Title: Foreign Market Development Program and Market Access Program.

OMB Number: 0551-0026.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2022.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary objective of the FMD and MAP programs is to encourage and aid in the creation, maintenance, and expansion of commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products through cost-share assistance to eligible trade organizations. The programs are a cooperative effort between CCC and eligible trade organizations. Currently, there are approximately 67 organizations participating directly in the programs with activities in more than 100 countries.

Prior to initiating program activities, each FMD or MAP participant must submit a detailed application to FAS which includes an assessment of overseas market potential; market or country strategies, constraints, goals, and benchmarks; proposed market development activities; estimated budgets; and performance measurements. Each FMD or MAP participant is also responsible for submitting: (1) reimbursement claims for approved costs incurred in carrying out approved activities, (2) an end-of-year contribution report, (3) travel reports, and (4) progress reports/evaluation studies. FMD or MAP participants must maintain records on all information submitted to FAS. The information collected is used by FAS to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for government resources. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is currently estimated to average 21 hours per response.

Type of Respondents: Non-profit agricultural trade organizations, non-profit state regional trade groups, agricultural cooperatives, and state agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 67.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 64.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 89,324 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Dacia Rogers, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at Dacia.Rogers@usda.gov.

Request for Comments: Send comments regarding (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be available without change, including any personal information provided, for inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and at the mail address listed above between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.

Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact FAS-ReasonableAccommodation@usda.gov or Cynthia Stewart (RA Coordinator), cynthia.stewart@usda.gov.

FAS administers and manages three inter-related programs in the sugar market: the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program, the Sugar Containing Products Re-Export Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program ( see 7 CFR part 1530). FAS issues licenses to qualified sugar refiners, manufacturers of sugar-containing products (SCP), and producers of polyhydric alcohol not for human consumption which apply for these programs.

The Refined Sugar Re-Export Program provides a raw cane sugar refiner a license that authorizes three types of activities. First, a refiner with a refined sugar re-export license (“licensed refiner”) may import low-duty raw cane sugar, refine it, and re-export it to the world market. Second, the licensed refiner may export refined sugar produced with domestic or imported raw cane or beet sugar and later import low-duty raw cane sugar for any use. Third, the licensed refiner may import low-duty raw cane sugar for refining for any use and transfer refined sugar produced with domestic or imported raw cane or beet sugar to licensed U.S. manufacturers of sugar-containing products and/or licensed producers of polyhydric alcohol for non-food purposes.

U.S. manufacturers in the Sugar-Containing Products Re-Export Program obtain a license allowing them to buy world-priced refined cane or beet sugar from any licensed domestic cane or beet refiner for use in exported products.

U.S. producers of polyhydric alcohols in the Polyhydric Alcohol Program obtain a license allowing them to buy world-priced refined cane or beet sugar from any licensed domestic cane or beet refiner for use in polyhydric alcohols, except polyhydric alcohols incorporated as a substitute for sugar in human food consumption.

An in-house FAS online system called SUGARS currently serves to organize the many program transactions among the three sets of licensees. The interactions of exports, imports, transfers, and use resemble the workings of an online checking account. Documents must substantiate each stage of these program transactions.

Refiners manage their licenses using exports, imports, and transfers. Exports pertain to refined sugar shipped outside the United States. Imports reference raw cane sugar entering the United States. Transfers mean refined sugar sold to licensed SCP manufacturers and producers of polyhydric alcohol not for human consumption. Refiners increase their balances in tonnage by exporting refined sugar and selling refined sugar to licensed makers of SCPs and producers of polyhydric alcohol not for human consumption. Both of these transactions with SCP and polyhydric alcohol manufacturers qualify as transfers for the parties involved.

SCP licensees accumulate quantities in their accounts by claiming exports of their goods. Specifically, these amounts include only the net weight of sugar in the exported products. From their balances, SCP licensees may purchase world-priced refined sugar from licensed refiners. These transfers may not exceed the balances of SCP license holders.

Companies with polyhydric alcohol licenses report their use of refined sugar to produce polyhydric alcohol not for human consumption. They build their balances and may buy world-priced sugar from licensed refiners. These transfers may not exceed the balances of companies with polyhydric alcohol licenses.

A new system is being constructed to replace the existing SUGARS, which dates to 2004. The new system will be highly automated, better protected, and more streamlined. FAS envisions a more thoroughly encrypted seamless approach for transmitting and verifying data that operates like an online checking account.

A new system must accomplish the following objectives:

1. Help to enforce the terms and conditions of issued licenses under 7 CFR part 1530.

2. Be intuitive and user-friendly for licensees.

3. Provide licensees maximum access to their proprietary data.

4. Integrate fully the component parts of a license.

5. Allow for publication of aggregated, non-proprietary data.

6. Permit FAS to access and compile data needed for resolving issues.

7. Serve as a portal for interested parties to apply for licenses.

As the system remains in development, this RFI is a general solicitation for public input from all stakeholders involved directly or indirectly in the Sugar Re-export Programs. This stakeholder input will inform efforts to build a system to operate more efficiently and provide quality service to program users.

Specific questions to which responses are requested are listed below. Respondents may provide non- confidential input concerning any or all of these questions. In addition, this representative list does not cover all aspects of a new system to replace SUGARS. Therefore, we welcome other input on topics not covered in these questions. In particular, please provide any additional recommendations related to achieving the seven objectives noted above.

1. Should the new system continue the current SUGARS structure resembling an online checking account? For example: Exports for SCP licensees and use for polyhydric alcohol licensees count as deposits. Meanwhile, purchases of program sugar from licensed refiners qualify as withdrawals. In turn, refiners rely on their balances of exports, imports, and transfers to enter low-duty imports of raw cane sugar.

2. SUGARS currently requires licensees to use a spreadsheet tool to upload data to their accounts. After receiving and reviewing the uploaded information, FAS transmits by email to licensees their balance information. FAS envisions a new, more thoroughly encrypted seamless approach for communicating this data, like an online checking account. What features are needed in a new system to allow licensees and FAS to more easily and more securely transmit, verify and access data?

3. The new system could be created to permit each licensee complete access to data and license documents provided by the licensee to FAS without having to obtain permission from FAS, such as the original application package. These documents could be stored for a number of years in the licensee's account in the new system. Please share your perspectives on this matter.

4. In what ways could or should the new system allow or require licensees to upload supporting documents for each program transaction?

