In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) intention to request an extension for—and a revision to the Advisory Committee and Research and Promotion Background Information collection form. The primary objective is to determine the qualifications, suitability and availability of a candidate to serve on advisory committees and/or research and promotion boards.

Title: Advisory Committee and Research and Promotion Background Information.

OMB Number: 0505-0001.

Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 2022.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection form document.

Abstract: The primary objective is to determine the qualifications, suitability and availability of a candidate to serve on advisory committees and/or research and promotion boards. The information will be used to both conduct background clearances on the candidates and to compile annual reports regarding membership.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response.

Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,500.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One (1).

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 5,500.

Comments 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.

Comments may be sent to Ms. Cikena Reid, Committee Management Officer, the White House Liaison Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, the Whitten Building, Room 536-A, Washington, DC 20250; fax: 202-720-9286; or by email: cikena.reid@usda.gov. Comments must be postmarked 10 business days prior to the deadline to ensure timely receipt.

All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

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.

List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [12/1/2021 through 1/19/2022] Firm name Firm address Date

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.

Petitions

On December 30, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain steel nails (steel nails) from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) filed in proper form on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of steel nails. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of steel nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. 2

Between January 4 and 13, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires and phone calls. 3 The petitioner filed responses to the supplemental questionnaires on January 10 and 14, 2022. 4

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the steel nail industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations. 5

Because the Petitions were filed on December 30, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for these LTFV investigations is October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

The products covered by these investigations are steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

On January 4, 7, and 13, 2022, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 6 On January 10 and 14, 2022, the petitioner revised the scope. 7 The description of the merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 8, 2022, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 18, 2022, which is ten calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of these investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 10 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date on which it is due.

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of steel nails to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe steel nails, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 8, 2022, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 18, 2021, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the LTFV investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 11 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 12

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 13 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel nails, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 14

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided the 2020 production of the domestic like product for the U.S. producers that support the Petitions. 15 The petitioner estimated the production of the domestic like product for the remaining U.S. producers of steel nails based on its knowledge of the industry and production capabilities and market shares of U.S. producers. 16 The petitioner then compared the total production of the supporters of the Petitions to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. 17 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 18

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions. 19 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 22 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 23

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 24

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; decline in U.S. shipments and production and low level capacity utilization; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; adverse impact on employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and declining profitability. 25 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 26

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate these LTFV investigations of imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific AD Initiation Checklists.

For India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, the petitioner established export prices (EPs) based on the average unit value of publicly available import data. To calculate an ex-factory, net EP, the petitioner then deducted expenses associated with inland freight and brokerage and handling costs incurred within each respective country. 27

For India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, the petitioner stated it was unable to obtain home-market or third-country prices for steel nails to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for each country, the petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). 29

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 30 For India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, in calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioner relied on its own production experience and input consumption rates as a U.S. steel nail producer, valued using publicly available information applicable to each respective subject country. 31 With respect to India and Sri Lanka, in calculating selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the petitioner relied on the 2020 financial statements of an Indian steel nails producer. 32 For Thailand and Turkey, in calculating selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the petitioner relied upon the 2020 financial statements of producer of comparable merchandise domiciled in each respective subject country. 33

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel nails concerning each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) India—66.53 to 99.43 percent; (2) Sri Lanka—35.50 to 104.13 percent; (3) Thailand—64.44 to 65.87 percent; and (4) Turkey—28.94 to 33.03 percent. 34

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating these LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 11 companies in India, five companies in Sri Lanka, five companies in Thailand, and six companies in Turkey, as producers and/or exporters of steel nails. 35

Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event that Commerce determines that the number of exporters or producers in any individual case is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents in that case based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.

On January 14, 2022, Commerce released CBP data on imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within three business days after the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. 36 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the AD Petitions have been provided to the governments of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the AD Petitions to each exporter named in the AD Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the AD Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and/or Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 37 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 38 Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  39 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 40 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning factual information prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 41

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 42 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 43 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by the filing a letter of appearance as discussed). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 44

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On December 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain steel nails (steel nails) from India, the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), filed in proper form on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of steel nails. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. 2

Between January 4 and 18, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. 3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests between January 10 and 19, 2022. 4

The purpose of this collection is to gather information requested on behalf of the NIST Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program for both Gaithersburg and Boulder locations. Students participating in the program receive a fellowship which includes lodging arranged by the agency. To coordinate the lodging, information is submitted by accepted students which require lodging during the program dates. The student information is utilized for roommate matching based on gender and common interests. The information includes: Identification of accepted laboratory, housing requirement (yes or no), first name, last name, dates requesting housing, gender, roommate identification, name of academic institution of enrollment, preferences (night owl, early bird, neatness, smoking,), and special requests.

The information will be collected electronically. Accepted students will receive a link to the Housing Application administered on Google Documents (NIST approved platform). The application must be completed by a required deadline. The provided link will be inactive after the deadline.

OMB Control Number: 0693-0084.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission, extension of a current information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 110 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain benefits.

Legal Authority:

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

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

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes multiple studies to investigate how physiology supports and limits hypoxia tolerance in diving marine mammals. The applicant proposes to take 30 adult Weddell seals at an isolated dive hole and 36 free-ranging adult Weddell seals in Erebus Bay, Antarctica over two field seasons, with up to two unintentional mortalities proposed annually. Animals may be taken via capture, restraint, transport, anesthesia and sedation, external and internal instrumentation, biological sampling, marking, weighing, and ultrasound. The number of times an animal may receive a specific procedure is dependent on which of the four experimental groups it is assigned. Animals transported to remote breathing holes for dive tests will be held at the location for approximately six days before being returned to their original location of capture. Samples collected during these studies may be exported to the United States for analysis. While only 2 years of field study would be authorized, the permit would remain valid for 5 years to allow additional time for sample importation.

