The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States for procedural improvements (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, see www.acus.gov.

Agencies generate a wide range of materials that impose legal obligations on members of the public, agency employees, and agency heads; determine the rights or interests of private parties; advise the public of the agencies' interpretation of the statutes and rules they administer; advise the public prospectively of the manner in which agencies plan to exercise discretionary powers; or otherwise explain agency actions that affect members of the public. Federal laws govern when and how agencies make these legal materials publicly available. These include generally applicable statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Federal Register Act, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Federal Records Act, as well as agency- and program-specific statutes.

ACUS has undertaken many projects in which it has recommended best practices for the disclosure of records such as guidance documents, 1 adjudication rules, 2 adjudication materials, 3 and litigation materials. 4 Many of these projects focus on a broader set of materials than legal materials, but they do encompass, touch on, or include legal materials. A recurrent question in the discussion surrounding these projects has been whether Congress should amend the main statutes governing disclosure of agency legal materials to consolidate and harmonize overlapping requirements, account for technological developments, and correct statutory ambiguities and drafting errors.

ACUS is now undertaking this project to answer this question. A team of leading scholars will submit a report to ACUS that addresses this question and others that may be identified. If warranted, a committee of ACUS members will develop proposed recommendations to Congress for possible consideration by the ACUS Assembly. Recommended statutory reforms will provide clear standards as to what legal materials agencies must publish and where they must publish them (whether in the Federal Register , on their websites, or elsewhere). The objective of any such proposed amendments will be to ensure that agencies provide appropriate public access to legal materials in the most equitable, effective, and efficient way possible for both the public and the agency. Visit https://www.acus.gov/research-projects to learn more about how ACUS develops recommendations.

ACUS welcomes views, information, and data on all aspects of this topic. ACUS also seeks specific feedback on the following questions:

1. What types of agency records should ACUS consider to be “agency legal materials” for purposes of this project?

2. What obstacles have you or others faced in gaining access to agency legal materials?

3. Are there certain types of agency legal materials or legal information that agencies are not making publicly available that would be valuable to you or others?

4. Agencies provide public access to legal materials in different ways. Agencies make some materials available to the general public on their own initiative without having received a request from a member of the public ( i.e., proactive disclosure). Other materials are provided to members of the public on request. What types of legal materials should agencies proactively disclose to the general public? What types of legal materials may or should agencies disclose only in response to a request from a member of the public?

5. For agency legal materials that should be proactively disclosed, where or how should agencies make them publicly available (on agency websites, in the Federal Register , or elsewhere)?

6. Are there certain types of agency legal materials, or certain types of information contained in agency legal materials, that agencies should not make publicly available? When there is public interest in these types of materials or information, how should agencies balance the public interest in disclosure with any private or governmental interests in nondisclosure?

7. Some statutes governing the public availability of agency legal materials apply to most or all agencies ( e.g., Federal Register Act), whereas others apply to only one or a small number of agencies ( e.g., Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997). When should Congress create disclosure requirements that apply to most or all agencies, and when should Congress create disclosure requirements that apply to only one or a small number of agencies?

8. Are there certain best practices regarding disclosure of legal materials on agency websites that should be required by statute ( e.g., indexing of legal materials, search functions to help find legal materials)? If so, should these practices be required for all legal materials or only certain types of legal materials?

9. What inconsistencies, ambiguities, and overlaps exist in the main statutes governing disclosure of agency legal materials ( e.g., FOIA, Federal Register Act, E-Government Act of 2002, Federal Records Act) that Congress should remedy?

10. What other statutory reforms might be warranted to ensure adequate public availability of agency legal materials?

Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email mwojnaroski@usccr.gov at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Liliana Schiller at lschiller@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (202) 809-9618.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Florida Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above phone number.

In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on March 29, 2022, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) and its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of snow throwers from China. 1

On May 11, 2022, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports and subsidized imports of snow throwers from China, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 2

The products covered by these orders are snow throwers from China. For a full description of the scope of the orders, see the appendix to this notice.

As stated above, on May 11, 2022, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of snow throwers from China that are sold in the United States at LTFV. 3 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this AD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of snow throwers from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of snow throwers from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of snow throwers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 5, 2021, the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination, but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below. 4

Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures—AD” section of this notice, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of snow throwers from China. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the table below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated customs duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below.

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of snow throwers from China, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in this AD investigation. Commerce published the AD Preliminary Determination on November 5, 2021. 5

The extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination, ended on May 3, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of snow throwers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after May 3, 2022, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

As stated above, on May 11, 2022, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that the industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of snow throwers from China. 6 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing this CVD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of snow throwers from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of snow throwers from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 10, 2021, the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination, but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before the publication of the ITC's final injury determination under section 705(b) of the Act, as further described in the “Provisional Measures—CVD” section of this notice. 7

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of snow throwers from China, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register , and to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates below. On or after the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register , CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated customs duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below, as appropriate:

Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the CVD Preliminary Determination on September 10, 2021. 8 As such, the four-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination ended on January 7, 2022.

Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of snow throwers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 7, 2022, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to snow throwers from China pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of orders currently in effect at https://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

These orders are published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

I. Background

Executive Order 14067 of March 9, 2022, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets” (hereafter “Executive Order”) (87 FR 14143; March 14, 2022), outlines U.S. policy objectives with respect to digital assets, 1 including but not limited to protecting consumers, investors, and businesses; mitigating systemic financial risk; mitigating the illicit finance and national security risks posed by misuse of digital assets; and supporting technological advancements that promote responsible development and use of digital assets. The Executive Order outlines the Federal government's approach to the development of the U.S. digital assets sector. Section 2 of the Executive Order provides six principle policy objectives for digital assets: (a) Protection of consumers, investors, and businesses in the United States; (b) protection of United States and global financial stability and the mitigation of systemic risk; (c) mitigation of illicit finance and national security risks posed by misuse of digital assets; (d) reinforcement of U.S. leadership in the global financial system and in technological and economic competitiveness, including through the responsible development of payment innovations and digital assets; (e) promotion of access to safe and affordable financial services; and (f) support of technological advances that promote responsible development and use of digital assets.

Section 8(a) provides the Administration's policy on fostering international cooperation and United States competitiveness with respect to digital assets and financial innovation. Among other items, Section 8(a) notes that (i) technology-driven financial innovation is frequently cross-border and requires coordination among public authorities, particularly with respect to maintaining high regulatory standards; (ii) the United States government has been active in international fora on issues related to technology-driven financial innovation, including at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF); (iii) the U.S. presidency of the 2020 G7 saw the establishment of the G7 Digital Payment Experts Group to discuss CBDCs, stablecoins, and other digital payment issues; (iv) the United States continues to support the G20 roadmap for addressing challenges and frictions with cross-border funds transfers and payments; and (v) the Biden-Harris Administration will elevate the importance of these topics and expand engagement with critical international partners, including through fora such as the G7, G20, FATF, and Financial Stability Board. United States engagement will focus on respect for core democratic values, protection of consumers, investors, and businesses, preservation of global financial system connectivity and platform interoperability, and maintenance of the safety and soundness of the global financial system and international monetary system.

Section 8(b)(iii) of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of any other relevant agencies, to (within 180 days of the date of the Executive Order) establish a framework for enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness in, and leveraging of, digital asset technologies. Through this RFC, Commerce is requesting input from the public that will inform Commerce's work in developing the scope of the framework, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of other relevant agencies.

This RFC offers an opportunity for all interested parties to provide relevant input and recommendations for consideration in Commerce's development of the economic competitiveness framework as directed by Section 8(b)(iii) of the Executive Order.

Commerce welcomes input on any matter that commenters believe is relevant to Commerce's development of the framework for enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness in, and leveraging of, digital asset technologies, pursuant to Section 8(b)(iii) of the Executive Order. Commenters are encouraged to address any or all of the following questions, or to provide any other comments relevant to the development of the framework. When responding to one or more of the questions below, please note in your response the number(s) of the questions you are responding to.

Commerce also seeks public comment on the following questions.

(1) What are the features of U.S.-based digital asset businesses ( e.g., administrators, operators, validators, and other key stakeholder roles in the function of digital assets as well as the exchanges, brokers, and custodians used to trade and store them) that currently underpin their competitiveness in a global market? Will these features support future competitiveness?

(2) What obstacles do U.S. digital asset businesses face when competing globally? How have these obstacles changed over the past five years and are any anticipated to disappear? Are there clearly foreseeable new obstacles that they will face in the future? What steps could the U.S. government take to remove, minimize, or forestall any obstacles?

(3) How does the current U.S. regulatory landscape affect U.S. digital asset businesses' global competitiveness? Are there future regulatory shifts that could support greater global competitiveness of U.S. digital asset businesses? How does the U.S. regulatory landscape for digital assets compare to that in finance or other comparable sectors?

(4) What are the primary challenges to U.S. technological leadership in the digital assets sector?

(5) What impact, if any, does the global nature of the digital assets sector have on U.S. digital asset businesses' ability to attract and retain talent and maintain leadership in development and operation of digital asset technologies within the United States?

(6) What, if any, is the future role of digital assets mining  2 in the U.S. digital assets sector? Can digital assets be compatible with a low-carbon economy that emphasizes renewable energy? If so, how? In what ways can the U.S. government and U.S. companies drive competitive, sustainable (for the environment and energy consumption) development of digital assets?

(7) What impact, if any, will global deployment of central bank digital currencies (CBDC) have on the U.S. digital assets sector? To what extent would the design of a U.S. CBDC ( e.g., disintermediated or intermediated, interoperable with other countries' CBDCs and other domestic and international financial services, etc.) impact the sector?

(8) Should digital assets be given specific consideration in trade agreements? If so, to what extent? What types of provisions would be beneficial to the U.S. digital assets sector in the United States? Are there provisions that would be beneficial to U.S. businesses and consumers?

(9) What other factors related to economic competitiveness should Commerce consider in the development of the framework?

(10) Beyond enhanced economic competitiveness, how can the U.S. digital assets sector advance the other objectives outlined in the Executive Order? These other objectives include protection of consumers, investors, and business in the United States; protection of United States and global financial stability and the mitigation of systemic risk; and mitigation of illicit finance and national security risks posed by misuse of digital assets.

(11) By what metrics should we measure the competitiveness of the U.S. digital assets sector in the global market? Are there existing measurements or data against these metrics?

(12) What factors and conditions, if any, that have driven and sustained the global leadership of U.S.-based legacy financial institutions will foster the same leadership for U.S. digital asset businesses? If there are no common factors, what factors and conditions will differentiate global competitiveness for U.S. digital asset businesses?

(13) Can digital assets improve international payments (including trade and remittances), and improve on access to trade finance? If so, how? How do digital assets compare to other initiatives in payments such as the Federal Reserve's FedNow?

(14) According to the FDIC's 2019 “How America Banks” survey, approximately 94.6 percent (124 million) of U.S. households had at least one bank or credit union account in 2019, while 5.4 percent (7.1 million) of households did not. Can digital assets play a role in increasing these and other underserved Americans' access to safe, affordable, and reliable financial services, and if so, how? What role can the Federal government and the digital assets sector play to ensure that underserved Americans can benefit from the increased commercial availability of digital assets?

(15) To what extent do new standards for digital assets and their underlying technologies need to be maintained or developed, for instance those related to custody, identity, security, privacy, and interoperability? What existing standards are already relevant? How might existing standardization efforts be harmonized to support the responsible development of digital assets?

(16) What new security concerns does increased adoption of digital assets raise? How can the U.S. government collaborate with U.S. digital asset businesses to protect consumers' access to their assets, personal information, and other sensitive data?

(17) To what extent will interoperability between different digital asset networks be important in the future? What risks does a lack of interoperability pose? And what steps, if any, should be taken to encourage interoperability?

On January 19, 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of certain lemon juice (lemon juice) from Brazil and South Africa. 1 Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than June 8, 2022.

