does not require this sort of source level additions on its own. For impact hammering or DTH, it is unlikely that the two (or more) hammers would strike at the same exact instant, and therefore, the sound source levels will not be adjusted regardless of the distance between the hammers.

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. A summary of proposed take is in Table 9.

Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. Populations in the mid-Atlantic have been estimated for humpback whales off the coast of New Jersey with a density of 0.000130/km 2 (Whitt et al., 2015). In the Project area, a similar density may be expected. Aschettino et al. (2018) observed and tracked 12 individual humpback whales west of the CBBT. Based on these data, and the known movement of humpback whales from November through April at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and as used in the prior IHAs, CTJV is requesting and we are proposing take of a single humpback group every two months for the duration of in-water pile driving activities. There are 12 months of in-water construction anticipated during the proposed IHA. Using an average group size of two animals, pile driving activities over a 12-month period would result in 12 takes of humpback whale by Level B harassment.

No takes by Level A harassment are expected or proposed because we expect CTJV will effectively shutdown for low-frequency whales including humpbacks at the full extent of the Level A harassment zones.

In the previous IHA for this project we used seasonal density values documented by Engelhaupt et al. (2016). The Level B harassment area for each pile and driving type was multiplied by the appropriate seasonal density and the anticipated number of days of a specific activity per month number to derive a total number of takes for each construction project component. We use the same approach here. The number of calculated takes for the project is 86,656 (Table 10). There is insufficient information on relative abundance to apportion the takes precisely to the three stocks present in the area. We use the same approach used in the prior IHAs as well as in the nearby Hampton Roads Bridge and Tunnel project (86 FR 17458; April 2, 2021). Given that most of the NNCES stock are found in the Pamlico Sound estuarine system, NMFS will assume that no more than 250 of the authorized takes will be from this stock. Since members of the northern migratory coastal and southern migratory coastal stocks are thought to occur in or near the Bay in greater numbers, we will conservatively assume that no more than half of the remaining animals will accrue to either of these stocks. Additionally, a subset of these takes would likely be comprised of Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins, although the size of that population is unknown.

No takes by Level A harassment are expected or proposed because we expect CTJV will effectively shutdown for bottlenose dolphins at the full extent of the Level A harassment zones.

Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. Given that harbor porpoises are uncommon in the project area, this exposure analysis (as we did for the prior IHAs) assumes that there is a porpoise sighting once during every two months of operations which would equate to six sightings during the year. Assuming an average group size of two (Hansen et al., 2018; Elliser et al., 2018) results in a total of 12 estimated takes of porpoises over a year.

Harbor porpoises are members of the high-frequency hearing group which have Level A harassment isopleths as large as 2,318 m during DTH installation of 6 piles per day. In the previous IHA the shutdown zone was set at 100 m since harbor porpoises are cryptic, were thought to be somewhat common in the project area and are known to approach the shoreline. There was concern there would be excessive shutdowns that would extend the project and days of exposure of marine mammals to sound if the zones were larger. However, monitoring data to date suggests we can increase the shutdown zone to 200 m and still avoid an impracticable number of shutdowns. Therefore, we are proposing to implement a 200 m shutdown zone as a mitigation measure. Given the relatively large Level A harassment zones during impact driving and DTH, NMFS assumed in the previous IHAs that 40 percent of estimated porpoise takes would be by Level A harassment. The monitoring data on harbor porpoise take to date do not contradict this expectation. We therefore continue to assume this percentage, resulting in five proposed takes of porpoises by Level A harassment and seven takes by Level B harassment.

With new data on harbor seals since the initial IHAs, we are altering our estimation method for this species. The new method also aligns with what we have used in other recent nearby projects. The number of harbor seals expected to be present in the PTST project area was estimated using survey data for in-water and hauled out seals collected by the United States Navy at the portal islands from November 2014 through 2019 (Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2020). The survey showed a daily average seal count of 13.6. We rounded this up to 14 seals per day We multiplied that number by 95 in-water work days on Portal Island 1 and 111 work days on Portal Island 2 (the number of days of in-water activities when the seals are present, December to May) to estimate 2,884 takes of harbor seals.