5. Should the license application process be incorporated into the new system?

6. What other features, if any, should the new system include to improve program operations?

Any information obtained from this RFI is intended to be used by the Government on a non-attribution basis for planning and developing a successor system to SUGARS. This RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for proposals or abstracts. Your response to this notice will be treated as information only. FAS will not reimburse any costs incurred in responding to this RFI. Respondents are advised that FAS is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do not bind FAS to any further actions related to this topic. Responses will become government property.

No confidential information, such as confidential business information or proprietary information, should be submitted in comments for this RFI. Comments received in response to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be made available for public inspection and posted without change and as received, including any business information or personal information provided in the comments, such as names and addresses. Please do not include anything in your comment submission that you do not wish to share with the general public.

The Carson National Forest covers six ranger districts across nearly 1.5 million acres of National Forest System land in the northern New Mexico counties of Taos, Rio Arriba, Colfax, and Mora. The LMP was developed pursuant to the 2012 Forest Service Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and will replace the 1986 Land Management Plan. The LMP describes desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and land suitability for project and activity decision-making and will guide all resource management activities on the Forest. The Carson National Forest plays an important role supporting and partnering with communities in northern New Mexico and throughout the southwestern United States by providing economic benefits including fuelwood gathering, livestock grazing, and abundant recreational opportunities. The development of the LMP was shaped by the best available scientific information, current laws, and public input.

The Carson National Forest initiated plan revision in 2014 and engaged the public frequently throughout the process. This engagement effort has included conventional public meetings, information sharing via social media, and collaborative work sessions with cooperating agencies. The Forest invited State, local and Tribal governments, and other federal agencies from around the region to participate in the process to revise the LMP. The Carson National Forest engaged in government-to-government consultation with 16 tribes during LMP revision, ensuring tribal-related plan direction accurately reflects the Carson National Forest's trust responsibilities and government-to-government relationship with tribes. A cooperating agency working group met regularly throughout the plan revision effort. During the 90-day comment period in 2019 for the draft LMP and draft EIS, the Carson National Forest received 5,740 letters, which helped refine the preferred alternative and augment plan content based on response to comments.

A draft ROD, LMP, and FEIS were released in September 2021, initiating a 60-day objection filing period that closed November 2, 2021. The Carson National Forest received 16 eligible objections. Through a comprehensive review of each objection, a variety of issues were identified. Following the objection review, the Reviewing Officer held objection resolution meetings with objectors and interested persons. Based on these meetings, the Reviewing Officer issued a written response on May 24, 2022. The instructions from the Reviewing Officer were addressed in the final ROD, LMP, and FEIS.

The Responsible Official for approving the LMP is James Duran, Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest. The Responsible Official approving the list of species of conservation concern is Michiko Martin, Regional Forester, Southwestern Region.

The decision to approve the revised Land Management Plan and the Regional Forester's list of species of conservation concern for the Tonto National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). Per 36 CFR 219.53, only individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to a plan revision during the opportunities for public comment attributed to the objector may file an objection unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment.

Objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. An objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):

(1) The objector's name and address along with a telephone number or email address if available. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an objection, the Forest Service will attempt to verify the identity of the objector to confirm objection eligibility;

(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);

(3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection. The Forest Service will communicate to all parties to an objection through the lead objector. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must also be provided if requested;

(4) The name of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision being objected to, and the name and title of the responsible official;

(5) A statement of the issues and/or parts of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to which the objection applies;

(6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the draft plan decision may be improved. If the objector believes that the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy, an explanation should be included;

(7) A statement that demonstrates the link between the objector's prior substantive formal comments and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment; and

(8) All documents referenced in the objection (a bibliography is not sufficient), except the following need not be provided:

a. All or any part of a Federal law or regulation,

b. Forest Service Directive System documents and land management plans or other published Forest Service documents,

c. Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the planning documentation related to the proposal subject to objection, and

d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision comment period. It is the responsibility of the objector to ensure that the Objection Reviewing Officer receives the objection in a timely manner. The regulations generally prohibit extending the length of the objection filing period (36 CFR 219.56(d)). However, when the time period expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day (11:59 p.m. for objections filed by electronic means such as email or facsimile machine) (36 CFR 219.56).

The responsible official who will sign the draft ROD for the revised LMP and associated FEIS for the Tonto National Forest is Neil Bosworth, Forest Supervisor, Tonto National Forest, Tonto National Forest Supervisor's Office, phone: (602) 225-5201. The responsible official for the list of SCC is Michiko Martin, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway Blvd. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

The Regional Forester is the reviewing officer for the revised LMP, draft ROD, and FEIS since the Forest Supervisor is the responsible official (36 CFR 219.56(e)). The decision to approve the SCC list will be subject to a separate objection process. The Chief of the Forest Service is the reviewing officer for SCC identification since the Regional Forester is the responsible official (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)).

This authority may be delegated to an individual Deputy Chief or Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, consistent with delegations of authority provided in the Forest Service Manual at sections 1235.4 and 1235.5.

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

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms and information technology. Comments may be sent as follows:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and, in the “Search” box, type in the Docket No.RBS-22-BUSINESS-0013. A link to the Notice will appear. You may submit a comment here by selecting the “Comment” button or you can access the “Docket” tab, select the “Notice,” and go to the “Browse & Comment on Documents” Tab. Here you may view comments that have been submitted as well as submit a comment. To submit a comment, select the “comment” button, complete the required information, and select the “Submit Comment” button at the bottom. Information on using Regulations.gov , including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “FAQ” link at the bottom. Comments on this information collection must be received by September 6, 2022.

Title: 7 CFR PART 4280-E, Rural Business Development Grants.

OMB Control Number: 0570-0070.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved package.

Abstract: The Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79 (2014 Farm Bill) (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)), authorizes the Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) program to facilitate the development of small and emerging private businesses, industries, and related employment as well as identifying and analyzing business opportunities, establishing business support centers, and providing training, technical assistance, and planning for improving the economy in rural communities. The regulations contain requirements that involve information collection activities, including organizational documents, recordkeeping, scope of work, budgets, project plan, appraisal reports, audit reports, selection priorities narrative, appealing denial of grant application, consultations, small business plan evidence, experience documentation, financial information, funding source documentation, performance reports and financial assistance plans.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.65 hours per responses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 920.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 12,847.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses per Respondents: 13.96.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 59,823.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Lynn Gilbert, Rural Development Innovation Center-Regulatory Team, at (202) 690-2682. Email: lynn.gilbert@usda.gov.