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On May 10, 2022, Ventura Coastal, LLC (the petitioner) submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations. 2 The petitioner stated that it requests postponement because Commerce has not yet received complete responses to the supplemental questionnaires it issued to respondents, and a postponement will ensure that Commerce has sufficient time to review all questionnaire responses and obtain clarification or additional information before determining the magnitude of dumping during the periods of investigation. 3

For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e), is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days ( i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than July 28, 2022. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Background

On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register notice of its initiation of the 2020-2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. 1 The period of review is May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021. Subsequent to the publication of the initiation of this segment of the proceeding in the Federal Register , we identified inadvertent errors in the Initiation Notice:

• First, Commerce omitted from the Initiation Notice the following company for which a review was requested: Kale Baglanti Teknolojileri San. ve Tic. A.S. (Kale Baglanti). 2

• Second, we inadvertently initiated the review for Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S. Inc. (BMP), the affiliated U.S. reseller of the exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan Mannesmann) for which we also initiated a review. 3

Commerce is hereby correcting the Initiation Notice to address these errors. This correction to the notice of initiation of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

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.

On October 1, 2021, NMFS received a request from Ocean Wind II for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys off of New Jersey in the area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area OCS-A 0532 (Lease Area) and potential export cable routes (ECRs) to landfall locations in New Jersey. Following NMFS review of the draft application, a revised version was submitted on November 24, 2021 and again on January 24, 2022. The January 2022 revised version was deemed adequate and complete on February 8, 2022. Ocean Wind II's request is for take of 16 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither Ocean Wind II nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS previously issued an IHA to Ocean Wind, LLC (Ocean Wind) for similar work in the same general geographic area on June 8, 2017 (82 FR 31562; July 7, 2017) with effective dates from June 8, 2017, through June 7, 2018 and on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 26465, May 14, 2021) with effective dates from May 10, 2021 through May 9, 2022. Ocean Wind complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the 2017-2018 IHA. Because Ocean Wind's current IHA is still effective, we have not yet received the associated monitoring report. Please note that Ocean Wind and Ocean Wind II are both affiliates of Orsted Wind Power North America LLC, with operations occurring in the same general area.

This IHA for Ocean Wind II is effective May 10, 2022 through May 9, 2023. There are no changes from the proposed IHA to the final IHA.

As part of its overall marine site characterization survey operations, Ocean Wind II proposes to conduct high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys in the Lease Area and along potential ECRs to landfall locations in New Jersey.

The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys are to obtain an assessment of seabed (geophysical, geotechnical, and geohazard), ecological, and archeological conditions within the footprint of a planned offshore wind facility development area. Surveys are also conducted to support engineering design and to map unexploded ordnance. Underwater sound resulting from Ocean Wind II's proposed site characterization survey activities, specifically HRG surveys, has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of Level B behavioral harassment.

Site characterization surveys considered under this application are expected to occur between May 10, 2022 and May 9, 2023 with a total of 275 survey days. A survey day is defined here as a 24-hour activity period. The number of anticipated survey days was calculated as the number of days needed to reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives assuming any single vessel covers, on average, 70 line km per 24 hours of operations.

The proposed survey activities will occur within the Project Area which includes the Lease Area and potential ECRs, as shown in Figure 1. The Lease Area is approximately 343.8 square kilometers (km 2 ) and is within the New Jersey wind energy area (WEA) of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Mid-Atlantic planning area. Water depths in the Lease Area range from 15 meters (m) to 35 m, and the potential ECRs extend from the shoreline to approximately 40 m depth.

Ocean Wind II plans to conduct HRG survey operations, including multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and shallow and medium penetration sub-bottom profiling. The HRG surveys may be conducted using any or all of the following equipment types: Side scan sonar, multibeam echosounder, magnetometers and gradiometers, parametric sub-bottom profiler (SBP), compressed high intensity radar pulse (CHIRP) SBP, boomers, or sparkers. Ocean Wind II assumes that HRG survey operations would be conducted 24 hours per day, with an assumed daily survey distance of 70 km. Vessels would generally conduct survey effort at a transit speed of approximately 4 knots (kn), which equates to 110 km per 24-hr period. However, based on past survey experience ( i.e., knowledge of typical daily downtime due to weather, system malfunctions, etc.) Ocean Wind II assumes 70 km as the average daily distance. On this basis, a total of 275 survey days are expected. In certain shallow-water areas, vessels may conduct survey effort during daylight hours only, with a corresponding assumption that the daily survey distance would be halved (35 km). However, for purposes of analysis all survey days are assumed to cover the maximum 70 km. A maximum of two vessels would operate concurrently in areas where 24-hr operations would be conducted, with an additional third vessel potentially conducting daylight-only survey effort in shallow-water areas.

Acoustic sources planned for use during HRG survey activities proposed by Ocean Wind II include the following:

• Shallow penetration, non-impulsive, non-parametric SBPs ( i.e., CHIRP SBPs) are used to map the near-surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 10 m) of sediment below seabed. A CHIRP system emits signals covering a frequency sweep from approximately 2 to 20 kilohertz (kHz) over time. The frequency range can be adjusted to meet project variables. These sources are typically mounted on a pole rather than towed, reducing the likelihood that an animal would be exposed to the signal.

• Medium penetration, impulsive sources ( i.e., boomers and sparkers) are used to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy. A boomer is a broadband source operating in the 3.5 Hertz (Hz) to 10 kHz frequency range. Sparkers create omnidirectional acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz. These sources are typically towed behind the vessel.

Operation of the following survey equipment types is not expected to present reasonable risk of marine mammal take, and will not be discussed further beyond the brief summaries provided below.

• Non-impulsive, parametric SBPs are used for providing high data density in sub-bottom profiles that are typically required for cable routes, very shallow water, and archaeological surveys. These sources generate short, very narrow-beam (1° to 3.5°) signals at high frequencies (generally around 85-100 kHz). The narrow beamwidth significantly reduces the potential that a marine mammal could be exposed to the signal, while the high frequency of operation means that the signal is rapidly attenuated in seawater. These sources are typically deployed on a pole rather than towed behind the vessel.

• Acoustic corers are seabed-mounted sources with three distinct sound sources: A high-frequency parametric sonar, a high-frequency CHIRP sonar, and a low-frequency CHIRP sonar. The beamwidth is narrow (3.5° to 8°) and the source is operated roughly 3.5 meter (m) above the seabed with the transducer pointed directly downward.

• Ultra-short baseline (USBL) positioning systems are used to provide high accuracy ranges by measuring the time between the acoustic pulses transmitted by the vessel transceiver and a transponder (or beacon) necessary to produce the acoustic profile. It is a two-component system with a pole-mounted transceiver and one or several transponders mounted on other survey equipment. USBLs are expected to produce extremely small acoustic propagation distances in their typical operating configuration.

• Multibeam echosounders (MBESs) are used to determine water depths and general bottom topography. The proposed MBESs all have operating frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.

• Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for seabed sediment classification purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets on the seafloor. The proposed SSSs all have operating frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.

Table 1 identifies representative survey equipment with the expected potential to result in exposure of marine mammals and potentially result in take. The make and model of the listed geophysical equipment may vary depending on availability and the final equipment choices will vary depending upon the final survey design, vessel availability, and survey contractor selection.

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

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Ocean Wind II was published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2022 (87 FR 14823). That proposed notice described, in detail, Ocean Wind II's activities, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activities, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the request for authorization described therein, our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and requested that interested persons submit relevant information, suggestions, and comments. This proposed notice was available for a 30-day public comment period.

NMFS received 8 comment letters on the proposed IHA; 2 from environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) (Oceana, Inc. and Clean Ocean Action (COA)) and 6 letters from students at the University of New England School of Marine and Environmental Programs. The letters from the students expressed general support for wind farm construction; however, the IHA pertains to site assessment surveys. Hence, construction of the wind farm, and the associated comments, is outside the scope of NMFS' action considered herein. We do not specifically address comments related to impacts on marine mammals or their prey from potential future wind farm construction. Some student letters also suggested changes to the MMPA itself, which is also outside the scope of NMFS' proposed action here. All substantive comments related to the proposed action ( i.e., issuance of take associated with Ocean Wind II's site assessment surveys), and NMFS' responses, are provided below, and the letters are available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-marine-site-0 ). Please review the letters for full details regarding the comments and underlying justification.

Comment 1: Oceana made comments objecting to NMFS' renewal process regarding the extension of any one-year IHA with a truncated 15-day public comment period, and suggested an additional 30-day public comment period is necessary for any renewal request.

Response: NMFS' IHA renewal process meets all statutory requirements. In prior responses to comments about IHA renewals ( e.g., 84 FR 52464; October 2, 2019 and 85 FR 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has explained how the renewal process, as implemented, is consistent with the statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, and, further, promotes NMFS' goals of improving conservation of marine mammals and increasing efficiency in the MMPA compliance process. Therefore, we intend to continue implementing the renewal process.

The Notice of the proposed IHA published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2022 (87 FR 14823) made clear that the agency was seeking comment on the proposed IHA and the potential issuance of a renewal for this survey. Because any renewal is limited to another year of identical or nearly identical activities in the same location or the same activities that were not completed within the 1-year period of the initial IHA, reviewers have the information needed to effectively comment on both the immediate proposed IHA and a possible 1-year renewal, should the IHA holder choose to request one in the coming months.

While there would be additional documents submitted with a renewal request, for a qualifying renewal these would be limited to documentation that NMFS would make available and use to verify that the activities are identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS would also need to confirm, among other things, that the activities would occur in the same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. The renewal request would also contain a preliminary monitoring report, in order to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period provides the public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional pertinent information and comment on whether they think the criteria for a renewal have been met. Between the initial 30-day comment period on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the total comment period for a renewal is 45 days.

In addition to the IHA renewal process being consistent with all requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the provision for renewals in the regulations, description of the process and express invitation to comment on specific potential renewals in the Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the process through responses to comments such as these, posting of substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and Renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public is “invited and encouraged to participate fully in the agency's decision-making process”, as Congress intended.

Comment 2: Oceana and COA remarked that NMFS must utilize the best available science. The commenters further suggest that NMFS has not done so, specifically referencing information regarding the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) such as updated population estimates and recent habitat usage patterns in Ocean Wind II's survey area. The commenters specifically asserted that NMFS is not using the best available science with regards to the NARW population estimate and state that NMFS should be using the 336 estimate presented in the recent NARW Report Card ( https://www.narwc.org/report-cards.html ).

Response: While NMFS agrees that the best available science should be used for assessing NARW abundance estimates, we disagree that the NARW Report Card (Pettis et al., 2022) represents the best available estimate for NARW abundance. Rather the revised abundance estimate (368; 95 percent with a confidence interval of 356-378) published by Pace (2021) (and subsequently included in the 2021 draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports )), which was used in the proposed IHA, provides the most recent and best available estimate, and introduced improvements to NMFS' NARW abundance model. Specifically, Pace (2021) looked at a different way of characterizing annual estimates of age-specific survival. NMFS considered all relevant information regarding NARW, including the information cited by the commenters. However, NMFS relies on the SAR. Recently (after publication of the notice of proposed IHA), NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now below 350 animals ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale ). We anticipate that this information will be presented in the draft 2022 SAR. We note that this change in abundance estimate would not change the estimated take of NARWs or authorized take numbers, nor affect our ability to make the required findings under the MMPA for Ocean Wind II's survey activities.

NMFS further notes that the commenters seem to be conflating the phrase “best available data” with “the most recent data.” The MMPA specifies that the “best available data” must be used, which does not always mean the most recent. As is NMFS' prerogative, we referenced the best available NARW abundance estimate of 368 from the draft 2021 SARs as NMFS's determination of the best available data that we relied on in our analysis. The Pace (2021) results strengthened the case for a change in mean survival rates after 2010-2011, but did not significantly change other current estimates (population size, number of new animals, adult female survival) derived from the model. Furthermore, NMFS notes that the SARs are peer reviewed by other scientific review groups prior to being finalized and published and that the North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card (Pettis et al., 2022) does not undertake this process.