The largest Level A harassment isopleth for phocid species is 1,042 meters which would occur during DTH of 6 large holes per day. In the previous IHA the shutdown zone was set at 15 m since seals are common in the project area and are known to approach the shoreline. There was concern there would be excessive shutdowns that would extend the project and days of exposure of marine mammals to sound if the zones were larger. However, monitoring data to date suggests we can increase the shutdown zone to 150 m and still avoid an impracticable number of shutdowns. Therefore, we are proposing to implement a shutdown zone of 150 m for harbor seals. As discussed above for harbor porpoises we assume that 40 percent of the exposed seals will occur within the Level A harassment zone and the remaining affected seals would result in Level B harassment takes. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 1,154 takes by Level A harassment and 1,730 takes by Level B harassment.

The number of gray seals expected to be present at the PTST project area was estimated using survey data collected by the U.S. Navy at the portal islands from 2014 through 2018 (Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2018). One seal was observed in February of 2015 and one seal was recorded in February of 2016, while no seals were observed at any other time. So the February rate of seal per day was estimated at 1.6. We rounded this to 2 animals per day and multiplied by the number of expected work days in February (20) to arrive at an estimate of 40 takes of gray seals per year.

The largest Level A harassment isopleth for phocid species is 1,042 meters which would occur during DTH of 6 large holes per day. In the previous IHA the shutdown zone was set at 15 m since seals are common in the project area and are known to approach the shoreline. There was concern there would be excessive shutdowns that would extend the project and days of exposure of marine mammals to sound if the zones were larger. However, monitoring data to date suggests we can increase the shutdown zone to 150 m and still avoid an impracticable number of shutdowns. Therefore, we are proposing to implement a shutdown zone of 150 m for gray seals. As above we estimate 40 percent of these takes could be by Level A harassment, so we propose to authorize 24 Level B harassment takes and 16 Level A harassment takes for gray seals.

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

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

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

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

The following mitigation measures are proposed in the IHA:

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

• Conduct training between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team and relevant CTJV staff prior to the start of all pile driving and DTH activity and when new personnel join the work, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood;

• Pile driving activity must be halted upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the harassment zone;

• CTJV will establish and implement the shutdown zones indicated in Table 11. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones typically vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group.

• Employ Protected Species Observers (PSOs) and establish monitoring locations as described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Section 5 of the IHA. The Holder must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions. For all pile driving and removal at least one PSO must be used. The PSO will be stationed as close to the activity as possible;

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

• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine the shutdown zones clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is made;

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

• CTJV must use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. A soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer;

• Use a bubble curtain during impact and vibratory pile driving and DTH in water depths greater than 3 m (10 ft) and ensure that it is operated as necessary to achieve optimal performance, and that no reduction in performance may be attributable to faulty deployment. At a minimum, CTJV must adhere to the following performance standards: The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling circumference for the full depth of the water column. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the substrate for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent substrate contact. No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full substrate contact. Air flow to the bubblers must be balanced around the circumference of the pile. For work with interlocking pipe piles for the berm construction a special 3-sided bubble curtain will be used (see Application Appendix A).

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

• Monitoring must be conducted by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in accordance with the following: PSOs must be independent ( i.e., not construction personnel) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field), or training. PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this IHA.

• PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals as described in the Section 5 of the IHA and the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed;

PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:

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

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

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

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

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

• CTJV must establish the following monitoring locations. For all pile driving and DTH activities, a minimum of one PSO must be assigned to the active pile driving or DTH location to monitor the shutdown zones and as much of the Level A and Level B harassment zones as possible. For activities in Table 7 above with Level B harassment zones larger than 6000 meters, an additional PSO must be stationed at Fort Story to monitor as much of the Level B harassment zone as possible.

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

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

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method ( i.e., impact or cutting) and the total equipment duration for cutting for each pile or total number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);

• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;

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

• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification of the animal(s) ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; Distance and bearing of each marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting); Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate); Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.); Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone; Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations ( e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity ( e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);

• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and

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

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

In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov ), NMFS and to Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, CTJV must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:

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

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

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

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

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

• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

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

Pile driving and removal and DTH activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal and DTH. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.

The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed Mitigation section).