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

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery (DFO) at bpeery@usccr.gov.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicCommittee?id=a10t000000BD8SMAA1.

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

Members of the public may listen to this discussion through the above call-in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are 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 David Barreras at dbarreras@usccr.gov.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, 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, Kansas 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 Unit at the above email or street address.

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

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the respective meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at vmoreno@usccr.gov. All written comments received will be available to the public.

Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at the www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above phone number or email address.

Background

On January 5, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on kegs from the People's Republic of China (China)  1 in the Federal Register . 2 On April 18, 2022, we received case briefs from Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co., Ltd. (Jingye), 3 and the American Keg Company (the Petitioner). 4 On April 28, 2022, we received a rebuttal briefs from the Petitioner, Jingye and Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd. (Ulix). 5 Commerce addressed comments from the parties in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. 6 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by this Order are refillable stainless steel kegs. A full description of the scope of the Order is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in the administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum is available to parties at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made one change to the Preliminary Results of this administrative review regarding Jingye. For the final results of review, we find that Jingye had a sale during the POR and is entitled to a separate rate. We made no changes to the margin calculation for Ulix.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. When the rates for individually examined companies are all zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that Commerce may use “any reasonable method” to establish the all-others rate.

We have calculated a 0.00 percent dumping margin for the mandatory respondent, Ulix. We assigned the non-individually examined separate rate respondent a dumping margin equal to the dumping margin of Ulix, consistent with the guidance in section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the administrative review covering the period December 13, 2019, through November 30, 2020:

Normally, Commerce discloses the calculations used in its analysis to parties in a review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results of the review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, in this case, given we made no changes to the calculations addressed in the Preliminary Results, there are no additional calculations on the record to disclose to the interested parties.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Because the weighted-average dumping margin for Ulix and the respondent that was not selected for individual examination in this administrative review but qualified for a separate rate is zero, Jingye, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 7 For the companies listed in Appendix II, identified as part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an antidumping duty assessment rate of 77.13 percent (the rate applicable to the China-wide entity) to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR exported by those companies.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese or non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 77.13 percent); and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act.

Background

On June 22, 2020, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on certain quartz surface products (QSP) from India in the Federal Register . 1 On August 3, 2021, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order. 2 On February 4, 2022, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results to June 30, 2022. 3

Commerce initiated this administrative review covering 57 individually named companies. 4 On September 28, 2021, we limited the number of respondents selected for individual examination in this administrative review to PESL and Antique Group. 5 We did not select the remaining companies for individual examination, and these companies remain subject to this administrative review.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by the Order are QSP from India. For a complete description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On October 29, 2021, and November 1, 2021, M S International, Inc. (MSI) and certain exporters and/or producers of QSP from India (Indian Applicants) timely withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of Argil Ceramics. On October 29, 2021, MSI, Arizona Tile, LLC, and Indian Applicants timely withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of Global Stones Private Limited. No other party requested a review of these companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Argil Ceramics and Global Stones Private Limited, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (4).

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Export price was calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice.

Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, Commerce is preliminarily relying upon facts otherwise available to determine a weighted-average dumping margin for Antique Group in this review. Commerce preliminarily finds that Antique Group withheld information requested by Commerce, warranting a determination on the basis of the facts available under section 776(a) of the Act. Further, Commerce preliminarily determines that Antique Group failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, and thus, Commerce is applying facts available with adverse inferences (AFA) to Antique Group, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions regarding the application of AFA, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not identify the dumping margin to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when determining the dumping margin for respondents that are not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding dumping margins that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Where the dumping margins for individually examined respondents are all zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that Commerce may use “any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” We have preliminarily calculated a zero percent dumping margin for PESL, and we have preliminarily assigned Antique Group a dumping margin of 323.12 percent based entirely on facts available with an adverse inference. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we are preliminarily applying to the 51 companies not selected for individual examination a rate of 161.56, which is an average of the zero percent rate calculated for PESL and the 323.12 percent AFA rate assigned to Antique Group. These 51 exporters are listed in Appendix II. For additional discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice. 7 Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 8 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 9 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 10 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS  11 and must be served on interested parties. 12 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 13

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. 14 If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

If the weighted-average dumping margin for PESL is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to each importer and the total entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.”  15 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by PESL for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction. 16

Should we continue to apply facts available with an adverse inference to Antique Group in the final results, we will instruct CBP to apply an assessment rate equal to the dumping margin of 323.12 percent, as indicated above, to all entries produced and/or exported by Antique Group. The assessment rate for antidumping duties for each of the companies not selected for individual examination will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the final results of review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each company listed above will be that established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 1.02 percent, the rate established in the investigation of this proceeding, as adjusted for subsidy offsets. 17 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On August 3, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan. 1 On February 22, 2022, Commerce extended the time limit for these preliminary results to June 30, 2022, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2

The merchandise subject to the order is glycine. For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. withdrew its requests for review of Showa Denko K.K  4 and Yasunaga Trading Co., Ltd. 5 Because the requests for review were timely withdrawn filed and no other parties requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is partially rescinding this review of the order for these two companies.

We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this administrative review within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 7 Commerce has modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 8 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 9

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 10

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 11 If the weighted-average dumping margin for Yuki Gosei Kogyo Co., Ltd./Nagase & Co., Ltd. is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate. Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce intends to calculate importer/customer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 12 Where the respondent did not report entered values, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will calculate importer/customer-specific assessment rates by dividing the amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer/customer by the total quantity of those sales. Commerce will calculate an estimated ad valorem importer/customer-specific assessment rate to determine whether the per-unit assessment rate is de minimis; however, Commerce will use the per-unit assessment rate where entered values were not reported. Where an importer/customer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. If YGK/Nagase's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or if an importer-specific assessment rate for one of these companies is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 13 For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by any of these companies for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries. 14

Consistent with its recent notice, 15 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of glycine from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 53.66 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation, adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. 16 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

Background

On June 11, 2018, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy. 1 On August 3, 2021, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 This administrative review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 3 However, as discussed below, we preliminary find that one of these producers/exporters, Metalfer SpA (Metalfer), had no entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce extended the preliminary results by 120 days, until June 30, 2022. 4

For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of the review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this order are certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

On August 4, 2021, Commerce released U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and allowed parties to comment. 6 The CBP data indicated that Dalmine S.p.A. (Dalmine) was the only respondent under review that had entries during the POR. Although Metalfer timely provided comments stating that it made a sale of subject merchandise during the POR, 7 it was unable to demonstrate, at Commerce's request, that it had an associated POR entry. 8 Based on the foregoing, Commerce preliminarily determines that Metalfer did not have any reviewable entries during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Consistent with Commerce's practice, we are not preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Metalfer but, rather, we will complete the review with respect to Metalfer and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021:

Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If Dalmine's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. If Dalmine's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 9

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Dalmine or Metalfer for which that company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at 47.87 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 10 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 11

We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 35 days after publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Dalmine in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 47.87 percent, 12 the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results. 13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 14 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 15 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS  16 and must be served on interested parties. 17 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 18

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined.