The commenters also noted their concern regarding NARW habitat usage, stating that NMFS was not appropriately considering relevant information on this topic. While this survey specifically intersects migratory habitat for NARWs, year-round “core” NARW foraging habitat (Oleson et al., 2020) located much further north in the southern area of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands where both visual and acoustic detections of NARWs indicate a nearly year-round presence (Oleson et al., 2020). NMFS notes that prey for NARWs are mobile and broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, NARW foraging efforts are not likely to be disturbed given the location of these planned activities in relation to the broader area that NARWs migrate through and the northern areas where NARWs primarily forage. There is ample foraging habitat further north of this survey area that will not be ensonified by the acoustic sources used by Ocean Wind II, such as in the Great South Channel and Georges Bank Shelf Break feeding biologically important area (BIA). Furthermore, and as discussed in the proposed Notice, the spatial acoustic footprint of the survey is very small relative to the spatial extent of the available foraging habitat.

Lastly, as we stated in the proposed IHA Federal Register notice (87 FR 14823, March 16, 2022) any impacts to marine mammals are expected to be temporary and minor and, given the relative size of the survey area compared to the overall migratory route leading to foraging habitat (which is not affected by the specified activity). Comparatively, the survey area is extremely small (the lease area is 338 km 2 ) compared to the size of the NARW migratory BIA (269,448 km 2 ). Because of this, and in context of the minor, low-level nature of the impacts expected to result from the planned survey, such impacts are not expected to result in disruption to biologically important behaviors.

Comment 3: Oceana noted that chronic stressors are an emerging concern for NARW conservation and recovery, and stated that chronic stress may result in energetic effects for NARWs. Oceana suggested that NMFS has not fully considered both the use of the area and the effects of both acute and chronic stressors on the health and fitness of NARWs, as disturbance responses in NARWs could lead to chronic stress or habitat displacement, leading to an overall decline in their health and fitness.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana that both acute and chronic stressors are of concern for NARW conservation and recovery. We recognize that acute stress from acoustic exposure is one potential impact of these surveys, and that chronic stress can have fitness, reproductive, etc. impacts at the population-level scale. NMFS has carefully reviewed the best available scientific information in assessing impacts to marine mammals, and recognizes that the surveys have the potential to impact marine mammals through behavioral effects, stress responses, and auditory masking. However, NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory marine site characterization survey activities planned by Ocean Wind II would create conditions of acute or chronic acoustic exposure leading to long-term physiological stress responses in marine mammals. NMFS has also prescribed a robust suite of mitigation measures, including extended distance shutdowns for NARW, that are expected to further reduce the duration and intensity of acoustic exposure, while limiting the potential severity of any possible behavioral disruption. The potential for chronic stress was evaluated in making the determinations presented in NMFS's negligible impact analyses. Because NARWs generally use this location in a transitory manner, specifically for migration, any potential impacts from these surveys are lessened for other behaviors due to the brief periods where exposure is possible. In context of these expected low-level impacts, which are not expected to meaningfully affect important behavior, we also refer again to the large size of the migratory corridor (BIA of 269,448 km 2 ) compared with the survey area (5,868 km 2 ). Thus, the transitory nature of NARWs at this location means it is unlikely for any exposure to cause chronic effects as Ocean Wind II's planned survey area and ensonified zones are much smaller than the overall migratory corridor. Because of this, NMFS does not expect acute or cumulative stress to be a detrimental factor to NARWs from Ocean Wind II described survey activities.

Comment 4: Oceana and COA asserted that NMFS must fully consider the discrete effects of each activity and the cumulative effects of the suite of approved, proposed and potential activities on marine mammals and NARWs in particular and ensure that the cumulative effects are not excessive before issuing or renewing an IHA.

Response: Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing regulations call for consideration of other unrelated activities and their impacts on populations. The preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in response to comments that the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS has factored into its negligible impact analysis the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline, e.g., as reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species, population size and growth rate, and other relevant stressors. The 1989 final rule for the MMPA implementing regulations also addressed public comments regarding cumulative effects from future, unrelated activities. There NMFS stated that such effects are not considered in making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible impact. In this case, this IHA, as well as other IHAs currently in effect or proposed within the specified geographic region, are appropriately considered an unrelated activity relative to the others. The IHAs are unrelated in the sense that they are discrete actions under section 101(a)(5)(D), issued to discrete applicants.

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

Through the response to public comments in the 1989 implementing regulations, NMFS also indicated (1) that we would consider cumulative effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a NEPA analysis, and (2) that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would also be considered under section 7 of the ESA for ESA-listed species, as appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS has written Environmental Assessments (EA) that addressed cumulative impacts related to substantially similar activities, in similar locations, e.g., the 2017 Ocean Wind, LLC EA for site characterization surveys off New Jersey; the 2018 Deepwater Wind EA for survey activities offshore Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; the 2019 Avangrid EA for survey activities offshore North Carolina and Virginia; and the 2019 Orsted EA for survey activities offshore southern New England. Cumulative impacts regarding issuance of IHAs for site characterization survey activities such as those planned by Ocean Wind II have been adequately addressed under NEPA in prior environmental analyses that support NMFS' determination that this action is appropriately categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis. NMFS independently evaluated the use of a categorical exclusion for issuance of Ocean Wind II's IHA, which included consideration of extraordinary circumstances.

Separately, the cumulative effects of substantially similar activities in the same geographic region have been analyzed in the past under section 7 of the ESA when NMFS has engaged in formal intra-agency consultation, such as the 2013 programmatic Biological Opinion for BOEM Lease and Site Assessment Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas ( https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/29291 ). Analyzed activities include those for which NMFS issued Ocean Wind's 2017 and 2021 IHAs (82 FR 31562; July 7, 2017 and 86 FR 26465; May 10, 2021), which are substantially similar to those planned by Ocean Wind II under this current IHA request. This Biological Opinion determined that NMFS' issuance of IHAs for site characterization survey activities associated with leasing, individually and cumulatively, are not likely to adversely affect listed marine mammals. NMFS notes, that while issuance of this IHA is covered under a different consultation, this BiOp remains valid and the surveys currently planned by Ocean Wind II from 2022 to 2023 could have fallen under the scope of those analyzed previously..

Comment 5: Oceana states that NMFS must make an assessment of which activities, technologies and strategies are truly necessary to provide Ocean Wind II the necessary information and identify which are not critical, asserting that NMFS should prescribe the appropriate survey techniques. In general, Oceana stated that NMFS must require that all IHA applicants minimize the impacts of underwater noise to the fullest extent feasible, including through the use of best available technology and methods to minimize sound levels from geophysical surveys.

Response: The MMPA requires that an IHA include measures that will effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stocks and, in practice, NMFS agrees that the IHA should include conditions for the survey activities that will first avoid adverse effects on NARWs in and around the survey site, where practicable, and then minimize the effects that cannot be avoided. NMFS has determined that the IHA meets this requirement to effect the least practicable adverse impact. Oceana does not make any specific recommendations of measures to add to the IHA. As part of the analysis for all marine site characterization survey IHAs, NMFS evaluated the effects expected as a result of the specified activity, made the necessary findings, and prescribed mitigation requirements sufficient to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals. It is not within NMFS' purview to make judgments regarding what may be appropriate techniques or technologies for an operator's survey objectives.

Comment 6: Oceana suggests that PSOs complement their survey efforts using additional technologies, such as infrared detection devices when in low-light conditions.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana regarding this suggestion and a requirement to utilize a thermal (infrared) device during low-light conditions was included in the proposed Federal Register Notice. That requirement is included as a requirement of the issued IHA.

Comment 7: Oceana and COA recommended that NMFS restrict all vessels of all sizes associated with the proposed survey activities to speeds less than 10 knots (kn) at all times due to the risk of vessel strikes to NARWs and other large whales.

Response: While NMFS acknowledges that vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality, we have analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting from Ocean Wind II' activity and have determined that based on the nature of the activity and the required mitigation measures specific to vessel strike avoidance included in the IHA, potential for vessel strike is so low as to be discountable. These mitigation measures, most of which were included in the proposed IHA and all of which are required in the final IHA, include: A requirement that all vessel operators comply with 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restrictions in any SMA, DMA or Slow Zone while underway, and check daily for information regarding the establishment of mandatory or voluntary vessel strike avoidance areas (SMAs, DMAs, Slow Zones) and information regarding NARW sighting locations; a requirement that all vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall length operating from November 1 through April 30 operate at speeds of 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less; a requirement that all vessel operators reduce vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of non-delphinid cetaceans are observed near the vessel; a requirement that all survey vessels maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any ESA-listed whales or other unidentified large marine mammals visible at the surface while underway; a requirement that, if underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sighted ESA-listed whale at 10 kn or less until the 500 m minimum separation distance has been established; a requirement that, if an ESA-listed whale is sighted in a vessel's path, or within 500 m of an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral; a requirement that all vessels underway must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from all non-ESA-listed baleen whales; and a requirement that all vessels underway must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible ( e.g., for animals that approach the vessel). We have determined that the ship strike avoidance measures in the IHA are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat. Furthermore, no documented vessel strikes have occurred for any marine site characterization surveys which were issued IHAs from NMFS during the survey activities themselves or while transiting to and from survey sites.

Comment 8: Oceana suggests that NMFS require vessels maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from NARWs at all times.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana regarding this suggestion and a requirement to maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from NARWs at all times was included in the proposed Federal Register Notice and was included as a requirement in the issued IHA.

Comment 9: Oceana recommended that the IHA should require all vessels supporting site characterization to be equipped with and using Class A Automatic Identification System (AIS) devices at all times while on the water. Oceana suggested this requirement should apply to all vessels, regardless of size, associated with the survey.

Response: NMFS is generally supportive of the idea that vessels involved with survey activities be equipped with and using Class A Automatic Identification System (devices) at all times while on the water. Indeed, there is a precedent for NMFS requiring such a stipulation for geophysical surveys in the Atlantic Ocean (38 FR 63268, December 7, 2018); however, these activities carried the potential for much more significant impacts than the marine site characterization surveys to be carried out by Ocean Wind II, with the potential for both Level A and Level B harassment take. Given the small isopleths and small numbers of take authorized by this IHA, NMFS does not agree that the benefits of requiring AIS on all vessels associated with the survey activities outweighs and warrants the cost and practicability issues associated with this requirement.

Comment 10: Oceana asserts that the IHA must include requirements to hold all vessels associated with site characterization surveys accountable to the IHA requirements, including vessels owned by the developer, contractors, employees, and others regardless of ownership, operator, and contract. They state that exceptions and exemptions will create enforcement uncertainty and incentives to evade regulations through reclassification and redesignation. They recommend that NMFS simplify this by requiring all vessels to abide by the same requirements, regardless of size, ownership, function, contract or other specifics.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana and required these measures in the proposed IHA and final IHA. The IHA requires that a copy of the IHA must be in the possession of Ocean Wind II, the vessel operators, the lead PSO, and any other relevant designees of Ocean Wind II operating under the authority of this IHA. The IHA also states that Ocean Wind II must ensure that the vessel operator and other relevant vessel personnel, including the Protected Species Observer (PSO) team, are briefed on all responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocols, operational procedures, and IHA requirements prior to the start of survey activity, and when relevant new personnel join the survey operations.

Comment 11: Oceana stated that the IHA must include a requirement for all phases of the Ocean Wind II site characterization to subscribe to the highest level of transparency, including frequent reporting to federal agencies, requirements to report all visual and acoustic detections of NARWs and any dead, injured, or entangled marine mammals to NMFS or the Coast Guard as soon as possible and no later than the end of the PSO shift. Oceana states that to foster stakeholder relationships and allow public engagement and oversight of the permitting, the IHA should require all reports and data to be accessible on a publicly available website.