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

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

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 notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On July 15, 2021 NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the reconstruction of Pier 3 at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia. The application was deemed adequate and complete on October 27, 2021. Subsequently, the Navy provided a revised and updated version of the application, which was determined to be adequate and complete on January 10, 2022. The Navy's request is for take of a small number of five species by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. NMFS previously issued IHAs to the Navy for similar work (86 FR 48986; September 1, 2021; 85 FR 33139; June 01, 2020; 83 FR 30406; June 28, 2018). This proposed IHA would cover one year of a larger project for which the Navy plans to submit a request for a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for additional work occurring from April 1, 2023 through December 30, 2026. The larger 4-year project involves the demolition and reconstruction of a submarine pier at Naval Station Norfolk.

The Navy is proposing the replacement of Pier 3 at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. The existing Pier 3 would be completely demolished and a new Pier 3 will be constructed immediately north of the existing location (See Figure 1). Work at Pier 4, Pier 3T and the bulkheads associated with Pier 3 and 3T (CEP-175, CEP-176, and CEP-102) will also occur (See Figure 1). The proposed project includes impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal and drilling. Drilling is considered a continuous noise source, similar to vibratory pile driving. Sounds resulting from pile driving and removal may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment in the form of auditory injury or behavioral harassment. The in-water construction period for the proposed action will occur over 12 months.

The proposed IHA would be effective from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. Approximately 280 days will be required for the project. The Navy plans to conduct all work during daylight hours.

Pier 3 at NAVSTA Norfolk is located at the confluence of the Elizabeth River, James River, Nansemond River, LaFeyette, Willoughby Bay, and Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2).

Human generated sound is a significant contributor to the ambient acoustic environment surrounding NAVSTA Norfolk, as it is located in close proximity to shipping channels as well as several Port of Virginia facilities with frequent, noise-producing vessel traffic that, altogether, have an annual average of 1,788 vessel calls (Port of Virginia, 2021). Other sources of human-generated underwater sound not specific to naval installations include sounds from echo sounders on commercial and recreational vessels, industrial ship noise, and noise from recreational boat engines. Additionally, on average, maintenance dredging of the navigation channel occurs every 2 years (USACE and Port of Virginia, 2018).

The proposed project involves the replacement of Pier 3 at the NAVSTA waterfront. The existing Pier 3 would be completely demolished and a new Pier 3 would be constructed immediately north of the existing location. Additional work associated with the replacement of Pier 3 includes the outfitting of Pier 4 for temporary submarine berthing, demolition of Pier 3T, construction at the CEP-176 and the CEP-175 bulkheads, and beginning of construction of the CEP-102 bulkhead and relieving platform. The project includes six phases that will be completed under this proposed IHA and the future requested LOA. A preliminary work schedule and activity details for the work under this proposed IHA are provided in Table 1. In water construction activities and specific project phases that would occur under this IHA are described in more detail below:

Pile Removal —Piles are anticipated to be removed with a vibratory hammer, however direct pull or clamshell removal may be used depending on site conditions. Since vibratory removal is the loudest activity, to be precautionary, we assume all piles will be removed with a vibratory hammer. Pile removal methods are described as follows:

• Vibratory Extraction—This method uses a barge-mounted crane with a vibratory driver to remove all pile types. The vibratory driver is suspended from a crane by a cable and positioned on top of the pile to loosen the pile from the sediment. Once the pile is released from the sediments, the crane continues to raise the driver and pull the pile from the sediment and place it on a barge;

• Clamshell—In cases where a vibratory driver is not possible ( e.g., when the pile may break apart from clamp force and vibration), a clamshell apparatus may be lowered from the crane in order to remove pile stubs. The use and size of the clamshell bucket would be minimized to reduce the potential for generating turbidity during removal; and

• Direct Pull—Pile may also be removed by wrapping piles with a cable or chain and pulling them directly from the sediment with a crane. This method is based on site conditions.

Pile Installation —The proposed pile installation/removal would occur using land-based or barge-mounted cranes and vary in method based on pile type. Concrete piles would be installed using an impact hammer. Steel piles and polymeric piles would be installed using an impact hammer or vibratory hammer. Drilling may also occur for the installation of concrete bearing piles at CEP-102, concrete fender piles, and polymeric fender piles. No concurrent activity will occur.

Outfitting Pier 4 —In order to support the temporary berthing of submarines, Pier 4 fender support piles will be replaced with stronger, more structurally sound fender piles. On the south side of Pier 4 (see Figure 1), 36, 14-inch timber piles will be removed with a vibratory hammer and 36, 24-inch precast square concrete piles will be installed with an impact hammer with drilling used as necessary.

Demolition of Pier 3T —The existing Pier 3T will be completely demolished and will not be replaced. Demolition of Pier 3T will include the removal of 286, 18-inch square concrete piles and 87, 14-inch timber piles using a vibratory hammer.

CEP-175 Bulkhead —Once Pier 3T is demolished, a new fender system will be constructed at CEP-175 where Pier 3T previously abutted the bulkhead (see Figure 1). To accomplish this, nine, 13-inch polymeric fender piles would be installed to align with the existing fender system. Piles will be installed with either impact or vibratory hammers, with drilling used as necessary.

Pier 3 Construction —The new Pier 3 will be constructed immediately north of and adjacent to the current Pier 3 (see Figure 1). The new pier will consist of a cast in place concrete deck supported by 530, 24-inch square concrete bearing piles. A fender system will be constructed on the north and south sides of the pier consisting of 392, 24-inch square concrete and 18, 18-inch steel pipe fender piles for berthing submarines. The fender system piles would not be installed in year one and therefore are not analyzed in this proposed IHA.

CEP-176 Bulkhead —The wharf upgrade will consist of a new steel combi-wall bulkhead and relieving platform on the landside of the bulkhead that serves as the bulkhead anchoring system. The bulkhead will be constructed using 109, 42-inch steel pipe bearing piles and 221, 28-inch steel sheet piles. The steel pipe pile/steel sheet pile combination will be driven waterside of the existing deteriorated concrete bulkhead and will be installed with either an impact or vibratory hammer. Once Pier 3T is demolished and the new CEP-176 bulkheads are completed, dredging would occur along the face of CEP-176 bulkhead to allow for safe berthing and maneuvering. As described above, the project area is a noisy, industrial area. Noise created during dredging operations may exceed harassment thresholds, but is similar to noise produced through other common activities occurring at the project location and is unlikely to be distinguishable from the background noise created by ongoing industrial activity. Therefore, the likelihood of harassing marine mammals is reduced and no incidental takes are expected as a result of the dredging activity. Dredging and disposal activities are not discussed further in this document.