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

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

This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On August 3, 2021, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on TRBs from China covering the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021, with respect to 11 companies. 1

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included in the appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties who requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. (CPZ) and GGB Bearing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (GGB) timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review. No other party requested a review of these companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to CPZ and GGB, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Imports covered by the Order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from China; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

C&U Group Shanghai Bearing Co., Ltd. (C&U Group); Hangzhou C&U Automotive Bearing Co., Ltd. (C&U Automotive); Hangzhou C&U Metallurgy Bearing Co., Ltd. (C&U Metallurgy); Hebei Xintai Bearing Forging Co., Ltd. (Hebei Xintai); Huangshi C&U Bearing Co., Ltd. (Huangshi C&U); Sichuan C&U Bearing Co., Ltd. (Sichuan C&U); and Xinchang Newsun Xintianlong Precision Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (XTL) did not submit separate rate applications or recertify their eligibility for a separate rate; therefore, each company has failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate as a result of this administrative review. Commerce preliminarily determines that these companies are not eligible for a separate rate and are a part of the China-wide entity.

Under Commerce's current policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the China-wide entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the China-wide entity is not under review, and the weighted-average dumping margin determined for the China-wide entity rate is therefore not subject to change and continues to be 92.84 percent. 4

Commerce calculated an individual weighted-average dumping margin for Tainai, the only company individually examined in this administrative review. Because the only individually calculated weighted-average dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Tainai is the basis to determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the separate rate, non-examined companies, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, which provides for the determination of the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters in an investigation.

As indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section below, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 36.03 percent applies to Jingli, the only company not selected for individual examination that is eligible for a separate rate. For further information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at “Weighted-Average Dumping Margin for the Separate Rate Companies.”

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021:

Commerce will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the representatives of interested parties that have access to business proprietary information under the Administrative Protective Order within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 5 Rebuttals to case briefs may be filed no later than seven days after case briefs are filed, and all rebuttal briefs must be limited to comments raised in the case briefs. 6 Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 7

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing. 8

All submissions must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established due date. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 9

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days after the date of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 10

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce verified the information relied upon in making its preliminary results with respect to Tainai. 11 Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification in this review. Accordingly, we issued a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification. We intend to rely on Tainai's response to our verification questionnaire for the final results.

Upon issuance of the final results of the administrative review, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 12 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), Commerce intends to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 13 Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce intends to calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates by aggregating the amount of dumping calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the merchandise sold to the importer. 14 Where the respondent did not report entered values, Commerce will calculate importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer by the total quantity of those sales. Commerce will calculate an estimated ad valorem importer-specific assessment rate to determine whether the per-unit assessment rate is de minimis; however, Commerce will use the per-unit assessment rate where entered values were not reported. 15 Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. Where either the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 16 Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Tainai for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the China-wide rate  17 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 18

For the final results, if we continue to treat the C&U Group; C&U Automotive; C&U Metallurgy; Hebei Xintai; Huangshi C&U; Sichuan C&U; and XTL as part of China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 92.84 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin previously established for the China-wide entity, 19 to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were exported by these companies.

For Jingli, the company that is receiving a separate rate and was not individually examined, its assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin determined in the final results of this review.

For CPZ and GGB, the companies for which the administrative review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that are currently eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be equal to the exporter-specific weighted-average dumping margin published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity, 92.84 percent; and (4) for all exporters of subject merchandise that are not located in China and that are not eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce 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 authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

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

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to industry operators for the incidental take of marine mammals during geophysical survey activities and prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat (often referred to as mitigation), as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations and a determination that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers.

NMFS issued an LOA to W&T and its designee, Echo Offshore, LLC (Echo), on November 19, 2021, for the take of marine mammals incidental to an archaeological and geohazards survey in the Eugene Island Area, Block EI389 and portions of Blocks EI385 and EI386, and in the Ewing Bank Area, in the E/2 portion of Block EW979. Please see the Federal Register notice of issuance (86 FR 67449; November 26, 2021) for additional detail regarding the LOA and the survey activity.

W&T initially anticipated that the activity would occur at some point between December 1, 2022, and July 1, 2022. W&T subsequently conveyed to NMFS that as of June 24, 2022, the survey had not commenced but would be starting very soon. W&T has requested modification to the effectiveness end date of the LOA (from July 1 to August 1, 2022) to allow for additional time for complete their survey. There are no other changes to W&T's planned activity. Since issuance of the LOA, no survey work has occurred.

NMFS has changed the effectiveness end date of the LOA from July 1 to August 1, 2022. There are no other changes to the LOA as described in the November 11, 2021, Federal Register notice of issuance (86 FR 67449): the specified activity; estimated take by incidental harassment; and small numbers analysis and determination remain unchanged and are herein incorporated by reference.

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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental harassment authorization (IHA) is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of 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 February 4, 2022, NMFS received a request from NEETMA for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys occurring in two locations (Northern and Southern survey areas) off the coast of New Jersey in the New Jersey Offshore Transmission Facilities Project (NJOTF or Project). The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 1, 2022. NEETMA's request was for take of a small number of 15 marine mammal species (consisting of 16 stocks) by Level B harassment only. Neither NEETMA nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS considered all public comments received and determined that no changes to the final IHA were necessary.