Response: NMFS agrees with the need for reporting and indeed, the MMPA calls for IHAs to incorporate reporting requirements. As included in the proposed IHA, the final IHA includes requirements for reporting that supports Oceana's recommendations. Ocean Wind II is required to submit a monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after completion of survey activities that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, and describes, assesses and compares the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures. PSO datasheets or raw sightings data must also be provided with the draft and final monitoring report. Further the draft IHA and final IHA stipulate that if a NARW is observed at any time by any survey vessels, during surveys or during vessel transit, Ocean Wind II must immediately report sighting information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System and to the U.S. Coast Guard, and that any discoveries of injured or dead marine mammals be reported by Ocean Wind II to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. All reports and associated data submitted to NMFS are included on the website for public inspection.

Comment 12: Oceana recommended increasing the Exclusion Zone to 1,000 m for NARWs.

Response: NMFS notes that the 500 m Exclusion Zone for NARWs exceeds the modeled distance to the largest 160 dB Level B harassment isopleth distance (141 m during sparker use) by a substantial margin. Oceana does not provide a compelling rationale for why the Exclusion Zone should be even larger. Given that these surveys are relatively low impact and that, regardless, NMFS has prescribed a NARW Exclusion Zone that is significantly larger (500 m) than the conservatively estimated largest harassment zone (141 m), NMFS has determined that the Exclusion Zone is appropriate. Further, Level A harassment is not expected to result even in the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources planned for use. As described in the Mitigation section, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation requirements are sufficient to effect the least practicable adverse impact on all affected species or stocks.

Comment 13: Oceana recommended that NMFS should require PAM at all times to maximize the probability of detection for NARWs.

Response: Oceana does not explain why they expect that PAM would be effective in detecting vocalizing mysticetes, nor does NMFS agree that this measure is warranted, as it is not expected to be effective for use in detecting the species of concern. It is generally accepted that, even in the absence of additional acoustic sources, using a towed passive acoustic sensor to detect baleen whales (including NARWs) is not typically effective because the noise from the vessel, the flow noise, and the cable noise are in the same frequency band and will mask the vast majority of baleen whale calls. Vessels produce low-frequency noise, primarily through propeller cavitation, with main energy in the 5-300 Hertz (Hz) frequency range. Source levels range from about 140 to 195 decibel (dB) re 1 μ Pa (micropascal) at 1 m (NRC, 2003; Hildebrand, 2009), depending on factors such as ship type, load, and speed, and ship hull and propeller design. Studies of vessel noise show that it appears to increase background noise levels in the 71-224 Hz range by 10-13 dB (Hatch et al., 2012; McKenna et al., 2012; Rolland et al., 2012). PAM systems employ hydrophones towed in streamer cables approximately 500 m behind a vessel. Noise from water flow around the cables and from strumming of the cables themselves is also low-frequency and typically masks signals in the same range. Experienced PAM operators participating in a recent workshop (Thode et al., 2017) emphasized that a PAM operation could easily report no acoustic encounters, depending on species present, simply because background noise levels rendered any acoustic detection impossible. The same workshop report stated that a typical eight-element array towed 500 m behind a vessel could be expected to detect delphinids, sperm whales, and beaked whales at the required range, but not baleen whales, due to expected background noise levels (including seismic noise, vessel noise, and flow noise).

There are several additional reasons why we do not agree that use of PAM is warranted for 24-hour HRG surveys. While NMFS agrees that PAM can be an important tool for augmenting detection capabilities in certain circumstances, its utility in further reducing impact during HRG survey activities is limited. First, for this activity, the area expected to be ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold is relatively small (a maximum of 141 m); this reflects the fact that, to start with, the source level is comparatively low and the intensity of any resulting impacts would be lower level and, further, it means that inasmuch as PAM will only detect a portion of any animals exposed within a zone, the overall probability of PAM detecting an animal in the harassment zone is low. Together these factors support the limited value of PAM for use in reducing take with smaller zones. PAM is only capable of detecting animals that are actively vocalizing, while many marine mammal species vocalize infrequently or during certain activities, which means that only a subset of the animals within the range of the PAM would be detected (and potentially have reduced impacts). Additionally, localization and range detection can be challenging under certain scenarios. For example, odontocetes are fast moving and often travel in large or dispersed groups which makes localization difficult.

Given that the effects to marine mammals from the types of surveys authorized in this IHA are expected to be limited to low level behavioral harassment even in the absence of mitigation, the limited additional benefit anticipated by adding this detection method (especially for NARWs and other low frequency cetaceans, species for which PAM has limited efficacy), and the cost and impracticability of implementing a full-time PAM program, we have determined the current requirements for visual monitoring are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. NMFS has previously provided discussions on why PAM is not a required monitoring measure during HRG survey IHAs in past Federal Register notices (see 86 FR 21289, April 22, 2021 and 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022 for examples).

Comment 14: Oceana recommends a shutdown requirement if a NARW or other ESA-listed species is detected in the clearance zone as well as a publically available explanation of any exemptions as to why the applicant would not be able to shut down in these situations.

Response: There are several shutdown requirements described in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (87 FR 4200, January 27, 2022), and which are included in the final IHA, including the stipulation that geophysical survey equipment must be immediately shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or entering the relevant Exclusion Zone while geophysical survey equipment is operational. There is no exemption for the shutdown requirement. In regards to reporting, Ocean Wind II must notify NMFS if a NARW is observed at any time by any survey vessels during surveys or during vessel transit. Additionally, Ocean Wind II is required to report the relevant survey activity information, such as such as the type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance ( i.e., pre-clearance survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.) as well as the estimated distance to an animal and its heading relative to the survey vessel at the initial sighting and survey activity information. We note that if a NARW is detected within the Exclusion Zone before a shutdown is implemented, the NARW and its distance from the sound source, including if it is within the Level B harassment zone, would be reported in Ocean Wind II's final monitoring report and made publicly available on NMFS' website. Ocean Wind II is required to immediately notify NMFS of any sightings of NARWs and report upon survey activity information. NMFS believes that these requirements address the commenter's concerns.

Comment 15: Oceana recommended that when HRG surveys are allowed to resume after a shutdown event, the surveys should be required to use a ramp-up procedure to encourage any nearby marine life to leave the area.

Response: NMFS agrees with this recommendation and included in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (March 16, 2022, 87 FR 14823) and this final IHA a stipulation that when technically feasible, survey equipment must be ramped up at the start or restart of survey activities. Ramp-up must begin with the power of the smallest acoustic equipment at its lowest practical power output appropriate for the survey. When technically feasible the power must then be gradually turned up and other acoustic sources added in a way such that the source level would increase gradually. NMFS notes that ramp-up would not be required for short periods where acoustic sources were shut down ( i.e., less than 30 minutes) if PSOs have maintained constant visual observation and no detections of marine mammals occurred within the applicable Exclusion Zones.

Comment 16: COA asserted that Level A harassment may occur, and that this was not accounted for in the proposed Notice.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the concerns brought up by the commenters regarding the potential for Level A harassment of marine mammals. However, no Level A harassment is expected to result, even in the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources planned for use. This is additionally supported by the required mitigation and very small estimated Level A harassment zones. Furthermore, the commenters do not provide any persuasive support for the apparent contention that Level A harassment is a potential outcome of these activities.

NMFS acknowledges that sufficient disruption of behavioral patterns could theoretically, likely in connection with other stressors, result in a reduction in fitness and ultimately injury or mortality. However, such an outcome could likely result only from repeated disruption of important behaviors at critical junctures, or sustained displacement from important habitat with no associated compensatory ability. NMFS has thoroughly analyzed the potential effects of noise exposure resulting from the specified activity and, as discussed in the notice of proposed IHA (see Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat) and in this notice (see Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination), no such effects are reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of this activity. Therefore, no such outcome is expected as a result of these surveys. NMFS considers this category of survey operations to be near de minimis, with the potential for Level A harassment for any species to be discountable. Please refer also to NMFS' responses to comments 3, 4, and 8.

Comment 17: COA is concerned that habitat displacement could significantly increase the risk of ship-strike to NARWs from outside the survey area.

Response: NMFS does not anticipate that NARWs would be displaced from the area where Ocean Wind II's marine site characterization surveys would occur, and COA does not provide evidence that this effect should be a reasonably anticipated outcome of the specified activity. Similarly, NMFS is not aware of any scientific information suggesting that the survey activity would drive marine mammals into shipping lanes, and disagrees that this would be a reasonably anticipated effect of the specified activities. The take by Level B harassment authorized by NMFS is precautionary but considered unlikely, as NMFS' take estimation process does not account for the use of extremely precautionary mitigation measures, e.g., the requirement for Ocean Wind II to implement a Shutdown Zone that is more than 3 times as large as the estimated harassment zone. These requirements are expected to largely eliminate the actual occurrence of Level B harassment events and, to the extent that harassment does occur, would minimize the duration and severity of any such events. Therefore, even if a NARW was in the area of the cable corridor surveys, a displacement impact is not anticipated.

Although the primary stressor to marine mammals from the specified activities is acoustic exposure to the sound source, NMFS takes seriously the risk of vessel strike and has prescribed measures sufficient to avoid the potential for ship strike to the extent practicable. NMFS has required these measures despite a very low likelihood of vessel strike; vessels associated with the survey activity will add a discountable amount of vessel traffic to the specific geographic region and, furthermore, vessels towing survey gear travel at very slow speeds ( i.e., roughly 4-5 kn).

Comment 18: COA is concerned regarding the number of species that could be impacted by the activities, as well as a lack of baseline data being available for harbor seals in the area. In addition, COA has stated that NMFS did not adequately address the potential for cumulative impacts to bottlenose dolphins from Level B harassment over several years of project activities.

Response: We appreciate the concern expressed by COA. NMFS utilizes the best available science when analyzing which species may be impacted by an applicant's proposed activities. Based on information found in the scientific literature, as well as based on density models developed by Duke University, all marine mammal species included in the proposed Federal Register Notice have some likelihood of occurring in Ocean Wind II's survey areas. Furthermore, the MMPA requires us to evaluate the effects of the specified activities in consideration of the best scientific evidence available and, if the necessary findings are made, to issue the requested take authorization. The MMPA does not allow us to delay decision making in hopes that additional information may become available in the future.

NMFS notes that it has previously addressed discussions on cumulative impact analyses in previous comments and references COA back to these specific responses in this Notice. The amount of take authorized in the IHA meets the MMPA's small numbers requirement for dolphins (see Small Numbers section).

Regarding the lack of baseline information cited by COA, with specific concern pointed out for harbor seals, NMFS points towards two sources of information for marine mammal baseline information: The Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline Studies, January 2008-December 2009 completed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in July 2010 ( https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/handle/10929/68435 ) and the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/population-assessments/atlantic-marine-assessment-program-protected ) with annual reports available from 2010 to 2020 ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/publication-database/atlantic-marine-assessment-program-protected-species ) that cover the areas across the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS has duly considered this and all available information.

Based on the information presented, NMFS has determined that no new information has become available, nor do the commenters present additional information, that would change our determinations since the publication of the proposed notice.

Comment 19: One commenter suggested that the amount of authorized NARWs takes should be limited to 0.7 instead of the 11 takes proposed for authorization.

Response: The commenter cites Ocean Wind II's application when stating that only 0.7 are allowed to be “taken from the environment.” NMFS believes the commenter is referring to the potential biological removal (PBR) value in the draft 2021 SAR for NARWs. The commenter appears mistaken in equating the PBR value to the maximum amount of take that NMFS may authorize. 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. That is, PBR represents the amount of mortality and/or serious injury a population can withstand while allowing that stock to reach or maintain the maximum productivity of the population. Ocean Wind II did not request, nor is NMFS authorizing any mortality or serious injury of NARWs. The take authorized is limited to Level B (behavioral) harassment. NMFS has authorized 11 takes of NARWs by Level B harassment and has found that the taking will result in no greater than a negligible impact to the NARW stock ( i.e., the specified activity will not adversely affect the species through effects on annual rates of recruitment and/or survival).

Comment 20: One commenter suggested the IHA should not be issued at this time because they believe there is a lack of research on NARW prey.