The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 7 are based upon an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day. Considering the short duration to impact drive or DTH each pile and breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement throughout the area. If an animal was exposed to accumulated sound energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small ( e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and unlikely to result in impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or survival.

The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of serious injury or mortality. For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited, confined area (adjacent to the CBBT) of the stock's range. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein. Further the amount of take proposed to be authorized is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.

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

We acknowledge the existence and concern about the ongoing humpback whale UME. We have no evidence that this project is likely to result in vessel strikes (a major correlate of the UME) and marine construction projects in general involve the use of slow-moving vessels, such as tugs towing or pushing barges, or smaller work boats maneuvering in the vicinity of the construction project. These vessel types are not typically associated with vessel strikes resulting in injury or mortality. More generally, the UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts for humpback whales. Despite the UME, the West Indies breeding population or DPS, remains healthy.

In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' ability to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

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

• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;

• Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts and of low degree;

• No important habitat areas have been identified within the project area;

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

• CTJV would implement mitigation measures such as bubble curtains, soft-starts, and shut downs; and

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

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

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

The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of the estimated stock abundance for humpback whale, harbor porpoise, gray seal, harbor seal (in fact, take of individuals is less than 10 percent of the abundance of the affected stocks, see Table 7). This is likely a conservative estimate because they assume all takes are of different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.

There are three bottlenose dolphin stocks that could occur in the project area. Therefore, the estimated 86,656 dolphin takes by Level B harassment would likely be split among the western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal stock, western North Atlantic southern migratory coastal stock, and NNCES stock. Based on the stocks' respective occurrence in the area, NMFS estimated that there would be no more than 250 takes from the NNCES stock, representing 30.4 percent of that population, with the remaining takes split evenly between the northern and southern migratory coastal stocks. Based on consideration of various factors described below, we have determined the numbers of individuals taken would comprise less than one-third of the best available population abundance estimate of either coastal migratory stock. Detailed descriptions of the stocks' ranges have been provided in Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities.

Both the northern migratory coastal and southern migratory coastal stocks have expansive ranges and they are the only dolphin stocks thought to make broad-scale, seasonal migrations in coastal waters of the western North Atlantic. Given the large ranges associated with these two stocks it is unlikely that large segments of either stock would approach the project area and enter into the Chesapeake Bay. The majority of both stocks are likely to be found widely dispersed across their respective habitat ranges and unlikely to be concentrated in or near the Chesapeake Bay.

Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay and nearby offshore waters represent the boundaries of the ranges of each of the two coastal stocks during migration. The northern migratory coastal stock is found during warm water months from coastal Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island, New York. The stock migrates south in late summer and fall. During cold water months dolphins may be found in coastal waters from Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to the North Carolina/Virginia. During January-March, the southern migratory coastal stock appears to move as far south as northern Florida. From April to June, the stock moves back north to North Carolina. During the warm water months of July-August, the stock is presumed to occupy coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague, Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay. There is likely some overlap between the northern and southern migratory stocks during spring and fall migrations, but the extent of overlap is unknown.

The Bay and waters offshore of the mouth are located on the periphery of the migratory ranges of both coastal stocks (although during different seasons). Additionally, each of the migratory coastal stocks are likely to be located in the vicinity of the Bay for relatively short timeframes. Given the limited number of animals from each migratory coastal stock likely to be found at the seasonal migratory boundaries of their respective ranges, in combination with the short time periods (~2 months) animals might remain at these boundaries, it is reasonable to assume that takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of either of the migratory coastal stocks.

Both migratory coastal stocks likely overlap with the NNCES stock at various times during their seasonal migrations. The NNCES stock is defined as animals that primarily occupy waters of the Pamlico Sound estuarine system (which also includes Core, Roanoke, and Albemarle sounds, and the Neuse River) during warm water months (July-August). Members of this stock also use coastal waters (≤1 km from shore) of North Carolina from Beaufort north to Virginia Beach, Virginia, including the lower Chesapeake Bay. Comparison of dolphin photo-identification data confirmed that limited numbers of individual dolphins observed in Roanoke Sound have also been sighted in the Chesapeake Bay (Young, 2018). Like the migratory coastal dolphin stocks, the NNCES stock covers a large range. The spatial extent of most small and resident bottlenose dolphin populations is on the order of 500 km 2 , while the NNCES stock occupies over 8,000 km 2 (LeBrecque et al., 2015). Given this large range, it is again unlikely that a preponderance of animals from the NNCES stock would depart the North Carolina estuarine system and travel to the northern extent of the stock's range and enter into the Bay. However, recent evidence suggests that there is likely a small resident community of NNCES dolphins of indeterminate size that inhabits the Chesapeake Bay year-round (Eric Patterson, Personal Communication).