NEETMA proposes to conduct HRG and geotechnical surveys as part of the NJOTF off the coast of New Jersey. The surveys will take place along proposed submarine export cable routes and at locations for potential offshore platforms. Geotechnical survey activities will include the use of vibracores and/or cone penetration tests (CPTs), to identify and characterize the seabed conditions vertically for project planning and design, and to collect data to identify paleolandscapes.

The purpose of these surveys are to support the siting and design of offshore facilities, including offshore platforms for converter stations and offshore submarine transmission cables. Up to 320 days are planned for survey activities (Table 1). As many as three survey vessels may operate concurrently as part of the site characterization surveys. Underwater sound resulting from NEETMA's survey activities, specifically HRG surveys, has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of behavioral harassment.

Table 2 identifies the representative survey equipment with the expected potential to cause the take of marine mammals that may be used in support of planned geophysical survey activities. The make and model of the listed 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. Geophysical surveys are expected to use several equipment types concurrently in order to collect multiple aspects of geophysical data along one transect. Selection of equipment combinations is based on specific survey objectives.

A detailed description of the surveys planned by NEETMA was provided in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned survey activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for additional description of the specified activities.

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

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to NEETMA was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2022 (87 FR 27575), initiating a 30-day public comment period. That notice described, in detail, NEETMA'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.

NMFS received letters from two environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) (Oceana, Inc. and Clean Ocean Action (COA)) and from a local citizen group (Save Long Beach Island (LBI)). All substantive comments, and NMFS' responses, are provided below, and the letters are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-nextera-energy-transmission-midatlantic-holdings-llc-marine ). Please review the letters for full details regarding the comments and underlying justification.

Comment 1: Oceana, COA, and LBI 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 North Atlantic right whales in particular and ensure that the cumulative effects are not excessive before issuing or renewing an IHA. The commenters additionally state that NMFS should include nearby survey activities in the analysis performed in support of this IHA, specifically related to surveys and activities occurring in the Ocean Wind 1 (OCS-A-0498) and Atlantic Shores (OCS-A-0499) leases, as the activities are occurring during similar timeframes and in similar spatial locations.

NMFS 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 species' density/distribution and status, population size and growth rate, and other relevant factors (see Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section). 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, NEETMA 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 NEETMA 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 NEETMA's IHA, which included consideration of extraordinary circumstances.

For ESA-listed species, 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 included those for which NMFS issued Atlantic Shores' 2020 IHA and subsequent 2021 renewal IHA (85 FR 21198; April 16, 2020 and 86 FR 21289; April 22, 2021), which are substantially similar to those planned by NEETMA 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 Biological Opinion (BiOp) remains valid.

In addition, NMFS disagrees with LBI's assertion that separate specified activities should be considered together in each MMPA analysis on the basis that they share a similar regional location. Under the MMPA, NMFS is required to consider applications upon request. To date, NMFS has not received any joint application from Orsted, Atlantic Shores, and NEETMA regarding their site characterization surveys off of New Jersey. While an individual company owning multiple lease areas may apply for a single authorization to conduct site characterization surveys across a combination of those lease areas, such as what was done by Orsted in their recent surveys from New York to Massachusetts (see 85 FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022), this is not applicable in this case to the surveys being performed by Atlantic Shores, Orsted, and NEETMA off New Jersey. In the future, if applicants wish to undertake this approach, NMFS is open to the receipt of joint applications and additional discussions on joint actions.

NMFS notes that these actions (Atlantic Shores', Orsted's, and NEETMA's site characterization surveys) are occurring in spatially distinct areas and not within overlapping areas. The entities' survey activities will not occur in the same location at any one time. Any other authorization issued to Orsted or Atlantic Shores, relating to activities in or around OCS-A-0498 or OCS-A-0499, respectively, would be considered a discrete activity with its own separate and independent action.

Comment 2: LBI asserts that it is not clear where the source level information for the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 acoustic unit came from.

NMFS response: NEETMA states in their IHA application ( https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-05/NEETMA_2022IHA_App_OPR1.pdf ) that the information and source level for the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 unit, with the same tips (400) and source level (203 dB re 1 μPa m), was previously used in the analysis supporting issuance of the Vineyard Wind 1 Marine Site Characterization Survey (86 FR 40469; June 7, 2021), which can be found on NMFS' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-vineyard-wind-1-marine-site-characterization-surveys. Within the Vineyard Wind 1 IHA application, the same approach as recently used in the Atlantic Shores HRG survey (87 FR 24103; April 22, 2022) is described where the SIG ELC 820 sparker was used as a proxy for the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 unit (Atlantic Shores used the SIG ELC 820 as a proxy for the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark 240), given the same source level, peak source level, energy source level, and pulse duration were present for all three acoustic sources.

Please refer to Table 5 of the proposed Federal Register notice for NEETMA (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022) where all the distances to the Level B harassment threshold are 141 m for the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHG (500 J/400 tip), the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD (440 + 400), and the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tips).

Comment 3: LBI states that NMFS' assumption that use of a 20logR transmission loss factor ( i.e., spherical spreading) is inappropriate, and suggests that NMFS must use a 15 dB propagation loss factor. LBI goes on to comment that the use of the higher propagation loss coefficient is not consistent with what NMFS' analyses for previous actions and underestimates the distance to the Level B harassment threshold, which would cause an underestimation of marine mammal takes.

NMFS response: A major component of transmission loss is spreading loss and, from a point source in a uniform medium, sound spreads outward as spherical waves (“spherical spreading”) (Richardson et al., 1995). In water, these conditions are often thought of as being related to deep water, where more homogenous conditions may be likely. However, the theoretical distinction between deep and shallow water is related more to the wavelength of the sound relative to the water depth, versus the water depth itself. Therefore, when the sound produced is in the kilohertz range, where wavelength is relatively short, much of the continental shelf may be considered “deep” for purposes of evaluating likely propagation conditions.

As described in the notice of proposed IHA, the area of water ensonified at or above the root mean square (RMS) 160 dB threshold was calculated using a simple model of sound propagation loss, which accounts for the loss of sound energy over increasing range. Our use of the spherical spreading model (where transmission loss = 20 * log [range]; such that there would be a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source) is a reasonable approximation over the relatively short distances involved. Even in conditions where cylindrical spreading (where transmission loss = 10 * log [range]; such that there would be a 3-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source) may be appropriate ( e.g., non-homogenous conditions where sound may be trapped between the surface and bottom), this effect does not begin at the source. In any case, spreading is usually more or less spherical from the source out to some distance, and then may transition to cylindrical (Richardson et al., 1995). For these types of surveys, NMFS has determined that spherical spreading is a reasonable assumption even in relatively shallow waters (in an absolute sense) as the reflected energy from the seafloor will be much weaker than the direct source and the volume of water influenced by the reflected acoustic energy would be much smaller over the relatively short distances involved.