CEP-102 Bulkhead —Repairs to the CEP-102 bulkhead will begin with the demolition of a portion of the existing fender pile system prior to new construction of Pier 3 and the CEP-176 bulkhead. Fender piles to be removed include: 22, 18-inch square concrete fender piles, 9, 14-inch timber fender piles, and 4, 13-inch polymeric piles. All piles will be removed by use of a vibratory hammer. A steel combi-wall bulkhead and a reinforced concrete relieving platform would then be constructed in two phases, with a small, approximately 50-foot portion, constructed concurrently with construction of the new Pier 3. Noise producing sources will not be used simultaneously, however. The portion of the CEP-102 combi-wall that will be constructed under this proposed IHA consists of 4, 42-inch steel pipe bearing piles and 8, 28-inch steel sheet piles that will be installed with either an impact or vibratory hammer. Eleven, 24-inch precast concrete fender piles will also be installed using an impact hammer. Drilling may be utilized as needed prior to the use of the impact hammer.

Table 1 outlines a preliminary work schedule for the demolition and reconstruction of Pier 3 at NAVSTA. Some project elements will use only one method of pile installation ( e.g., vibratory OR drilling/impact OR impact only), but all methods have been analyzed. The method of installation will be determined by the construction crew once demolition and installation has begun. Therefore, the total take estimate reflects the worst case scenario for the proposed project.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's 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 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 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 and Gulf of Mexico SARs ( e.g., Hayes et al., 2021). All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2021 draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021).

As indicated above, all five species (with seven managed stocks) in Table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. While North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ), minke whales ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata acutorostrata ), and fin whales ( Balaenoptera physalus ) have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these whales is far outside the proposed area for this project and take is not expected to occur. Therefore, they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided below.

Based on sighting data and passive acoustic studies, the North Atlantic right whale could occur off the coast of Virginia year-round (Department of Navy (DoN) 2009; Salisbury et al., 2006). They have also been reported seasonally off Virginia during migrations in the spring, fall, and winter (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CeTAP) 1981, 1982; Niemeyer et al., 2008; Kahn et al., 2009; McLellan 2011b, 2013; Mallette et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018a; Palka et al., 2017; Cotter 2019). Right whales are known to frequent the coastal waters of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (Knowlton et al., 2002) and the area is a seasonal management area (November 1-April 30) mandating reduced ship speeds out to approximately 20 nautical miles (37 kilometers [km]); however, the project area is further inside the Bay and away from this area.

North Atlantic right whales have stranded in Virginia, one each in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005; three during winter (February and March) and one in summer (September) Costidis et al., 2017, 2019). In January 2018, a dead, entangled North Atlantic right whale was observed floating over 60 miles (96.6 km) offshore of Virginia Beach (Costidis et al., 2019). All North Atlantic right whale strandings in Virginia waters have occurred on ocean-facing beaches along Virginia Beach and the barrier islands seaward of the lower Delmarva Peninsula (Costidis et al., 2017). Right whales are not expected to occur in the project area, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize take of this species.

Fin whales have been sighted off Virginia (CeTAP 1981, 1982; Swingle et al., 1993, DoN 2009; Hyrenback et al., 2012; Barco 2013; Mallette et al., 2016a, b; Aschettino et al., 2018; Engelhaupt et al., 2017, 2018; Cotter 2019), and in the Chesapeake Bay (Bailey 1948; CeTAP 1981, 1982; Morgan et al., 2002; Barco 2013; Aschettino et al., 2018); however, they are not likely to occur in the project area. Sightings have been documented around the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) during the winter months (CeTAP 1981, 1982; Barco 2013; Aschettino et al., 2018).

Eleven fin whale strandings have occurred off Virginia from 1988 to 2016 mostly during the winter months of February and March, followed by a few in the spring and summer months (Costidis et al., 2017). Six of the strandings occurred in the Chesapeake Bay (three on eastern shore; three on western shore) with the remaining five occurring on the Atlantic coast (Costidis et al., 2017. Documented strandings near the project area have occurred: February 2012, a dead fin whale washed ashore on Oceanview Beach in Norfolk (Swingle et al., 2013); December 2017, a live fin whale stranded on a shoal in Newport News and died at the site (Swingle et al., 2018); February 2014, a dead fin whale stranded on a sand bar in Pocomoke Sound near Great Fox Island, Accomack (Swingle et al., 2015); and, March 2007, a dead fin whale near Craney Island, in the Elizabeth River, in Norfolk (Barco 2013). Only stranded fin whales have been documented in the project area; no free-swimming fin whales have been observed. Fin whales are not expected to occur in the project area, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize take of this species.

Minke whales have been sighted off Virginia (CeTAP 1981, 1982; Hyrenbach et al., 2012; Barco 2013; Mallette et al., 2016a, b; McLellan 2017; Engelhaupt et al., 2017, 2018; Cotter 2019), near the CBBT (Aschettino et al., 2018), but sightings in the project area are from strandings (Jensen and Silber 2004; Barco 2013; DoN 2009). In August 1994, a ship strike incident involved a minke whale in Hampton Roads (Jensen and Silber 2004; Barco 2013). It was reported that the animal was struck offshore and was carried inshore on the bow of a ship (DoN 2009). Twelve strandings of minke whales have occurred in Virginia waters from 1988 to 2016 (Costidis et al., 2017). There have been six minke whale stranding from 2017 through 2020 in Virginia waters. Minke whales are not expected to occur in the project area, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize take of this species.

Humpback whales are 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. NMFS defines a humpback whale stock on the basis of feeding location, i.e., Gulf of Maine. However, our reference to humpback whales in this document refers to any individual of the species that are found in the species 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 is an underrepresentation of 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. Humpback whales in the project area are expected to be from the West Indies DPS, which consists of the whales whose breeding range includes the Atlantic margin of the Antilles from Cuba to northern Venezuela, and whose feeding range primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and western Greenland. This DPS is not ESA listed. Bettridge et al., (2003) estimated the size of the West Indies DPS at 12,312 (95% CI 8,688-15,954) whales in 2004-05, which is consistent with previous population estimates of approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999) and the increasing trend for the West Indies DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015).