Response: While much of this commenter's letter focused on wind farm construction, NMFS addresses this comment as though applicable to the site assessment surveys considered here. We note first that the region where this survey is located is not a significant feeding area for NARW. Primary feeding areas for the species are located further to the north, with the most important use of this area for NARW being as a migratory pathway. However, we further address this comment in general, as other mysticete species occur in the region and in order to thoroughly address the commenter's concern.

NMFS disagrees with the suggestion that we did not adequately consider the potential for effects to prey species. In fact, we considered relevant literature in finding that the most likely impact of survey activity to prey species such as fish and invertebrates would be temporary avoidance of an area, with a rapid return to pre-survey distribution and behavior, and minimal impacts to recruitment or survival anticipated. While there is a lack of specific scientific information to allow an assessment of the duration, intensity, or distribution of effects to prey in specific locations at specific times and in response to specific surveys, the MMPA specifies that the “best available data” must be used and NMFS' review of the available information does not indicate that such effects could be significant enough to impact marine mammal prey to the extent that marine mammal fitness would be affected. We addressed the potential for effects to prey, as well as the potential for those effects to impact marine mammal populations, in our notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 14823, March 16, 2022). As stated in that notice, our review of the available information and the specific nature of the activities considered herein suggest that the activities are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects (if any) on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to prey species are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations. Additional information relevant to the commenter's specific concern related to NARW prey is summarized below.

With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton ( i.e., NARW prey), McCauley et al. (2017) found that exposure to noise from airguns (a sound source with significantly more intense sound output than the sources considered herein, with correspondingly greater potential for impacts to marine mammal prey) resulted in significant depletion for more than half the taxa present and that there were two to three times more dead zooplankton after airgun exposure compared with controls for all taxa, within 1 km of the airguns. However, the authors also stated that in order to have significant impacts on r -selected species ( i.e., those with high growth rates and that produce many offspring) such as plankton, the spatial or temporal scale of impact must be large in comparison with the ecosystem concerned, and it is possible that the findings reflect avoidance by zooplankton rather than mortality (McCauley et al., 2017). In addition, the results of this study are inconsistent with a large body of research that generally finds limited spatial and temporal impacts to zooplankton as a result of exposure to airgun noise ( e.g., Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; Payne, 2004; Stanley et al., 2011). Most prior research on this topic, which has focused on relatively small spatial scales, has showed minimal effects ( e.g., Kostyuchenko, 1973; Booman et al., 1996; Sætre and Ona, 1996; Pearson et al., 1994; Bolle et al., 2012).

A modeling exercise was conducted as a follow-up to the McCauley et al. (2017) study (as recommended by McCauley et al. ), in order to assess the potential for impacts on ocean ecosystem dynamics and zooplankton population dynamics (Richardson et al., 2017). Richardson et al. (2017) found that a full-scale airgun survey would impact copepod abundance within the survey area, but that effects at a regional scale were minimal (2 percent decline in abundance within 150 km of the survey area and effects not discernible over the full region). The authors also found that recovery within the survey area would be relatively quick (3 days following survey completion), and suggest that the quick recovery was due to the fast growth rates of zooplankton, and the dispersal and mixing of zooplankton from both inside and outside of the impacted region.

Notably, a more recent study produced results inconsistent with those of McCauley et al. (2017). Researchers conducted a field and laboratory study to assess if exposure to airgun noise affects mortality, predator escape response, or gene expression of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus (Fields et al., 2019). Immediate mortality of copepods was significantly higher, relative to controls, at distances of 5 m or less from the airguns. Mortality one week after the airgun blast was significantly higher in the copepods placed 10 m from the airgun but was not significantly different from the controls at a distance of 20 m from the airgun. The increase in mortality, relative to controls, did not exceed 30 percent at any distance from the airgun. Moreover, the authors caution that even this higher mortality in the immediate vicinity of the airguns may be more pronounced than what would be observed in free-swimming animals due to increased flow speed of fluid inside bags containing the experimental animals. There were no sublethal effects on the escape performance or the sensory threshold needed to initiate an escape response at any of the distances from the airgun that were tested. Whereas McCauley et al. (2017) reported an SEL of 156 dB at a range of 509-658 m, with zooplankton mortality observed at that range, Fields et al. (2019) reported an SEL of 186 dB at a range of 25 m, with no reported mortality at that distance.

Note that the sound sources planned for use in Ocean Wind II's survey activities would result in significantly lesser potential for impacts to zooplankton than was observed in the studies described above. Further, given the typically wide dispersal of survey vessels and brief time to regeneration of the potentially affected zooplankton populations, we do not expect any meaningful follow-on effects to the prey base from Ocean Wind II's survey activities. Nevertheless, we provided the additional information above to clarify NMFS's evaluation of all potentially relevant information in our analysis of potential impacts to prey, including NARW prey.

Comment 21: One commenter suggested the IHA does not contain adequate mitigation measures with respect to vessel strike avoidance measures and there should be assurances to the public these measures are being implemented.

Response: We understand the commenter to be concerned that if Ocean Wind II does not comply with the vessel strike avoidance measures in the IHA, there may be no mechanisms by which to be aware of such violations. NMFS reiterates that (1) no vessel strike is anticipated to occur as a result of this survey activity; (2) the issued IHA contains appropriate reporting mechanisms in reflection of the potential for an unanticipated strike to occur; and (3) any unauthorized take that occurs is in violation of the MMPA. We refer the reader to our responses to comments 8 and 12 above.

Comment 22: One commenter suggested that the proposed exclusion zone ( i.e., shutdown zone) is inconsistent with BOEM's “standard” marine mammal exclusion zone of 200 m.

Response: The commenter referenced a BOEM website for oil and gas exploration when suggesting that the standard EZ is 200 m. The referenced web page also appears outdated as it references a decision document issued by BOEM in July 2014. Hence the website cited by the commenter is not applicable to Ocean Wind II's survey activities. Regardless, NMFS prescribes mitigation appropriate to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals, as required by the MMPA, and has conditioned the IHA in a manner identical to several previously issued offshore wind HRG IHAs and in accordance with the ESA informal consultation relevant to this action (NMFS, 2021 (revised September 2021)).

Comment 23: One commenter questioned why manatees were discussed in Ocean Wind II's application and why there were no takes of manatees estimated.

Response: The manatee is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hence, NMFS has no jurisdiction over the manatee and cannot authorize take for that species.

There were no changes from proposed IHA to final IHA. NMFS notes that the draft IHA that was posted to our website for review during the 30-day public comment period contained an erroneous amount of take for some species; however, the take for all species was correctly identified in the Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (87 FR 14823, March 16). No comments received were related to the take amounts identified in the draft IHA.

As discussed in the Summary section, NMFS erroneously referred to the applicant as “Ocean Wind, LLC” in the notice of proposed IHA. Here, we correct that reference to “Ocean Wind II, LLC.”

Since publication of the Notice of proposed IHA, NMFS has acknowledged that the population estimate of NARWs is now under 350 animals ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale ). However, as discussed in our response to Comment #2 above, NMFS has determined that this change in abundance estimate would not change the estimated take of NARWs or authorized take numbers, nor affect our ability to make the required findings under the MMPA for the Ocean Wind II survey activities. The status and trends of the NARW population remain unchanged.

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( 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, NMFS follows 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' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or would be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the Draft 2021 SARs (Hayes et al., 2021), available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by Ocean Wind II's activities, including information regarding population trends and threats, and local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 14823, March 16). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks or other relevant new information; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for those descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS's website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ) for generalized species accounts.

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

Title of Collection: Guaranty Agency Financial Report.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0026.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 432.

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

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee will hold its next public meeting remotely/virtually on Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST). In addition, the CAAAC will hold the next hybrid public meeting, in person at EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC with a virtual option on Tuesday, September 13, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT), and Wednesday, September 14, 2022, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EDT).

The committee agenda and any documents prepared for the meeting will be publicly available on the CAAAC website at http://www.epa.gov/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting minutes, will be available on the CAAAC website or by contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0429. The docket office can be reached by email at: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov or FAX: 202-566-9744.

For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Lorraine Reddick at reddick.lorraine@epa.gov, preferably at least 7 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers (ASMB) is a component of the “National Mortgage Database” (NMDB®) Program, which is a joint effort of FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (jointly, “the agencies”). The NMDB Program is designed to satisfy the Congressionally-mandated requirements of section 1324(c) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act. 1 Section 1324(c) requires that FHFA conduct a monthly survey to collect data on the characteristics of individual prime and subprime mortgages, and on the borrowers and properties associated with those mortgages, in order to enable it to prepare a detailed annual report on the mortgage market activities of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) for review by the appropriate Congressional oversight committees. Section 1324(c) also authorizes and requires FHFA to compile a database of otherwise unavailable residential mortgage market information and to make that information available to the public in a timely fashion.

As a means of fulfilling those and other statutory requirements, as well as to support policymaking and research regarding the residential mortgage markets, FHFA and CFPB jointly established the NMDB Program in 2012. The Program is designed to provide comprehensive information about the U.S. mortgage market and has three primary components: (1) The NMDB; (2) the quarterly National Survey of Mortgage Originations (NSMO); and (3) the ASMB.

The NMDB is a de-identified loan-level database of closed-end first-lien residential mortgage loans that is representative of the market as a whole, contains detailed loan-level information on the terms and performance of the mortgages and the characteristics of the associated borrowers and properties, is continually updated, has an historical component dating back to 1998, and provides a sampling frame for surveys to collect additional information. The core data in the NMDB are drawn from a random 1-in-20 sample of all closed-end first-lien mortgages outstanding at any time between January 1998 and the present in the files of Experian, one of the three national credit repositories, with a random sample of mortgages newly reported to Experian added each quarter.

The NMDB draws additional information on mortgages in the NMDB datasets from other existing sources, including Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data that are maintained by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), property valuation models, and administrative data files maintained by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by federal agencies. FHFA also obtains data from the two surveys conducted as part of the program—the NSMO and the ASMB.

The NSMO is a quarterly survey that provides critical and timely information on newly-originated mortgages and associated borrowers that are not available from other sources, including: The range of nontraditional and subprime mortgage products being offered, the methods by which these mortgages are being marketed, and the characteristics of borrowers for these types of loans. 2

While the NSMO provides information on newly-originated mortgages, the ASMB focuses on borrowers' experience with maintaining their existing mortgages. This includes their experience maintaining mortgages under financial stress, their experience in soliciting financial assistance, their success in accessing federally sponsored programs designed to assist them, and, where applicable, any challenges they may have had in terminating a mortgage loan. The ASMB is designed to collect information necessary to allow empirical analysis of two questions of vital importance to residential mortgage market policymakers and stakeholders: (1) What factors explain or predict which borrowers will become delinquent on their mortgages; and (2) once a borrower becomes delinquent, what factors explain or predict whether the borrower will (a) become current on the loan, (b) decide they cannot afford the mortgage and sell the property or modify the mortgage, or (c) remain delinquent and enter into foreclosure.

From 2016 through 2018, the ASMB questionnaire was sent once annually to a stratified random sample of 10,000 borrowers with mortgages in the NMDB. FHFA did not undertake the ASMB during 2019, but sent the survey again in the fall of 2020 with a specific focus on the experiences of borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic using a stratified random sample of 10,000 borrowers. The 2020 survey was substantially similar to the 2018 survey, except it included a number of questions specifically relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects. In 2020, the ASMB had a 21 percent overall response rate, which yielded 2,100 survey responses. The 2022 survey is similar to the 2020 survey in its focus on how the pandemic impacted borrowers and extends the focus to the experiences of those who used forbearance.

Seven completely new questions have been added regarding expanded mortgage payment forbearance options and borrowers' overall financial health. Additionally, four questions were added which were not in the 2020 ASMB, but were in either the 2018 ASMB or the current NSMO questionnaire. The remaining questions existed in the 2020 questionnaire, although some have been revised to address issues leaving forbearance rather than issues entering it. Because of the elimination of several questions, as well as the combination of some other questions, the total number of questions has decreased from 92 on the 2020 survey questionnaire to 86 on the 2022 questionnaire.