The assumption of a 20-dB transmission loss coefficient is also supported by more recent data on sound transmission by sparker sources collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in waters offshore California in spring 2021 (Pers. Comm., C. Ruppel, 2022). Unpublished data from these recent sound source verification experiments indicate that, at the frequencies of many HRG instruments, spherical, not cylindrical, spreading applies even in waters only tens of meters deep. For a sparker source, even at 25-m water depth, the signal spreading was almost completely spherical. As noted previously, at the higher frequency of most HRG sources, the spreading is expected to be spherical because the wavelength of the signal is very small compared to the water depth. That is the criterion for spherical spreading, which is why spherical spreading applies to most HRG sources, regardless of water depth. This would not be the case for lower frequency ( i.e., larger wavelength) sources, such as airguns.

In support of its position, LBI cites several examples of use of practical spreading (a useful real-world approximation of conditions that may exist between the theoretical spreading modes of spherical and cylindrical; 15logR) in asserting that this approach is also appropriate here. However, these examples (U.S. Navy construction at Newport, RI, and NOAA construction in Ketchikan, AK) are not relevant to the activity at hand. First, these actions occur in even shallower water ( e.g., less than 10 m for Navy construction). Of greater relevance to the action here, pile driving activity produces sound with longer wavelengths than the sound produced by the acoustic sources planned for use here. As noted previously, a determination of appropriate spreading loss is related to the ratio of wavelength to water depth more than to a strict reading of water depth. NMFS indeed uses practical spreading in typical coastal construction applications, but for reasons described here, uses spherical spreading when evaluating the effects of HRG surveys on the continental shelf.

In addition, this analysis is likely conservative for other reasons, e.g., the lowest frequency was used for systems that are operated over a range of frequencies and other sources of propagation loss ( e.g., interference effects) are neglected.

NMFS has determined that spherical spreading is the most appropriate form of propagation loss for these surveys and has relied on this approach for past IHAs with similar equipment, locations, and depths. Please refer back to the Garden State HRG IHA (83 FR 14417; April 4, 2018) and the 2019 Skipjack HRG IHA (84 FR 51118; September 27, 2019) for examples. Prior to the issuance of these IHAs (approximately 2018 and older), NMFS typically relied upon practical spreading for these types of survey activities. However, as additional scientific evidence became available, including numerous sound source verification reports, NMFS determined that this approach was inappropriately conservative and, since that time, as consistently used spherical spreading. Furthermore, NMFS' User Spreadsheet tool assumes a “safe distance” methodology for mobile sources where propagation loss is spherical spreading (20LogR) ( https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2020-12/User_Manual%20_DEC_2020_508.pdf?null ), and NMFS calculator tool for estimating isopleths to Level B harassment thresholds also incorporates the use of spherical spreading.

Comment 4: LBI asserts that NMFS has not appropriately considered the location of North Atlantic Right Whales (NARW) migratory habitat in relation to the survey and, in so doing, has not correctly evaluated the potential for impacts to NARW migratory habitat.

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees with LBI's assertion that the close proximity of the NARW migratory corridor is not discussed or accounted for in the proposed Federal Register notice. Page 27581 ( https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-09917/p-42 ) includes an overview of the NARW and its habitat, including text noting that any NARWs in the “survey areas are expected to be transient, most likely migrating through the area” due to the overlap of the Project area with the migratory corridor. More information is presented on Page 27582 ( https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-09917/p-44 ) and NMFS reiterates it here: “The proposed survey area is part of a migratory corridor Biologically Important Area (BIA) for North Atlantic right whales (effective March-April and November-December) that extends from Massachusetts to Florida (LeBrecque et al., 2015). Off the coast of New Jersey, the migratory BIA extends from the coast to beyond the shelf break. This important migratory area is approximately 269,488 square kilometers (km 2 ) in size (compared with the approximately 5,183.97 km 2 of total estimated Level B harassment ensonified area associated with the 320 planned survey days) and is comprised of the waters of the continental shelf offshore the East Coast of the United States, extending from Florida through Massachusetts. NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 designated nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) for right whales in 2008. SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds. A portion of one SMA, which occurs off the mouth of Delaware Bay, overlaps spatially with a section of the proposed survey area. The SMA, which occurs off the mouth of Delaware Bay, is active from November 1 through April 30 of each year. Within SMAs, the regulations require a mandatory vessel speed (less than 10 kn) for all vessels greater than 65 ft. A portion of one SMA overlaps spatially with the northern section of the proposed survey area.”

NMFS also reiterates the language found on Page 27596 within the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section, which has not changed since the initial publication of the proposed Federal Register notice and is carried forward into this final notice: “The status of the North Atlantic right whale population is of heightened concern and, therefore, merits additional analysis. As noted previously, elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities began in June 2017 and there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings support human interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of right whales. As noted previously, the proposed survey area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA for North Atlantic right whales. Due to the fact that the proposed survey activities are temporary and the spatial extent of sound produced by the survey would be very small relative to the spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the BIA, right whale migration is not expected to be impacted by the proposed survey.”

Comment 5: LBI and COA assert that Level A harassment may occur during site characterization surveys and that it was not accounted for in the proposed Federal Register notice. LBI asserts specifically that Level A harassment will result from cumulative noise exposure, contradicting NMFS' analysis.

NMFS response: NMFS acknowledges the concerns brought up by LBI 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 described in NEETMA's IHA application in Table 1-4 ( https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-05/NEETMA_2022IHA_App_OPR1.pdf ). Furthermore, the commenters do not provide any support for the apparent contention that Level A harassment is a potential outcome of these activities. As discussed in the notice of proposed IHA, 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.