Although humpback whales are migratory between feeding areas and calving areas, individual variability in the timing of migrations may result in the presence of individuals in high-latitude areas throughout the year (Straley, 1990). Records of humpback whales off the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast (New Jersey to North Carolina) from January through March suggest these waters may represent a supplemental winter feeding ground used by juvenile and mature humpback whales of U.S. and Canadian North Atlantic stocks (LaBrecque et al., 2015).

Humpback whales are most likely to occur near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters of Virginia Beach between January and March; however, they could be found in the area year-round, based on shipboard sighting and stranding data (Barco and Swingle, 2014; Aschettino et al., 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018). Photo-identification data support the repeated use of the mid-Atlantic region by individual humpback whales. Results of the vessel surveys show site fidelity in the survey area for some individuals and a high level of occurrence within shipping channels—an important high-use area by both the Navy and commercial traffic (Aschettino et al., 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018). Nearshore surveys conducted in early 2015 reported 61 individual humpback whale sightings, and 135 individual humpback whale sightings in late 2015 through May 2016 (Aschettino et al., 2016). Subsequent surveys confirmed the occurrence of humpback whales in the nearshore survey area: 248 individuals were detected in 2016-2017 surveys (Aschettino et al., 2017), 32 individuals were detected in 2017-2018 surveys (Aschettino et al., 2018), and 80 individuals were detected in 2019 surveys (Aschettino et al., 2019). Sightings in the Hampton Roads area in the vicinity of NAVSTA Norfolk were reported in nearshore surveys and through tracking of satellite-tagged whales in 2016, 2017 and 2019. The numbers of whales detected, most of which were juveniles, reflect the varying level of survey effort and changes in survey objectives from year to year, and do not indicate abundance trends over time. Most recently, the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project (HRBT), which spanned from September 2020 through July 10, 2021 did not observe any humpback whales near the project site between Norfolk and Hampton, VA over 197 days of observations (Hampton Roads Connector Partners (HRCP), Unpublished ).

Along the U.S. East Coast and northern Gulf of Mexico, the bottlenose dolphin stock structure is well studied. There are currently 53 management stocks identified by NMFS in the western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, including oceanic, coastal, and estuarine stocks (Hayes et al., 2017; Waring et al., 2015, 2016).

There are two morphologically and genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin morphotypes (distinguished by physical differences) described as coastal and offshore forms (Duffield et al., 1983; Duffield, 1986). The offshore form is larger in total length and skull length, and has wider nasal bones than the coastal form. Both inhabit waters in the western North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (Curry and Smith, 1997; Hersh and Duffield, 1990; Mead and Potter, 1995) along the U.S. Atlantic coast. The coastal morphotype of bottlenose dolphin is continuously distributed along the Atlantic coast south of Long Island, New York, around the Florida peninsula, and along the Gulf of Mexico coast. This type typically occurs in waters less than 25 meters deep (Waring et al., 2015). The range of the offshore bottlenose dolphin includes waters beyond the continental slope (Kenney, 1990), and offshore bottlenose dolphins may move between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic (Wells et al., 1999).

Two coastal stocks are likely to be present in the project area: Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal stock and Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stock. Additionally, the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System stock may occur in the project area.

Bottlenose dolphins are the most abundant marine mammal along the Virginia coast and within the Chesapeake Bay, typically traveling in groups of 2 to 15 individuals, but occasionally in groups of over 100 individuals (Engelhaupt et al., 2014; 2015; 2016). Bottlenose dolphins of the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal stock winter along the coast of North Carolina and migrate as far north as Long Island, New York, in the summer. They are rarely found north of North Carolina in the winter (NMFS, 2018a). The Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stock occurs in waters of southern North Carolina from October to December, moving south during winter months and north to North Carolina during spring months. During July and August, the Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stock is presumed to occupy coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to the eastern shore of Virginia (NMFS, 2018a). It is possible that these animals also occur inside the Chesapeake Bay and in nearshore coastal waters. The North Carolina Estuarine System stock dolphins may also occur in the Chesapeake Bay during July and August (NMFS, 2018a).

Vessel surveys conducted along coastal and offshore transects from NAVSTA Norfolk to Virginia Beach in most months from August 2012 to August 2015 reported bottlenose dolphins throughout the survey area, including the vicinity of NAVSTA Norfolk (Engelhaupt et al., 2014; 2015; 2016). The final results from this project confirmed earlier findings that bottlenose dolphins are common in the study area, with highest densities in the coastal waters in summer and fall months. However, bottlenose dolphins do not completely leave this area during colder months, with approximately 200-300 individuals still present in winter and spring months, which is commonly referred to as the Chesapeake Bay resident dolphin population (Engelhaupt et al., 2016).

Harbor porpoises inhabit cool temperate-to-subpolar waters, often where prey aggregations are concentrated (Watts and Gaskin, 1985). Thus, they are frequently found in shallow waters, most often near shore, but they sometimes move into deeper offshore waters. Harbor porpoises are rarely found in waters warmer than 63 degrees Fahrenheit (17 degrees Celsius) (Read 1999) and closely follow the movements of their primary prey, Atlantic herring (Gaskin 1992).

In the western North Atlantic, harbor porpoise range from Cumberland Sound on the east coast of Baffin Island, southeast along the eastern coast of Labrador to Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then southwest to about 34 degrees North on the coast of North Carolina (Waring et al., 2016). During winter (January to March), intermediate densities of harbor porpoises can be found in waters off New Jersey to North Carolina, and lower densities are found in waters off New York to New Brunswick, Canada (Waring et al., 2016). Harbor porpoises sighted off the mid-Atlantic during winter include porpoises from other western North Atlantic populations (Rosel et al., 1999). There does not appear to be a temporally coordinated migration or a specific migratory route to and from the Bay of Fundy region (Waring et al., 2016). During fall (October to December) and spring (April to June), harbor porpoises are widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine, with lower densities farther north and south (LaBrecque et al., 2015).