Each of the 86 questions on the 2022 ASMB survey questionnaire is designed to elicit one or more of five different categories of information that are not available in the administrative data and that are needed either to properly analyze the issues described above or information is needed to validate the survey responses. These categories are: (1) Information needed to validate that the survey reached the correct borrower and that the borrower is providing answers about the correct loan; (2) information about the mortgage loan that does not exist in sufficient detail in the administrative data; (3) information about the borrower's economic circumstances that does not exist, or exists in insufficient detail, in the administrative data; (4) information about the borrower's attitudes regarding their mortgage, property, interactions with lenders and servicers, and life circumstances; and (5) information needed to determine the ultimate outcome of the borrower's forbearance or delinquency and the interim steps that led to that outcome.

FHFA views the NMDB Program as a whole, including the ASMB, as the monthly “survey” required by section 1324(c) of the Safety and Soundness Act. Core inputs to the NMDB, such as a regular refresh of the credit repository data, occur monthly, though the actual surveys conducted under the NMDB Program do not. The information collected through the ASMB is used, in combination with information obtained from existing sources in the NMDB, to assist FHFA in understanding how the performance of existing mortgages is influencing the residential mortgage market, what borrower groups are discussing with their servicers when they are under financial stress, and consumers' opinions of federally-sponsored programs designed to assist them. This important, but otherwise unavailable, information assists FHFA in the supervision of its regulated entities (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks) and in the development and implementation of appropriate and effective policies and programs. The information may also be used for research and analysis by CFPB and other federal agencies that have regulatory and supervisory responsibilities and mandates related to mortgage markets and to provide a resource for research and analysis by academics and other interested parties outside of the government.

As discussed above, the agencies have added to the 2022 ASMB survey questionnaire several questions relating to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on home mortgage borrowers. The CARES Act of 2020  3 allowed a forbearance for mortgage borrowers impacted by the pandemic so they could pause or delay their mortgage payments. FHFA and CFPB are actively engaged in monitoring the outcomes of these borrowers and the effects of this policy on the residential mortgage market. As borrowers exit their forbearance periods, it is critical for both agencies to have timely access to this information to assist in evidenced-based policymaking in these areas.

FHFA is also seeking OMB approval to continue to conduct cognitive pre-testing of the survey materials. The Agency uses information collected through that process to assist in drafting and modifying the survey questions and instructions, as well as the related communications, to read in the way that will be most readily understood by the survey respondents and that will be most likely to elicit usable responses. Such information is also used to help the Agency decide on how best to organize and format the survey questionnaires.

This information collection comprises two components: (1) The ASMB survey; and (2) the pre-testing of the survey questionnaire and related materials through the use of cognitive testing. FHFA conducted the survey annually from 2016 through 2018, but did not conduct the survey in 2019 nor 2021. FHFA assumes that it will conduct the survey once annually over the next three years and that it will conduct two rounds of pre-testing on each year of survey materials.

FHFA has analyzed the total hour burden on members of the public associated with conducting the survey (4,200 hours) and with pre-testing the survey materials (24 hours) and estimates the total annual hour burden imposed on the public by this information collection to be 4,224 hours. The estimate for each phase of the collection was calculated as follows:

FHFA estimates that the ASMB questionnaire will be sent to 10,000 recipients each time it is conducted. Although it expects that only about 2,100 of those surveys will be returned, FHFA has calculated the burden estimates below as if all of the surveys will be returned. Based on the reported experience of respondents to earlier ASMB questionnaires, FHFA estimates that it will take each respondent 25 minutes to complete each survey, including the gathering of necessary materials to respond to the questions. This results in a total annual burden estimate of 4,200 hours for the survey phase of this collection (1 survey per year × 10,000 respondents per survey × 25 minutes per respondent = 4,200 hours).

FHFA estimates that it will sponsor 2 rounds of 12 cognitive interviews prior to conducting each annual survey for a total of 24 cognitive interview participants. It estimates the participation time for each cognitive interview participant to be one hour, resulting in a total annual burden estimate of 24 hours for the pre-testing phase of the collection.

In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published an initial notice and request for public comments regarding this information collection in the Federal Register on December 28, 2021. 4 The 60-day comment period closed on February 28, 2022. FHFA received no comments.

FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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.

Copies of the proposed questions are available below. Paper copies are available by emailing register@fmcs.gov. Please ask for the Stakeholder Survey.

Agency: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Form Number: Not yet assigned.

Type of Request: New collection; generic clearance.

Affected Entities: Private sector; state, local, and tribal governments; individuals or households; and federal government.

Frequency: These methods of engagement are utilized on an as-needed basis. Each engagement is completed once.

Abstract: Pursuant to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996, 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq. and 571 et seq., and 29 U.S.C. 173(f), the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service provides conflict prevention, management, and resolution services, including, but not limited to, public policy facilitation and mediation services, to Federal agencies. As part of these services, sometimes FMCS employees need to survey or ask questions to determine the best process and participants to prevent, manage, or resolve the issue, particularly for public policy mediations, public policy or environmental facilitations, or negotiated rulemaking. To do so, FMCS has created a set of questions to ask various stakeholders about issues, concerns, engagement, and appropriate stakeholders relevant to the issues. The survey format will differ depending on the project but may be conducted in one or more of the following ways, both in-person and virtually: Individual or group interviews, individual or group discussions, or written surveys. The survey requests information such as stakeholder understanding of the particular issue, stakeholder interests in the particular issue, appropriate stakeholders, methods of engagement with the issue, and other similar information that will allow FMCS to best create a successful process. A link to the survey is found here: https://tags.fmcs.gov/4DAction/FC/DoAsynchTop?Fedreg*UPPJ*919/10300. To log in, go to: https://tags.fmcs.gov/, use username “Fedreg” and password “UPPJ.” The collection of such information is critical for ensuring the appropriate process, stakeholders, and stakeholder input in the process. No other collections are being conducted that would provide this information to FMCS.

Burden: The current total annual burden estimate is that FMCS will receive information from approximately 15,000 respondents per year. Interviews and discussions would be approximately thirty minutes in duration. Written surveys would take approximately ten minutes to complete. FMCS expects the total burden to not exceed 2,535 hours per year.

FMCS solicits comments to:

i. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

ii. Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.

iii. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

iv. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.

This information was previously published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2022, allowing for a 60-day public comment period under Document 2022-05543 at 87 FR 14857. FMCS received no comments.

The official records are electronic records.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

Background: The purpose of the ACD, CDC is to advise the Secretary, HHS, and the Director, CDC, on policy and broad strategies that will enable CDC to fulfill its mission of protecting health through health promotion, prevention, and preparedness. The ACD, CDC consists of up to 15 non-federal members, including the Chair, knowledgeable in areas pertinent to the CDC mission, such as health policy, public health, global health, preparedness, preventive medicine, the faith-based and community-based sector, and allied fields.

Purpose: The establishment and formation of the DSW is to provide input to the ACD, CDC on agency-wide activities related to the scope and implementation of CDC's data modernization strategy across the agency, ultimately playing a key role in the agency's work with public health, healthcare, and academic and private sector partners and with the promotion of equity. The DSW membership will consist of approximately 15 members. It will be co-chaired by two current ACD, CDC Special Government Employees. The DSW co-chairs will present their findings, observations, and work products at one or more ACD, CDC meetings for discussion, deliberation, and decisions (final recommendations to CDC).

Nomination Criteria: DSW members will serve terms ranging from six months to one year and be required to attend DSW meetings approximately one to two times per month (virtually or in person), and contribute time between meetings for research, consultation, discussion, and writing assignments.

Nominations are being sought for individuals who have the expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's/workgroup's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of public health science and practice; public health preparedness and response; public health policy development, analysis, and implementation; public health surveillance and informatics; data analysis, data science, and forecasting; health information technology; and healthcare delivery from jurisdictional government agencies, non-government organizations, academia, and the private sector. To ensure a diverse workgroup composition, nominees with front line and field experience at the local, state, tribal, and territorial levels are encouraged to apply. This includes nominees with experience working for, and with, community-based organizations and other non-profit organizations. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of the DSW's objectives.

HHS policy stipulates that membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the workgroup's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Interested candidates should submit the following items:

A one-half to one-page cover letter that includes your understanding of, and commitment to, the time and work necessary; one to two sentences on your background and experience; and one to two sentences on the skills/perspective you would bring to the DSW.

Current curriculum vitae which highlights the experience and work history being sought relevant to the criteria set forth above, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).

Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.

The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Outcome and Assessment Information Set OASIS-E; Use: This request is for OMB approval to modify the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) that home health agencies (HHAs) are required to collect in order to participate in the Medicare program. The current version of the OASIS, OASIS-D (0938-1279) data item set was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 6, 2018 and implemented on January 1, 2019. We are seeking OMB approval for the proposed revised OASIS item set, referred to hereafter as OASIS-E, scheduled for implementation on January 1, 2023. The OASIS-E includes changes pursuant to the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (the IMPACT Act); and, to accommodate data element removals to reduce burden; and improve formatting throughout the document. Subsequent to publishing the 60-day Federal Register notice (87 FR 7457), we removed the GG activity items from the Follow-Up time point which resulted in a decrease in the burden hours. Form Number: CMS-10545 (OMB control number: 0938-1279); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 11,354; Total Annual Responses: 18,030,766; Total Annual Hours: 13,012,051. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Joan Proctor at 410-786-0949).

Description: The Capacity Building Collaborative includes three centers (Center for States, Center for Tribes, Center for Courts) funded by the Children's Bureau to provide national child welfare expertise and evidence-informed training and technical assistance services to state, tribal and U.S. territorial public child welfare agencies, and CIPs. The Centers offer services including Web-based content and resources, product development and dissemination, self-directed and group-based training, virtual learning and peer networking events, and tailored consultation, coaching, and facilitation (“tailored services”). Centers' services are being evaluated by Center-specific evaluations and a cross-Center evaluation. The cross-Center evaluation examines collaboration among Centers and with federal staff, services delivered by the Centers, service recipient satisfaction with service quality, federal staff's experiences of assessment and work planning services offered by the Centers, effectiveness of Center services, how Centers apply a common “change management approach” in their work; what affects child welfare jurisdiction engagement with Center services, and the costs of Center services. The Center for States' evaluation consists of data collection around two research questions focusing on understanding usefulness, relevance, and satisfaction from a stakeholder perspective as well as outcomes of services. The Center for Tribes' evaluation examines the extent to which the Center provides effective, culturally responsive services that meet the needs of tribal child welfare programs, the satisfaction of service recipients with service quality, and service outcomes for tribal child welfare programs and stakeholders. The Center for Courts' evaluation assesses satisfaction with and effectiveness of service delivery; progress toward meeting Center goals and the needs of CIP to promote continuous quality improvement (CQI); and increased knowledge, collaboration, and capacity to improve court performance and child and family outcomes.

An initial set of instruments was approved and are currently in use for these evaluations. For information about these instruments, see: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202105-0970-015. These instruments will continue to be used for data collection through July 2024.

The second group of data sources proposed include (1) a guide for conducting focus groups with teams of child welfare and CIP staff implementing tailored service projects with Center support (one version for use with states and one version for use with CIP); (2) a protocol to collect interview data from Center tailored service providers (known as Liaisons or Child Welfare Specialists) about their service provision experiences, relationships and interactions with jurisdictions and federal staff, perceptions of their role, and their Centers' approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) services; (3) a protocol to collect interview data from jurisdiction staff implementing tailored service projects about how Centers' technical assistance addresses diversity, equity, and inclusion; (4) a protocol to collect interview/focus group data from tribal child welfare program staff about strategies and contextual factors associated with achievement of program goals, the capacity to use data for CQI and evaluation, and the outcomes of services delivered by Center for Tribes; and (5) a survey to collect feedback from CIP directors/coordinators about the CIP's experiences and satisfaction with capacity building services delivered by the Center for Courts, and the perceived impact on CIP capacity.