Many of the dolphin observations in the Bay are likely repeated sightings of the same individuals. The Potomac-Chesapeake Dolphin Project has observed over 1,200 unique animals since observations began in 2015. Re-sightings of the same individual can be highly variable. Some dolphins are observed once per year, while others are highly regular with greater than 10 sightings per year (Mann, Personal Communication). Similarly, using available photo-identification data, Engelhaupt et al. (2016) determined that specific individuals were often observed in close proximity to their original sighting locations and were observed multiple times in the same season or same year. Ninety-one percent of re-sighted individuals (100 of 110) in the study area were recorded less than 30 km from the initial sighting location. Multiple sightings of the same individual would considerably reduce the number of individual animals that are taken by harassment. Furthermore, the existence of a resident dolphin population in the Bay would increase the percentage of dolphin takes that are actually re-sightings of the same individuals.

Monitoring reports and data from prior years of the project work have recorded less than 10 level B takes of bottlenose dolphins in over 100 days of monitored pile driving.

In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination regarding the incidental take of small numbers of a species or stock:

• The take of marine mammal stocks authorized for take comprises less than 10 percent of any stock abundance (with the exception of bottlenose dolphin stocks);

• Potential bottlenose dolphin takes in the project area are likely to be allocated among three distinct stocks;

• Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the project area have extensive ranges and it would be unlikely to find a high percentage of any one stock concentrated in a relatively small area such as the project area or the Bay;

• The Bay represents the migratory boundary for each of the specified dolphin stocks and it would be unlikely to find a high percentage of any stock concentrated at such boundaries;

• Monitoring from prior years found less than 10 level B takes of bottlenose dolphin in over 100 days of monitored pile driving; and

• Many of the takes would be repeats of the same animal and it is likely that a number of individual animals could be taken 10 or more times.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

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

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

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

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the CTJV to conduct the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project in Virginia Beach, Virginia for 1 year from the date of issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel project. We also request at this time comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.

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

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

• The request for renewal must include the following:

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

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

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

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. By letter dated September 28, 2021, EPA Region IX notified CARB that the budgets in the South Coast 2006 PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP) post-attainment milestone year of 2020 are adequate. 1 The finding is available at EPA's conformity website: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/conformity-adequacy-review-region-9. We announced the availability of the South Coast 2006 PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan and related 2020 budgets on the EPA's transportation conformity website on April 16, 2021. We received no comments in response to the adequacy review posting. The adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 176(c). The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. 2 Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final rule. 3 We further described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004 final rule  4 and we used the information in these resources in making the adequacy determination announced in this notice.

The EPA approved the South Coast 2006 PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan on February 12, 2019. 5 In that action, we approved the budgets for the 2017 RFP year and the 2019 attainment year. We also approved a trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that allows future decreases in NO X from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-road increases in PM 2.5 , based on specified trading ratios. 6 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) indicated that the trading mechanism was included in the 2016 AQMP for approval by the EPA for use by SCAG in conformity determinations for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for analysis years after the attainment year of 2019. 7

Consistent with the requirements set out in our implementation rule for the PM 2.5 NAAQS, 8 we did not act on the RFP budget for the post-attainment year of 2020 when we approved the South Coast 2006 PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan. As we noted in our proposed approval of the South Coast 2006 PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan, it is not necessary to demonstrate conformity for 2020 or to use the 2020 budgets until such time as the area fails to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On September 16, 2020, the EPA determined that the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin had failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by its December 31, 2019 attainment date. 9 Because of that failure to attain, we evaluated the submitted budgets for 2020 in the South Coast 2006 PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan to determine whether they are adequate for conformity purposes.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e), within two years of the effective date of this notice, SCAG and the DOT will need to demonstrate conformity. For demonstrating conformity to the budgets in this plan, the on-road motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan or program should be projected consistently with the budgets in this plan, i.e., by taking the emissions results derived from CARB's EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) and then rounding the emissions up to the nearest ton. The previously approved trading mechanism may be used in connection with the new budgets.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