Based on stranding reports, passive acoustic recorders, and shipboard surveys, harbor porpoise occur in coastal waters primarily in winter and spring months, but there is little information on their presence in the Chesapeake Bay. They do not appear to be abundant in the NAVSTA Norfolk area in most years, but this is confounded by wide variations in stranding occurrences over the past decade. In the recent HRBT project, zero harbor porpoises were observed near the project area (HRCP, Unpublished ).

The Western North Atlantic stock of harbor seals occurs in the project area. Harbor seal distribution along the U.S. Atlantic coast has shifted in recent years, with an increased number of seals reported from southern New England to the mid-Atlantic region (DiGiovanni et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2017; Kenney R.D. 2019; Waring et al., 2016). Regular sightings of seals in Virginia have become a common occurrence in winter and early spring (Costidis et al., 2019). Winter haulout sites for harbor seals have been documented in the Chesapeake Bay at the CBBT, on the Virginia Eastern Shore, and near Oregon Inlet, North Carolina (Waring et al., 2016; Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2018).

Harbor seals regularly haul out on rocks around the portal islands of the CBBT and on mud flats on the nearby southern tip of the Eastern Shore from December through April (Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2018). Seals captured in 2018 on the Eastern Shore and tagged with satellite-tracked tags that lasted from 2 to 5 months spent at least 60 days in Virginia waters before departing the area. All tagged seals returned regularly to the capture site while in Virginia waters, but individuals utilized offshore and Chesapeake Bay waters to different extents (Ampela et al., 2019). The area that was utilized most heavily was near the Eastern Shore capture site, but some seals ranged into the Chesapeake Bay. To supplement this information, the HRBT project reported seeing zero seals in or around the project area (HRCP, Unpublished ).

The Western North Atlantic stock of gray seal occurs in the project area. The western North Atlantic stock is centered in Canadian waters, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic coasts of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Labrador, Canada, and the northeast U.S. continental shelf (Hayes et al., 2017). Gray seals range south into the northeastern United States, with strandings and sightings as far south as North Carolina (Hammill et al., 1998; Waring et al., 2004). Gray seal distribution along the U.S. Atlantic coast has shifted in recent years, with an increased number of seals reported in southern New England (DiGiovanni et al., 2011; Kenney R.D., 2019; Waring et al., 2016). Recent sightings included a gray seal in the lower Chesapeake Bay during the winter of 2014 to 2015 (Rees et al., 2016). Along the coast of the United States, gray seals are known to pup at three or more colonies in Massachusetts and Maine.

Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia and in 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). Sightings have been reported off Virginia and near the project area during the winter and spring (Barco 2013; Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2018; Ampela et al., 2019). However, the HRBT monitoring report indicated that zero gray seals were observed during the course of their project (HRCP, Unpublished ).

An unusual mortality event (UME) is defined under Section 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response. Currently, ongoing UME investigations are underway for pinnipeds along the Northeast Atlantic coast. There is an active UME for humpback whales along the Atlantic coast.

Since July 2018, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities have occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This event has been declared an UME. Additionally, seals showing clinical signs have been stranding as far south as Virginia, although not in elevated numbers; therefore, the UME investigation now encompasses all seal strandings from Maine to Virginia. Lastly, while take is not proposed for these species in this proposed IHA, ice seals (harp and hooded seals) have also started stranding with clinical signs, again not in elevated numbers, and those two seal species have also been added to the UME investigation. Additional information is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along.

Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. This event has been declared an UME since 2017. A portion of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike; however, this finding is not consistent across all whales examined, and additional research is needed. Additional information is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.

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 3.

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. Five marine mammal species (three cetacean and two pinniped, both phocid, species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, one is classified as a low-frequency cetacean ( i.e., humpback whale), one is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean ( i.e., bottlenose dolphin), and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean ( i.e., harbor porpoise).

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

The 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. 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 vibratory pile removal, impact and vibratory pile driving, and drilling. 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 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g. aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018a). 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).

Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping 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. The vibrations produced also cause liquefaction of the substrate surrounding the pile, enabling the pile to be extracted or driven into the ground more easily. 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). As mentioned previously, drilling is considered a continuous source, similar to vibratory pile driving. The drilling may be used before driving piles in order to facilitate pile driving and hence the applicant calls this activity “pre-drilling” in their application. For the proposed project, the drilling apparatus utilized would vary depending on the different applications during in-water construction activities. Drilling would be used as necessary to remove sand with shell fragments or any obstructions in order to accelerate pile driving.

The likely or possible impacts of the Navy'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 and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to be primarily acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile driving, removal and drilling.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving or drilling is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Navy's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). In general, exposure to pile driving or drilling 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 or drilling 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 decibels (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 an 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 et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as 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) —TTS is 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 (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SELcum, 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 a time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis )) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles for this project requires a combination of drilling, impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. For this project, these activities would not occur at the same time and there would be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the ensonified 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 haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al., (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airborne Acoustic Effects —Although pinnipeds are known to haul-out regularly on man-made objects, such as the nearby Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, we believe that incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are unlikely due to the sheltered proximity between the proposed project area and these haulout sites (over 16 miles (26 km)). There is a possibility that an animal could surface in-water, but with head out, within the area in which airborne sound exceeds relevant thresholds and thereby be exposed to levels of airborne sound that we associate with harassment, but any such occurrence would likely be accounted for in our estimation of incidental take from underwater sound. Therefore, authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is not warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

The Navy's construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. However, since the focus of the proposed action is pile driving and drilling, no net habitat loss is expected as the new Pier 3 will be immediately north of the existing Pier 3 and once complete, the current Pier 3 will be demolished. Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater sounds. 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 pile driving activities, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project area where both fishes and marine mammals may 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.

Temporary and localized reduction in water quality will occur because of in-water construction activities as well. Most of this effect will occur during the installation and removal of piles when bottom sediments are disturbed. The installation of piles will disturb bottom sediments and may cause a temporary increase in suspended sediment in the project area. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about 25-ft (7.6 meter) radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). 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. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.