As described in the Estimated Take section of the proposed Federal Register notice (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022), NMFS has established a PTS (Level A harassment) threshold of 183 dB cumulative SEL for low frequency cetaceans (which include North Atlantic right whales). Estimated Level A harassment zones for similar equipment ( i.e., the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark 240 sparker, GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip)) were provided in Table 1-4 in NEETMA's IHA application ( https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-05/NEETMA_2022IHA_App_OPR1.pdf ), showing that a NARW would have to come within 1 m of the sparker source to potentially incur PTS. Due to the mitigation measures being implemented, including the required vessel strike reduction measures, NMFS considers it impossible that a NARW will reasonably be in sufficiently close proximity to the active acoustic source ( i.e., the sparker) to incur PTS. NMFS has reviewed the analysis and confirmed that it is accurate and relevant to this action.

Not only are any NARWs in the area migrating, meaning that their occurrence in the area is expected to be of relatively brief duration and the likelihood of exposures of longer duration or at closer range minimized, NEETMA is also required to not approach any NARW within 500 m or operate the sparker within 500 m of a NARW. As such, there is essentially no potential for a NARW to experience PTS ( i.e., Level A harassment) from the described surveys.

Comment 6: LBI discusses their belief that all pathways to the Level B harassment threshold and/or masking of cetacean communication that could lead to the serious injury and/or mortality of the animal have not been fully analyzed by NMFS.

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees that the potential impacts of masking were not properly considered and expects that the masking effects to any one individual whale from one survey are expected to be minimal. Masking is referred to as a chronic effect because one of the key harmful components of masking is its duration—the fact that an animal would have reduced ability to hear or interpret critical cues becomes much more likely to cause a problem the longer it is occurring. Also, inherent in the concept of masking is the fact that the potential for the effect is only present during the times that the animal and the source are in close enough proximity for the effect to occur (and further this time period would need to coincide with a time that the animal was utilizing sounds at the masked frequency) and, as our analysis (both quantitative and qualitative components) indicates, because of the relative movement of whales and vessels, we do not expect these exposures with the potential for masking to be of a long duration within a given day. Further, because of the relatively low density of mysticetes, and relatively large area over which the vessels travel, we do not expect any individual whales to be exposed to potentially masking levels from these surveys for more than a few days in a year.

As noted previously, any masking effects of this survey are expected to be limited and brief, if present. Given the likelihood of significantly reduced received levels beyond even short distances from the survey vessel, combined with the short duration of potential masking and the lower likelihood of extensive additional contributors to background noise offshore and within these short exposure periods, we believe that the incremental addition of the survey vessel is unlikely to result in more than minor and short-term masking effects, likely occurring to some small number of the same individuals captured in the estimate of behavioral harassment.

NMFS recognizes 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 NEETMA will 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 NARWs, which 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 (5,184 km 2 ). Thus, the transitory nature of NARWs at this location means it is unlikely for any exposure to cause chronic effects as NEETMA's planned survey area and ensonified zones are much smaller than the overall migratory corridor. Because of this, NMFS does not expect any acute or cumulative stress, including any masking, to be a detrimental factor to the health, fitness, or survival of NARWs from NEETMA's described survey activities.

NMFS continues to maintain that the best available science indicates that only Level B harassment, or minor disruptions of behavioral patterns, may occur from the planned site characterization surveys. No mortality or serious injury is expected to occur as a result of the planned surveys, and there is no scientific evidence indicating that any marine mammal could experience these as a direct result of noise from geophysical survey activity. Authorization of mortality and serious injury may not occur via IHAs, only within Incidental Take Regulations (ITRs), and such authorization was neither requested nor proposed. NMFS notes that in its history of authorizing take of marine mammals, there has never been a report of any serious injuries or fatalities of a marine mammal related to the site characterization surveys, including for NARW. We emphasize that an estimate of take numbers alone is not sufficient to assess impacts to a marine mammal population. Take numbers must be viewed contextually with other factors, as explained in the Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section of this notice.

Comment 7: LBI asserts that the criteria for determining “negligible impact” to the NARW have not been clearly or well defined.

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees with LBI's position regarding the negligible impact analysis, and the commenters do not provide a reasoned basis for finding that the effects of the specified activity will be greater than negligible on any species or stock. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section of the proposed IHA (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022) provides a detailed qualitative discussion supporting NMFS' determination that any anticipated impacts from this action will be negligible. The section contains a number of factors that were considered by NMFS based on the best available scientific data and why we concluded that impacts resulting from the specified activity are not reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

With specific regard to NARW, we note that take is authorized for only a very small percentage of the right whale population (see Table 11). Furthermore, NMFS notes that while a species may be taken during activities, this is not always the case. For example, we note that Ocean Wind's (Orsted) previous monitoring report ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-ocean-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys-new-jersey ) indicates that no right whales experienced harassment during the previous activity, although take of the species (Level B harassment only) was authorized. However, the numbers of potential incidents of take or animals taken are only part of an assessment and are not, alone, decisively indicative of the degree of impact. In order to adequately evaluate the effects of noise exposure at the population level, the total number of take incidents must be further interpreted in context of relevant biological and population parameters and other biological, environmental, and anthropogenic factors and in a spatially and temporally explicit manner. The effects to individuals of a “take” are not necessarily equal. Some take events represent exposures that only just exceed a Level B harassment threshold, which would be expected to result in lower-level impacts, while other exposures occur at higher received levels and would typically be expected to have comparatively greater potential impacts on an individual. Further, responses to similar received levels may result in significantly different impacts on an individual dependent upon the context of the exposure or the status of the individuals ( e.g., if it occurred in an area and time where concentrated feeding was occurring, or to individuals weakened by other effects). In this case, NMFS reiterates that no such higher level takes are expected to occur. The maximum anticipated Level B harassment zone is 141 m, a distance smaller than the precautionary shutdown zone of 500 m. To the extent that any exposure of NARW does occur, it would be expected to result in lower-level impacts that are unlikely to result in significant or long-lasting impacts to the exposed individual and, given the relatively small amount of exposures expected to occur, it is unlikely that these exposures would result in population-level impacts. NMFS acknowledges that impacts of a similar degree on a proportion of the individuals in a stock may have differing impacts to the stock based on its status, i.e., smaller stocks may be less able to absorb deaths or reproductive suppression and maintain similar growth rates as larger stocks. However, even given the precarious status of the NARW, the low-level nature of the impacts expected to occur for only a few individuals means that the population status does not weigh meaningfully in NMFS' consideration of population-level impacts. The commenters provide no substantive reasoning to contradict this finding, and do not support their assertions of effects greater than NMFS has assumed may occur.