Respondents: Respondents to the data collection instruments will include (1) child welfare and judicial professionals that receive Center services and (2) Center tailored service providers.

The following details the burden associated with the new instruments. For burden currently approved and ongoing, visit https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202105-0970-015.

Description: The information collected through the forms approved under the Generic Clearance for Disaster Information Collection Forms is used to provide real-time updates during the response and recovery phases of a disaster. The same generic form has been tailored for each of the five following ACF offices or programs: The Children's Bureau, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, the Office of Child Care, the Office of Head Start, and the Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Program. It is possible that more program offices may request approval of a tailored version in the future. The requested information is submitted by ACF grantees, which includes states and tribes.

Family and Youth Services Bureau, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. This form collects information on post-disaster impacts and disaster recovery, including requests for assistance from state administrators, tribes/tribal organizations, state coalitions, or resource centers comprising the Domestic Violence Resource Network; shelters that have been evacuated due to damage; shelter residents being served in alternate locations; reports of an increase in requests for assistance; capacity shortfalls; and reported increase in domestic violence post-disaster.

Office of Child Care. The baseline information includes the number of licensed, regulated, and license-exempt child care providers in the state; the number of children who are served by the ACF Office of Child Care's Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF); emergency contact information for the CCDF administrator, the licensing contacts, and resource and referral agencies; interruptions in systems that facilitate contacting the child care providers; contact person for state recordkeeping systems; number of children served; and damage assessment plans of the licensing agency. The disaster impact information includes the number and type of child care providers closed, the number of closed providers that serve children who benefit from ACF CCDF, the number of children with CCDF subsidies affected by the closures, total child care capacity lost, whether the providers whose facilities have closed will be able to reopen, whether damaged facilities have been able to remain open, degree of disruption in services; state decision to implement temporary operating standards for child care providers; and requests for behavioral and mental health services for children, families, and staff. Post-disaster recovery questions include ability of child care providers to reopen, number of service slots lost due to closures, total number of child care providers that are open in the disaster impact zone; and staff shortages.

Family and Youth Services Bureau, Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. This form collects information on post-disaster impacts and disaster recovery, including requests from grantees for technical assistance; a safety and accountability report for children and youth in RHY programs; reports of damage to RHY facilities; and a report of any children or youth that have been relocated due to damages to facilities.

Children's Bureau. This form requests information on any disaster-caused disruptions of the child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation system; reports of unaccompanied children needing protection, identification, and reunification with legal caregivers; actions taken by the Child Welfare Agency; impacts to Chafee Foster Care Independence Program providers; accountability and safety report for youth receiving services; reports on any increase in the number of child abuse or neglect reports in the affected areas; impacts to Safe and Stable Families or Community Based Child Abuse Prevention providers; whether families receiving in-home services are being supported; displaced or temporarily relocated foster families; coordination of needed services and supervision by the Child Welfare Agency; new or increased interstate challenges; and compromised program records.

Office of Head Start. Number of Head Start (HS) centers and service slots located in the disaster impact zone; number of centers and available service slots open and number closed post-disaster; number of HS centers with undetermined status; general access to services for children and families in the impacted areas; disruptions in transportation; ability of families to receive care elsewhere; number of HS centers closed post-disaster and number of service slots lost; and other program service interruptions.

Respondents: ACF Grantees and State Administrators.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 124.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 68 Disaster Relief; 42 U.S.C. Section 5121; Pub. L. 113-5.

Section 332 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary designate Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs) based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas which the Secretary determines have shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) public or private medical facilities or other public facilities with such shortages. The required regulations setting forth the criteria for designating HPSAs are codified at 42 CFR part 5.

Section 332(k)(1) provides that the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, identify shortages of maternity care services “within health professional shortage areas.” Section 332(k)(1) further requires HRSA to identify MCTAs and distribute maternity care health professionals within HPSAs using the MCTAs so identified. HRSA must also collect and publish data in the Federal Register comparing the availability and need of maternity care health services in HPSAs and must seek input from relevant provider organizations and other stakeholders.

In a September 21, 2021, Federal Register notice (86 FR 53324), HRSA requested feedback on six proposed criteria to identify MCTAs: (1) Ratio of females ages 15-44 -to-full time equivalent maternity care health professional ratio; (2) percentage of females 15-44 with income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); (3) travel time and distance to the nearest provider location with access to comprehensive maternity care services; (4) fertility rate; (5) the Social Vulnerability Index; and (6) four Maternal Health Indicators (pre-pregnancy obesity, pre-pregnancy diabetes, pre-pregnancy hypertension, and prenatal care initiation in the first trimester).

HRSA carefully evaluated and analyzed the comments received and used them to guide the development of the final MCTA criteria.

HRSA received 21 responses to the request for comments. Comments and responses are summarized below.

All commenters supported the inclusion of a population-to-provider ratio and agreed with HRSA's proposal of a population ratio of females ages 15-44 -to-full time equivalent maternity care health professional ratio. However, several commenters questioned the use of only Obstetrician/Gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) in the provider ratio and recommended the inclusion of family medicine physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. Specifically, one commenter indicated “that a comprehensive system of maternity healthcare services is comprised of multiple types of care and considerations should be made for the inclusion of family medicine physicians in rural areas that deliver maternity care services.”

HRSA appreciates the recommendation for the inclusion of additional provider types and recognizes the important contribution all of these professionals play in the delivery of obstetrics care. Currently, standardized nationwide data is not readily available outlining the number of hours that individual family medicine physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners spend providing these services, and thus the agency would have no way of uniformly comparing the hours that these providers spend contributing maternity care services. HRSA recognizes the important role of these clinicians in the provision of maternity care and will continue to review the availability of these data points to determine if additional provider types may be incorporated into the MCTA scoring criteria in the future. We continue to welcome recommendations on nationally available data sets for the incorporation of these provider types into MCTAs. Until that data is readily available for inclusion, HRSA will proceed with the population-to-provider ratio as proposed.

HRSA proposed including a measure of travel time and distance (TTD) to the nearest source of care (NSC) with access to comprehensive maternity care services. All commenters supported the inclusion of TTD to NSC criteria but presented varied methodologies on how to implement and score the criteria. Some commenters were concerned with the TTD point scale outline in the proposed criteria and suggested that HRSA adjust and expand the scoring scale to provide points for facilities identified within the 30 minute/mile TTD. A separate commenter requested that, “In terms of distance from comprehensive services, I would ask HRSA to clarify that as the distance from a site that has more than one or two on-staff OB/GYN.” Another commenter indicated that TTD should be the largest weighted factor, as it relates to the geographic accessibility of services and is part of the assessment needed to fully address the MCTA statutory requirements

Section 332(k)(5) of the PHSA defines `full scope maternity care health services' as care provided during labor, birthing, prenatal care, and postpartum care, with no specification regarding the quantity of providers available at the facility. As to the comment regarding including points for distance less than 30 minute/mile, the United States currently lacks an established benchmark for timely access to a facility for obstetric care. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) proposes a 30-mintue capability for decision-to-incision for emergency cesarean delivery. 1 HRSA will therefore retain its proposed approach.

In reference to the comment for the explicit definition of “distance from a site that has more than one or two on-staff OB/GYN,” HRSA will apply the current Primary Care HPSA NSC policy, which identifies the NSC based on the presence of a provider trained and licensed to provide the necessary care regardless of the number of providers at the location. In response to the comment regarding geographic accessibility, HRSA recognizes the importance of this measure and will retain it as proposed and continue to monitor this issue in the future.

HRSA proposed the use of four Maternal Health Indicators (pre-pregnancy obesity, pre-pregnancy diabetes, pre-pregnancy hypertension, and prenatal care initiation in the first trimester).

Several commenters suggested inclusion of a tobacco usage indicator. Commenters noted that smoking in the 3 months leading up to pregnancy can increase the risk of preterm birth and of adverse maternal health outcomes, and recommended inclusion of tobacco use as an indicator. Additionally, commenters highlighted that a significant proportion of women who smoked cigarettes prior to pregnancy continue to smoke into the later stages of gestation.

HRSA agrees that the smoking of cigarettes is a significant risk factor for adverse maternal health outcomes and will add cigarette smoking as a Maternal Health Indicator. For this purpose, cigarette smoking will be defined as women who report smoking one or more cigarettes daily for the 3 months prior to pregnancy or during any of the trimesters of their pregnancy.

One point will be added if the prevalence of cigarette smoking before or during pregnancy in the MCTA is greater than or equal to the median among all counties in the United States. If the prevalence of cigarette smoking before or during pregnancy in the MCTA is less than the median among all counties, zero points will be added.

To accommodate the inclusion of this factor, one point will be removed from the total possible number of points awarded for the percent of the population living at or below the 200 percent Federal Poverty Level indicator. The rationale for this change is that household income relative to the federal poverty line is represented not only in this criterion but also in the Social Vulnerability Index criterion.

HRSA proposed that the threshold for receiving points for Maternal Health Indicators would be 75%. Two commenters noted that the threshold to receive a point for the Maternal Health Indicators was “too restrictive.” One commenter recommended that the threshold be decreased for each indicator from the top quartile (75th percentile) to the median (50th percentile).

HRSA conducted an impact analysis applying both percentiles to existing primary care HPSAs. The results of the analysis indicated that lowering the percentile threshold for Maternal Health Indicators to the median resulted in a slightly more standard distribution of the points across currently designated primary care HPSAs. The chart below provides a visual of the difference in the score distribution between the two thresholds. Based on this analysis, HRSA will adjust the threshold for the Maternal Health Indicators to reflect the 50th percentile recommendation of the commenters.

Several commenters requested that HRSA provide points based on the individual factors of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to allow for an increased impact of the social determinant factors within the SVI. Additionally, commenters proposed increasing the number of points allotted to the entire SVI.

HRSA recognizes the importance of the SVI in the prioritization and distribution of resources. The scientific research that correlates the SVI to a need for additional health care resources was conducted using the entire index and not the individual factors. In addition, accommodating all 15 of the individual factors of the SVI would dilute the impact of Maternal Health Indicators that are more closely associated with the need for maternal health care. Increasing the weight of the SVI in the MCTA scoring criteria would decrease the impact of other factors, such as initiation of prenatal care and pre-pregnancy diabetes. HRSA will continue to apply the SVI as a whole to the MCTA scoring criteria and maintain the proposed point scale.

Several commenters recommended the inclusion of a behavioral health factor as part of the Maternal Health Indicators. One commenter specifically recommended a composite point based on prevalence of perinatal mood, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorder. Commenters highlighted that a pre-pregnancy diagnosis of a mental health illness can be an indicator of an increased risk of mental health concerns during pregnancy, which also increases the potential for adverse perinatal/post-partum health outcomes.

HRSA recognizes the important impact of behavioral health factors on maternal health outcomes. A Report from the 14-state Maternal Mortality Review Committee found that 11% of the 421 pregnancy related deaths with an identified underlying cause of death determination, were due to mental health conditions. The Review Committee also determined that 100% of the pregnancy-related mental health deaths with a preventability determination were preventable. 2

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Emory University conducted a cross-sectional multilevel analysis of all pregnancy-related deaths and all live births with available ZIP code or county data in the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System during 2011-2016 for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic (all races), and non-Hispanic White women aged 15-44 years. Among health care need and service indicators, the number of mental health care professionals per 100,000 population had a strong inverse relationship with the pregnancy-related mortality ratio. Each standard unit increase in the number of mental health care professionals was associated with 5.55 (95% CI −8.11 to −2.99) fewer deaths per 100,000 live births among Black women and 1.42 (95% CI −2.08 to −0.76) fewer deaths per 100,000 live births among White women. 3

HRSA agrees that access to behavioral health is a significant risk factor for adverse maternal health outcomes and will include a behavioral health access factor as a Maternal Health Indicator.