The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals except for the actual footprint of the new Pier 3. The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is a very small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the project area and lower Chesapeake Bay. Pile extraction and installation may have impacts on benthic invertebrate species primarily associated with disturbance of sediments that may cover or displace some invertebrates. The impacts will be temporary and highly localized, and no habitat will be permanently displaced by construction. Therefore, it is expected that impacts on foraging opportunities for marine mammals due to the demolition and reconstruction of Pier 3 would be minimal.

It is possible that avoidance by potential prey ( i.e., fish) in the immediate area may occur due to temporary loss of this foraging habitat. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but we anticipate a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity in the in the project area and lower Chesapeake Bay.

Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., fish). 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 et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and mortality.

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

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

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

The area impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in the remainder of the project area and the lower Chesapeake Bay, and there are no areas of particular importance that would be impacted by this project. 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. As described in the preceding, the potential for the Navy's construction to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be insignificant.

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 noise generated from in-water pile driving (vibratory and impact) and drilling has 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, primarily for high- and low-frequency species and phocids because predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for mid-frequency species. However, auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species due to the proposed shutdown zones (see Proposed Mitigation section). Additionally, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

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

Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). 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, root mean square (μPa (rms)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., impact pile driving) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

The Navy's construction includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving, drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are applicable.

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). As previously noted, the Navy's proposed activity include the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving/removal, drilling) sources.

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

This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq. ) requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to adopt such regulations as it “deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of” threatened species. Those regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions provided in section 9(a)(1) of the ESA, which specifically prohibits “take” of any endangered species (“take” includes actions that harass, harm, pursue, kill, or capture). The first salmonid species listed by NMFS as threatened were protected by virtually blanket application of the section 9 take prohibitions. There are now 23 separate Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of west coast salmonids listed as threatened, covering a large percentage of the land base in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. NMFS is obligated to enact necessary and advisable protective regulations. NMFS makes section 9 prohibitions generally applicable to many of those threatened DPS, but also seeks to respond to requests from states and others to both provide more guidance on how to protect threatened salmonids and avoid take, and to limit the application of take prohibitions wherever warranted (see 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005, 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006, and 73 FR 55451, September 25, 2008). The regulations describe programs or circumstances that contribute to the conservation of, or are being conducted in a way that limits impacts on, listed salmonids. Because we have determined that such programs/circumstances adequately protect listed salmonids, the regulations do not apply the “take” prohibitions to them. Some of these limits on the take prohibitions entail voluntary submission of a plan to NMFS and/or annual or occasional reports by entities wishing to take advantage of these limits, or continue within them.

The currently approved application and reporting requirements apply to Pacific marine and anadromous fish species.

Submissions may be electronically or on paper.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0399.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Federal government; State, local, or tribal government; business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 331.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours for a diversion screening limit project; 20 hours for a road maintenance agreement; 30 hours for an urban development package; 20 hours for a tribal plan; 10 hours for a fishery harvest plan; 5 hours for a report of aided, salvaged, or disposed of salmonids; 2 hours for research permits; 5 hours for artificial propagation plans; and 2 hours for annual reports.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 935.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $580.

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

Legal Authority: Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

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

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

Title of Collection: Partnership with EVERFI to Study High School Students' Estimation of College Costs.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0048.

Type of Review: Request for approval of a generic information collection under an existing Generic Information Collection Plan.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,667.

Abstract: The Bureau plans to engage in research under its authority to conduct research on “consumer awareness and understanding of costs, risks, and benefits of consumer financial products and service.” To this end, the Bureau plans to partner with EVERFI, Inc. (a provider of financial education services) to distribute a survey about student loans and the costs of attending college through their proprietary software. Previous research has indicated that students tend to err in estimating the costs of attending college and the costs of borrowing student loans that are used to attend college. This survey will ask questions to measure high school students' expectations about college costs and the costs of borrowing student loans. The survey will then include a randomized experiment where some students are shown information about the average net costs of college, the cost of borrowing student loans, and the availability of certain income-driven repayment programs. Students will answer a battery of questions about their anticipated college attendance, major choice, and likelihood of borrowing student loans. The randomized experiment will measure the effect of the information treatments on the students' reported postsecondary plans. Doing so will contribute to our understanding of providing certain pieces of information that may affect students' postsecondary education plans.

The survey will involve U.S. high school students as respondents. The CFPB will distribute the survey as an addendum to EVERFI, Inc.'s main survey of students that enroll in EVERFI's Financing Higher Education, course. The CFPB survey will contain mostly questions about the respondents' estimates of college costs, the cost of borrowing student loans, and the questions about their post-high school plans discussed above. The CFPB will also receive the responses to EVERFI's main survey which includes demographic questions about the students as well as questions measuring their college enrollment intentions, preparations, and perceptions.

Request for Comments: The Bureau is publishing this notice and soliciting comments on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be submitted to OMB as part of its review of this request. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Tender of Service for Personal Property Household Goods and Unaccompanied Baggage Shipments; DD Form 619; OMB Control Number 0704-0531.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to private sector commercial transportation service providers, who are under contract with the DoD for shipment/storage of personal property, to identify ownership, and to schedule pickup and delivery of personal property.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Annual Burden Hours: 18,980.

Number of Respondents: 876.

Responses per Respondent: 260.

Annual Responses: 227,760.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Temporary Food Establishment; DD Form 2970; OMB Control Number 0702-0132.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 91.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 91.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 22.75.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary for the installation Preventive Medicine or Public Health Activity to evaluate a food vendor's ability to prepare and dispense safe food on the installation. The DD Form 2970, submitted one time by a food vendor requesting to operate a food establishment on a military installation, characterizes the types of foods, daily volume of food, supporting food equipment, and sanitary controls. Approval to operate the food establishment is determined by the installation's medical authority; the Preventive Medicine or Public Health Activity conducts an operational assessment based on the food safety criteria prescribed in the Tri-Service Food Code (TB MED 530/NAVMED P-5010-1/AFMAN 48-147_IP). Food vendors who are deemed inadequately prepared to provide safe food service are disapproved for operating on the installation.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

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

The purpose of the overall evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the Wingman Intervention Training (WIT) program in preventing sexual harassment (SH) and sexual assault (SA). Respondents are Airmen/Guardians. Respondents will be recruited as First Term Airmen/Guardians to target the population most vulnerable to SH and SA. Respondents will start the web-based baseline January 2022 with a six-month intake period until June 2022, and a 6-month follow-up survey (July-December 2022) on SH and SA so that DAF can learn whether the WIT programming is effective at preventing SH and SA events and promoting active bystander behaviors. DAF Resilience Office staff can use the results to improve their prevention programming, thus supporting safer, more inclusive settings. Further, Airmen/Guardians may benefit through the improvement of the WIT program to prevent SH and SA within the Air Force. The military and society at large will also benefit because military officers will be more knowledgeable about SH and SA and will be better able to intervene to prevent SH and SA.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Wingman Intervention Training Program Evaluation; OMB Control Number 0704-WITE.