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

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

Abstract: Creating a modern, streamlined and responsive customer experience means: Raising government-wide customer experience to the average of the private sector service industry; developing indicators for high-impact Federal programs to monitor progress towards excellent customer experience and mature digital services; and providing the structure (including increasing transparency) and resources to ensure customer experience is a focal point for agency leadership. To support this, OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 established government-wide standards for mature customer experience organizations in government and measurement. To enable Federal programs to deliver the experience taxpayers deserve, they must undertake three general categories of activities: Conduct ongoing customer research, gather and share customer feedback, and test services and digital products.

These data collection efforts may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or may consist of mixed methods. Additionally, data may be collected via a variety of means, including but not limited to electronic or social media, direct or indirect observation ( i.e., in person, video and audio collections), interviews, questionnaires, surveys, and focus groups. EPA will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions or responses. Steps will be taken to ensure anonymity of respondents in each activity covered by this request.

The results of the data collected will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will include the creation of personas, customer journey maps, and reports and summaries of customer feedback data and user insights. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on performance.gov to help build transparency and accountability of Federal programs to the customers they serve.

EPA will collect this information by electronic means when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. EPA may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Collections will be targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future. For the purposes of this request, “customers” are individuals, businesses, and organizations that interact with a Federal Government agency or program, either directly or via a Federal contractor. This could include individuals or households; businesses or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal governments; Federal government; and Universities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 2,001,550 (total).

Frequency of response: Varies.

Total estimated burden: 101,125 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

T otal estimated cost: $0 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: This is a new collection.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone and webform. For further information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744.

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

Abstract: This ICR covers the usage of TANAs to solicit feedback from members of the affected community in order to determine how the community is receiving technical information about a Superfund remedial or removal site; whether the community requires additional assistance in order to understand and respond to site-related technical information; and whether there are organizations in the community that are interested or involved in site-related issues and capable of acting as an appropriate conduit for technical assistance services to the affected community. EPA estimates that for each TANA it conducts, 20 individuals are interviewed per site via direct face-to-face interaction, phone, or virtual call at five sites, with an approximate total of 100 individuals interviewed each year. Responses to the collection of information are voluntary and the names of respondents will be protected by the Privacy Act. The information obtained from each TANA will help ensure the community's needs for technical information assistance are defined as early in the remedial/removal process as possible and enable meaningful community involvement in the Superfund decision-making process. Additionally, the TANA process produces a blueprint for designing a coordinated effort to meet the community's needs for additional technical assistance while minimizing the overlap of services provided.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Respondents to this ICR are local, state, and tribal government officials, potentially responsible party (PRP) representatives, community organizations, businesses and individuals who may be impacted by a Superfund site or a removal action lasting 120 days or longer. These community members voluntarily participate in community involvement activities throughout the remedial phase of the Superfund process. SIC Codes are OSHA's Standard Industrial Classification System used to identify different groups. Local/state governments are categorized as Division J: Public Administration, Major Group 95: Administration of Environmental Quality, subgroup 9511: Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management. The other respondents, community members, do not have a SIC Code as they do not constitute an industry.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 100. (20 per TANA at five sites).

Frequency of response: Once during either a removal cleanup lasting 120 days or longer or a remedial cleanup of a site. Each TANA interview is expected to last approximately one hour in duration.

Total estimated burden: 100 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

T otal estimated cost: $2,587 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: A decrease of 450 hours in the total respondent burden hours is estimated during the three-year period as compared to the last collection period. The number of individual TANAs sharply declined, from 25 to five per year, thus decreasing the overall number of respondents voluntarily participating in this information request.

Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that the EPA is deviating from its typical approach for public hearings because the President has declared a national emergency. Due to the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.

To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If requested, the virtual hearing will be held on October 28, 2021. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/alternative-means-emission-limitation-leak-detection-and-repair.