One point will be awarded if a portion or all of MCTA service area is designated as a Mental Health HPSA meeting the following population-to-provider median ratio thresholds based on its mental health provider type. Zero points will be awarded if a portion or all of the MCTA service area is not designated as a Mental Health HPSA or the Mental Health designation does not meet the population to provider ratio threshold.

To accommodate the inclusion of this factor, one point will be removed from the total possible number of points awarded for the travel time and distance (TTD) to nearest source of care (NSC) criteria. The rationale for this change is to ensure that all Health Care Capacity Factors are equal in value.

HRSA appreciates the comments and recommendations received and has used them to guide the development of the final Maternity Care Health Professional Target Area criteria. Comments were not received on the proposed Federal Poverty Level or Fertility Rate factors; they will be finalized as proposed. The final MCTA criteria are included below. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Janelle McCutchen at sdmp@hrsa.gov.

An MCTA score will be generated for each primary care HPSA using the HPSA's service area. The following six scoring criteria will be included in a composite scale that will be used to identify MCTAs with the greatest shortage of maternity care health professionals: (1) Ratio of females ages 15-44 -to-full time equivalent maternity care health professional ratio; (2) percentage of females 15-44 with income at or below 200 percent of the FPL; (3) travel time and distance to the nearest provider trained and licensed to provide the necessary care; (4) fertility rate; (5) the SVI; and (6) Maternal Health Index which contains the following six indicators: Pre-pregnancy obesity, pre-pregnancy diabetes, pre-pregnancy hypertension, prenatal care initiation in the first trimester, cigarette smoking, and the behavioral health factor. Each of these six criteria will be assigned a relative weight based on the significance of that criterion relative to all the others.

The weighted scores will be summed to develop a composite MCTA score ranging from zero to 25, with 25 indicating the greatest need for maternity care health professionals in the MCTA. Accordingly, the higher the composite score, the higher the degree of need for maternity care health services.

Population-to-provider ratio will measure the number of women of childbearing age in the service area compared to the number of maternity care health professionals in the service area. Women of childbearing age will be defined as women between the ages of 15-44 years old and maternity care health professionals will be defined as OB/GYNs and CNMs. A population-to-provider ratio of 1500:1 will be used as a minimum requirement for a population to be considered reasonably served by OB/GYNs and CNMs.

Population-to-provider Ratio point values will be distributed as follows:

The percentage of people living in the service area at or below 200 percent of the FPL will be used to score MCTAs, based on poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Population with income at or below 200 percent of the FPL point values will be distributed as follows:

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Title X Implementation Study.

Type of Collection: New.

OMB No. 0990-NEW-Office of Population Affairs—OASH.

Abstract: The Office of Population Affairs (OPA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting 3 years of approval by OMB on a new collection. The Title X Implementation Study will document how organizations funded by the Title X Service Grants program design and implement their program services. The study will document (1) how grantees ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered quality family planning services; (2) the steps that Title X grantees take to provide clients from diverse communities with equitable access to affordable, high-quality, client-centered health services; (3) any pivots and/or accommodations to providing care they made in recent years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) how they assess their impact. To carry out these objectives, the study team will rely on the following five proposed data sources: (1) A web-based survey of the 2022 cohort of Title X grantees; (2) grantee telephone interviews; (3) in-person or virtual listening visits with clinic administrators, service providers, and community outreach or partner staff at a subset of Title X sub-recipients and service delivery sites; (4) a web-based survey of clients at up to 10 of the sites selected for listening visits; and (5) telephone interviews with subject matter experts. Data collection will begin in fall 2022, pending OMB approval, with the grantee survey and interviews, which will inform selection of sites for the listening visits.

Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title of the Collection: Understanding Economic Risk for Low Income Families: Economic Security, Program Benefits, and Decisions about Work.

Type of Collection: New.

OMB No.: 0990-NEW—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Abstract: The primary purpose of this study is to identify the risks that federal program benefit recipients weigh when faced with an opportunity to increase earnings, including benefit reductions, earnings instability, and the ease of regaining lost benefits if needed.

The study will use a discrete choice experiment to explore the importance of these considerations when low-income individuals are presented with a hypothetical opportunity to increase earnings. Statistical analysis will explore interactions between factors and threshold effects. The focus population will be persons currently receiving benefits from at least one of the following programs: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), housing assistance, Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies, and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The study will explore whether different preferences are exhibited by parents with children and by persons of different races and ethnicities.

The results of this study will provide HHS with a better understanding of the economic risks that people weigh when they make decisions about increasing earnings, which will inform HHS policy and programs at large, and further lines of research around benefit programs and employment decisions.

The data will be collected once, using primarily a web-based survey, from a sample of low-income persons receiving one or more federal benefit programs. Respondents will be asked to review the vignette and choose whether they think the hypothetical individual should accept the earnings increase. In addition, the questionnaire includes follow-up questions for each vignette/experimental condition, and a set of demographic questions.

Section 203(c)(1) of the National Housing Act authorizes the Secretary to set the premium charge for insurance of mortgages under the various programs in Title II of the National Housing Act. The range within which the Secretary may set such charges must be between one-fourth of one percent per annum and one percent per annum of the amount of the principal obligation of the mortgage outstanding at any time. (See 12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(1 )).

On October 2, 2015, HUD published a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 59809) announcing the MIP rates for FHA Multifamily, Health Care Facilities, and Hospital mortgage insurance programs that had commitments issued or reissued in FY 2016. Subsequently, on January 28, 2016, HUD Multifamily published a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 4926) announcing MIP rate reductions to promote affordable and green energy-efficient housing. HUD is now proposing rate reductions for certain Office of Healthcare Programs to achieve green and energy-efficiency buildings for the Office of Residential Care Facilities (ORCF), Section 232 program. A February 2017 article from Science Direct that studied energy consumption costs for healthcare facilities states that “Healthcare facilities are considered major energy consumers due to their need for reliable electricity and thermal energy supplies for heating, ventilation, lighting, air conditioning and the use of medical and non-medical equipment.” In response to the President's climate initiative, and global initiatives to combat climate change, and in-line with the Department's and Administration's goals to reduce energy consumption and utility costs throughout the building sector, rate reductions are proposed to promote healthy, green, and energy-efficient healthcare facilities.

HUD's Multifamily Housing Mortgage Insurance regulation at 24 CFR 207.254 provides as follows:

Notice of future premium changes will be published in the Federal Register . The Department will propose MIP changes for multifamily mortgage insurance programs and provide a 30-day public comment period for the purpose of accepting comments on whether the proposed changes are appropriate.

This provision also applies to mortgages insured under the Section 232 Program (See 24 CFR 232.251).

Pursuant to the 30-day comment procedure, this Notice announces MIP changes for FY 2023, for certain programs authorized under the National Housing Act (the Act) (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(1)), and specifically for the Section 232 program. These changes will become effective October 1, 2022.

This Notice announces that HUD is changing MIPs for FHA-insured loans on properties under specific Office of Healthcare insurance programs. In FY 2013, FHA increased MIPs to compensate for increased risk to the FHA-insurance fund after the housing market crisis. Over the past eight years since the MIP rate was adjusted, HUD has continued to improve underwriting standards to further mitigate risk to the FHA portfolio, including improved reviews of appraised values, heightened examination of quality of care history, and strengthened requirements for borrower and parent entity experience/capacity.

The proposed MIP changes reflect HUD's commitment to supporting the long-term viability and efficiency of its insured portfolio, in line with the President's climate agenda. They are also prudent in light of the financial health of the Section 232 portfolio and the favorable impact that the analogous MIP changes to the FHA Multifamily programs have had over the past five years.

Annual MIP will change from current rates generally between 45 and 77 basis points, to 25 basis points for certain Section 232, Office of Residential Care Facilities' FHA-insured loan types. This policy intends to encourage owners to adopt higher standards for construction, rehabilitation, repairs, maintenance, and property operations that are more energy efficient and sustainable than traditional approaches to such activities. Those measures will result in projects with greater energy and water efficiency, reduced operating costs, improved indoor air quality and resident comfort, and reduced overall impact on the environment. To facilitate this, mortgage proceeds will be used to retrofit properties to meet the stringent efficiency standards required to access this lower MIP premium.

To qualify:

Upon application for FHA mortgage insurance, the owner must evidence that the project will achieve, an industry-recognized standard for green building certification. For properties that have already achieved a green building standard certification and that are refinancing with this lower MIP premium, proceeds must be used to complete further efficiency upgrades and thereby achieve the next-level green certification standards. 1 Acceptable, independently verified standards include the Enterprise Green Communities Criteria, U.S. Green Building Council's LEED-Home, LEED-Highrise, LEED-Midrise, LEED-Lowrise, LEED-NC, LEED-Healthcare Facilities, EarthCraft Multifamily, Earth Advantage Multifamily, the National Green Building Standard (NGBS), Passive Building Certification or EnerPHit Retrofits certification from the Passive House Institute US (PHIUS), International Passive House Association, or the Passive House Institute, and Living Building Challenge Certification from the International Living Future Institute, or other industry-recognized green building standards in the sole discretion of HUD's Office of Residential Care Facilities.

Further, the owner must certify that it has achieved, or will pursue, achieve, and maintain a score of 75 or better on the 1-100 ENERGY STAR score, using EPA's Portfolio Manager for the Senior Care Community building type. The reasonableness of achieving and maintaining the specified, independent green building standard, and the score of 75 or better in Portfolio Manager, must be verified by the independent conclusion of the qualified assessor preparing the physical condition assessment, and supported by the physical condition assessment report and recommendations, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) level II energy audit (required for existing structures only), and plans for new construction, or rehabilitation, repairs, and operations and maintenance. The physical condition assessment report submitted with the mortgage insurance application must include a certification from the architect, engineer, or certified energy auditor that the planned scope of work is reasonably sufficient to achieve and maintain the specified certification. Additionally, the owner must submit to HUD evidence that the specified, independent green building standard has been achieved, and provide a copy of the Portfolio Manager report showing building performance at or above 75, at the time those standards were achieved, and no more than 24 months after completion of new construction, substantial rehabilitation or renovations, or 24 months after break-even occupancy. The owner must submit the Portfolio Manager report annually to HUD showing that the property has maintained its efficiency performance at or above 75. HUD anticipates issuing implementation guidance via Mortgagee Letter or supplemental Notice. Additionally, the Borrower's obligations with respect to the reduced MIP will be set forth in the Borrower Regulatory Agreement, the non-compliance with which may result in HUD's pursuit of all available rights and remedies.

To ensure that the benefits of these MIP rates directly benefit the residential care properties and residents, lenders submitting applications for loans using this MIP rate are limited in the total loan fees they may charge on any loan greater than $2 million, to no more than 5 percent of the insured loan amount. Loan fees include (a) origination and placement fees as permitted by the MAP Guide, plus (b) trade profit, trade premium or marketing gain earned on the sale of the GNMA security at a value above par, even if the security sale is delayed until after endorsement, minus (c) loan fees applied by the Mortgagee to its legal expenses incurred in connection with loan closing. This 5 percent limitation on loan fees shall further apply to a later Interest Rate Reduction, if any, of the loan.

HUD is changing MIPs for FHA-insured loans for specific properties under The Office of Residential Care Facilities, Section 232 Mortgage Insurance program. The chart below details the MIP rates for each rate category, and each type of FHA mortgage insurance covered under this Notice.

This Notice also includes the upfront and annual MIP rates for the Office of Residential Care Facilities Section 232/223(i) Fire Equipment Safety Loan program. The MIP rates for that program are encompassed in 24 CFR 232.805 but were not specifically referenced in the most recent Notice addressing Section 232 MIP rates, so those 232/223(i) rates are being included here simply for clarity purposes.

The MIP rates will become effective for FHA firm commitments issued or reissued on or after October 1, 2022. MIP rates will not be modified for any loans that close or reach initial endorsement prior to October 1, 2022. MIP rates will not be modified on FHA-insured loans initially or finally endorsed, in conjunction with Interest Rate Reductions, or in conjunction with Loan Modifications.

A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).