Type of Request: Emergency.

Number of Respondents: 4,000.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 8,000.

Average Burden per Response: 17.5 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,333 hours.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of DoD's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Pentagon Reservation Parking Permit Application; DD Form 1199; OMB Control Number 0704-0395.

Needs and Uses: WHS requires the collection of information from members of the public assigned to the Pentagon, Mark Center, and Suffolk buildings to obtain an authorized parking permit to park in a controlled parking facility without being enrolled in the Mass Transit Benefit Program. The authority is promulgated in 10 U.S.C. 2674 Operation and Control of Pentagon Reservation and Defense Facilities in National Capital Region; Administrative Instruction Number 88, Pentagon Reservation Vehicle Parking Program, and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 350 hours.

Number of Respondents: 4,200.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 4,200.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

This submission corresponds to the grant number W81XWH-20-2-0039 funded by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program and aligns with the Secretary of Defense's call for novel programs to prevent sexual assault within the military. Given the practical challenges of delivering tailored sexual assault prevention to service members in-person, a computerized prevention program that focuses on multiple risk factors for sexual aggression and sexual victimization, while engaging all service members as active bystanders to reduce risk for violence, addresses a significant gap in prevention delivery. A normative survey will provide information about the behavior and attitudes of Sailors regarding alcohol use and sexual assault. Next, focus groups and interviews will be conducted to obtain feedback about the content of the intervention and ways to adapt it for Sailors. There is no standardized set of questions for the focus groups or interviews, so they are not included in this information collection request. However, interviewees and focus group respondents will be selected based on their drinking habits, which will be determined by a brief pre-interview/focus group survey. After interview/focus group completion, a post-interview/focus group survey will be given to obtain demographic and alcohol use information to be used as descriptive information, as well as data from standardized measures that assess respondents' opinions of the existing intervention. These two surveys are included in this request. Data from the three surveys will be incorporated into the intervention content and help generate an adapted prototype of the sexual assault prevention program (+Change) for Sailors. This study is a critical advancement in the prevention of sexual assault in military service members.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Personalized Web-Based Sexual Assault Prevention for Service Members; OMB Control Number 0703-PWSP.

Type of Request: New emergency request.

Number of Respondents: 500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 500.

Average Burden per Response: 25 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 208.3.

Number of Respondents: 87.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 174.

Average Burden per Response: 7.5 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 21.8.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: One time.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of DoD's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: United States Marine Corps Child and Youth Programs; NAVMC Forms 1750/7, 1750/10, 1750/11; OMB Control Number 0703-UCYP.

Needs and Uses: The USMC Child and Youth Programs information collection is needed to obtain authorization for Child and Youth Programs personnel to administer non-medicated topical products, maintain the medication administration record, and controlled medication administration record and daily log for USMC Child and Youth Programs participants.

Affected Public: Individuals and households.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,667.

Number of Respondents: 16,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 16,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

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

Title of Collection: Education Stabilization Fund—Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER I and GEER II) Recipient Data Collection Form.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0748.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,326.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 40,612.

Abstract: Under the current unprecedented national health emergency, the legislative and executive branches of government have come together to offer relief to those individuals and industries affected by the COVID-19 virus under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Pub. L. 116-136) authorized on March 27, 2020, and expanded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act, and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. The Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER Fund) awards grants to Governors (States) and Outlying Areas for the purpose of providing local educational agencies (LEAs), institutions of higher education, and other education-related entities with emergency assistance as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. This information collection requests emergency approval for a revision to a previously approved collection that includes annual reporting requirements to comply with the requirements of the GEER program and obtain information on how the funds were used by State and Local Education Agencies, institutions of higher education, and other education-related entities. Emergency processing is necessary to provide states with sufficient time to collect the required data on expenditures of GEER funds. The changes to the recently approved collection include Question 2a-d of the form to address the expenditure of GEER funds directly by the Governor's office (or another entity, such as the SEA, designated as the administrator of the GEER fund by the Governor's office).

The Department addressed all public comments from the recently approved information collection. The only change to the approved collection is to include a Yes/No question asked of prime grantees regarding whether they expended GEER funds directly. Grantees who respond in the affirmative are asked for the amount of their expenditures for administrative uses and non-administrative uses. When considering your comments, please refer to Attachment A, which outlines the additional questions.

Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal).

OMB Control No.: 1902-0154.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-545 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements. No comments were received on the 60-day notice published November 15, 2021 (86 FR 63010).

Abstract: FERC-545 is required to implement Sections 4, 5, and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), (15 U.S.C. 717c, 717d, and 717o). NGA Sections 4, 5, and 16 authorize the Commission to inquire into rate structures and methodologies and to set rates at a just and reasonable level. Specifically, a natural gas company must obtain Commission authorization for all rates and charges made, demanded, or received in connection with the transportation or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce.

Under the NGA, a natural gas company's rates must be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. The Commission may act under different sections of the NGA to effect a change in a natural gas company's rate. When the Commission reviews rate increases that a natural gas company has proposed, it is subject to the requirement of Section 4(e) of the NGA. Under Section 4(e), the natural gas company bears the burden of proving that its proposed rates are just and reasonable. On the other hand, when the Commission seeks to impose its own rate determination, it must do so in compliance with Section 5(a) of the NGA. Under Section 5, the Commission must first establish that its alternative rate proposal is both just and reasonable.

Section 16 of the NGA states that the Commission “shall have the power to perform any and all acts, and to prescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders, rules, and regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out provisions of [the NGA].” In other words, Section 16 of the NGA grants the Commission the power to define accounting, technical and trade terms, prescribe forms, statements, declarations, or reports and to prescribe rules and regulations.

Pipelines adjust their tariffs to meet market and customer needs. The Commission's review of these proposed changes is required to ensure rates remain just and reasonable and that services are not provided in an unduly or preferential manner. The Commission's regulations in 18 CFR part 154 specify what changes are allowed and the procedures for requesting Commission approval.

The Commission uses information in FERC-545 to examine rates, services, and tariff provisions related to natural gas transportation and storage services. The following filing categories are subject to FERC-545: (1) Tariff Filings—filings regarding proposed changes to a pipeline's tariff (including Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Modernization of Natural Gas Facilities filings in Docket No. PL15-1) and any related compliance filings; (2) Rate Filings—rate-related filings under NGA sections 4 and 5 and any related compliance filings and settlements; (3) Informational Reports; (4) Negotiated Rate and Non-Conforming Agreement Filings; (5) North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) (RM96-1-042) Version 3.2; and (6) Market-Based Rates for Storage Filings (Part 284.501-505).

Type of Respondents: Natural gas pipelines under the jurisdiction of NGA.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   1 The public reporting burden has increased for this information collection due to normal fluctuations in industry and the inclusion of tariff filings in compliance with Order No. 587-Z. On July 15, 2021, in Docket No. RM96-1-042, the Commission amended its regulations to incorporate by reference the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Wholesale Quadrant Version 3.2 standards. 2 The revisions made by NAESB Version 3.2 are designed to enhance the natural gas industries' cyber security measures.

The 60-day notice was published on November 15, 2021 (86 FR 63010). No comments were received.

The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden and cost for the information collection as follows:

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

Title: FERC-732, Electric Rate Schedule and Tariffs: Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets

OMB Control No.: 1902-0245.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-732 information collection requirement with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: 18 CFR part 42 provides the reporting requirements of FERC-732 as they pertain to long-term transmission rights. To implement section 1233  1 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), 2 the Commission requires each transmission organization that is a public utility with one or more organized electricity markets to make available long-term firm transmission rights that satisfy each of the Commission's guidelines. 3

The FERC-732 regulations require that transmission organizations (that are public utilities with one or more organized electricity markets) choose one of two ways to file:

• File tariff sheets making long-term firm transmission rights available that are consistent with each of the guidelines established by FERC.

• File an explanation describing how their existing tariffs already provide long-term firm transmission rights that are consistent with the guidelines.

Additionally, the Commission requires each transmission organization to make its transmission planning and expansion procedures and plans available to the public. FERC-732 enables the Commission to exercise its wholesale electric rate and electric power transmission oversight and enforcement responsibilities in accordance with the FPA, the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act), and EPAct 2005.

Type of Respondents: Public utility with one or more organized electricity markets

Estimate of Annual Burden:   4 The Commission estimates the total burden and cost  5 for this information collection as follows.

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

Title: FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0174.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-549C information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements. No comments were received on the 60 day notice published on November 15, 2021 (86 FR 63010).

Abstract: The business practice standards under FERC-549C are required to carry out the Commission's policies in accordance with the general authority in sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 1 and sections 311, 501, and 504 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA). 2 The Commission adopted these business practice standards in order to update and standardize the natural gas industry's business practices and procedures in addition to improving the efficiency of the gas market and the means by which the gas industry conducts business across the interstate pipeline grid. In various orders since 1996, the Commission has adopted regulations to standardize the business practices and communication methodologies of interstate natural gas pipelines proposed by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in order to create a more integrated and efficient pipeline industry. 3 Generally, when and if NAESB-proposed standards ( e.g., consensus standards developed by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ)  4 ) are approved by the Commission, the Commission incorporates them by reference into its approval. The process of standardizing business practices in the natural gas industry began with a Commission initiative to standardize electronic communication of capacity release transactions. The outgrowth of the initial Commission standardization efforts produced working groups composed of all segments of the natural gas industry. The Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) is a consensus organization open to all members of the gas industry was created. GISB was succeeded by NAESB.

NAESB is a voluntary non-profit organization comprised of members from the retail and wholesale natural gas and electric industries. NAESB's mission is to take the lead in developing standards across these industries to simplify and expand electronic communication and to streamline business practices. NAESB's core objective is to facilitate a seamless North American marketplace for natural gas, as recognized by its customers, the business community, industry participants, and regulatory bodies.

NAESB has divided its efforts among four quadrants including two retail quadrants, a wholesale electric quadrant, and the WGQ. The NAESB WGQ standards are a product of this effort. Industry participants seeking additional or amended standards (to include principles, definitions, standards, data elements, process descriptions, and technical implementation instructions) must submit a request to the NAESB office, detailing the change, so that the appropriate process may take place to amend the standards. Failure to collect the FERC-549C data would prevent the Commission from monitoring and properly evaluating pipeline transactions and/or meeting statutory obligations under both the NGA and NGPA.

On August 17, 2020, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission that it had adopted and ratified WGQ Version 3.2 of its business practice standards applicable to interstate natural gas pipelines. Version 3.2 of the WGQ includes business practice standards developed and modified in response to industry requests and directives from the NAESB Board of Directors. This version also includes the standards developed in response to the recommendations of Sandia National Laboratory (Sandia), 5 which in 2019 issued a cybersecurity surety assessment of the NAESB standards sponsored by DOE (Sandia Surety Assessment), 6 and the standards developed to enable the use of distributed ledger technologies when transacting the NAESB Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas. The NAESB report identifies all the changes made to the WGQ Version 3.1 Standards and summarizes the deliberations that led to the changes being made. It also identifies changes to the existing standards that were considered but not adopted due to a lack of consensus or other reasons.

Type of Respondents: Natural gas pipelines under the jurisdiction of NGA and NGPA.

Estimate of Annual Burden. 7 The Commission estimates the total annual burden and cost for this information collection as follows:  8