Additionally, NMFS evaluated the impacts of HRG surveys on ESA-listed species under ESA section 7, with NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) as the consulting agency. NMFS GARFO determined that issuance of the IHA to NEETMA was not likely to adversely affect listed species or the critical habitat of any ESA-listed species or result in the take of any marine mammals in violation of the ESA.

Comment 8: LBI asserts that the criteria for “small numbers” is not scientifically supported, nor consistent with a prior judicial decision.

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees with LBI's arguments on the topic of small numbers. Although there is limited legislative history available to guide NMFS and an apparent lack of biological underpinning to the concept, we have worked to develop a reasoned approach to small numbers. NMFS explains the concept of “small numbers” in recognition that there could also be quantities of individuals taken that would correspond with “medium” and “large” numbers. As such, NMFS considers that one-third of the most appropriate population abundance number—as compared with the assumed number of individuals taken—is an appropriate limit with regard to “small numbers.” This relative approach is consistent with the statement from the legislative history that “[small numbers] is not capable of being expressed in absolute numerical limits” (H.R. Rep. No. 97-228, at 19 (September 16, 1981)), and relevant case law ( Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reasonably interpreted “small numbers” by analyzing take in relative or proportional terms)). In regards to LBI's suggestion that the one-third number is inconsistent with prior case law, we note that LBI cited the NRDC v. Evans decision of October 31, 2002 (232 F. Supp. 2d 1003, N.D. Cal. 2002), which was related to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Ultimately, after parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Evans court held that NMFS' regulatory definition of small numbers (which NMFS did not apply here) improperly conflated the small numbers and negligible impact issues. NRDC v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1129. Contrary to LBI's suggestion, the Evans court expressly stated that it was not setting any numerical limit for small numbers. NRDC v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1153. As for LBI's suggestion to reconsider small numbers specifically for NARW, the argument to establish a small numbers threshold on the basis of stock-specific context is unnecessarily duplicative of the required negligible impact finding, in which relevant biological and contextual factors are considered in conjunction with the amount of take.

Comment 9: LBI asserts that NMFS' 160 dB harassment criterion for intermittent sound sources is too high, and that the 120 dB criterion for continuous noise sources should be used instead.

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees with LBI's comment, which references a Marine Mammal Commission recommendation made in reference to the proposed authorization of take incidental to use of scientific sonars (such as echosounders). We refer the reader to the original response (84 FR 46788; October 7, 2019) for full detail and provide a summary here.

First, we provide some necessary background on implementation of acoustic thresholds. NMFS has historically used generalized acoustic thresholds based on received levels to predict the occurrence of behavioral harassment, given the practical need to use a relatively simple threshold based on information that is available for most activities. Thresholds were selected in consideration largely of measured avoidance responses of mysticete whales to airgun signals and to industrial noise sources, such as drilling. The selected thresholds of 160 dB rms SPL and 120 dB rms SPL, respectively, have been extended for use since then for estimation of behavioral harassment associated with noise exposure from sources associated with other common activities as well.

Sound sources can be divided into broad categories based on various criteria or for various purposes. As discussed by Richardson et al. (1995), source characteristics include strength of signal amplitude, distribution of sound frequency and, importantly in context of these thresholds, variability over time. With regard to temporal properties, sounds are generally considered to be either continuous or transient ( i.e., intermittent). Continuous sounds, which are produced by the industrial noise sources for which the 120-dB behavioral harassment threshold was selected, are simply those whose sound pressure level remains above ambient sound during the observation period (ANSI, 2005). Intermittent sounds are defined as sounds with interrupted levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Simply put, a continuous noise source produces a signal that continues over time, while an intermittent source produces signals of relatively short duration having an obvious start and end with predictable patterns of bursts of sound and silent periods ( i.e., duty cycle) (Richardson and Malme, 1993). It is this fundamental temporal distinction that is most important for categorizing sound types in terms of their potential to cause a behavioral response. For example, Gomez et al. (2016) found a significant relationship between source type and marine mammal behavioral response when sources were split into continuous ( e.g., shipping, icebreaking, drilling) versus intermittent ( e.g., sonar, seismic, explosives) types. In addition, there have been various studies noting differences in responses to intermittent and continuous sound sources for other species ( e.g., Neo et al., 2014; Radford et al., 2016; Nichols et al., 2015).

Sound sources may also be categorized based on their potential to cause physical damage to auditory structures and/or result in threshold shifts. In contrast to the temporal distinction discussed previously, the most important factor for understanding the differing potential for these outcomes across source types is simply whether the sound is impulsive or not. Impulsive sounds, such as those produced by airguns, are defined as sounds which are typically transient, brief (< 1 sec), broadband, and consist of a high peak pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998). These sounds are generally considered to have greater potential to cause auditory injury and/or result in threshold shifts. Non-impulsive sounds can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged, continuous or intermittent, and typically do not have the high peak pressure with rapid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Because the selection of the 160-dB behavioral threshold was focused largely on airgun signals, it has historically been commonly referred to as the “impulse noise” threshold (including by NMFS). However, this longstanding confusion in terminology— i.e., the erroneous impulsive/continuous dichotomy—presents a narrow view of the sound sources to which the thresholds apply, and inappropriately implies a limitation in scope of applicability for the 160-dB behavioral threshold in particular.

Following the background discussion provided previously, we note that LBI apparently misunderstands the crux of the Marine Mammal Commission argument that it references, i.e., that because scientific sonars are not impulsive sound sources, they must be assessed using the 120-dB behavioral threshold appropriate for continuous noise sources. The sparker source at issue here is in fact an impulsive source. Therefore, the historical confusion regarding terminology associated with the 160 dB threshold ( i.e., impulsive versus intermittent) is not relevant, and there is no reasonable argument to be made in support of using the 120 dB threshold versus the 160 dB threshold.

Comment 10: LBI states that, based on their contention that serious injury and/or mortality is a potential outcome of the specified activity for NARWs, authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (Incidental Take Regulation (ITR) with subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOA)) is required.

NMFS response: NMFS acknowledges that authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA would be required were mortality or serious injury an expected outcome of the action. However, as noted previously, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that such outcomes are possible and, therefore, an IHA issued under section 101(a)(5)(D) is appropriate. Similarly, if the analysis presented by LBI were considered credible, the results would necessitate a revision to NMFS' negligible impact determination. However, as detailed in previous comment responses and Federal Register notices, the LBI analysis is not based on the best scientific evidence available, and NMFS does not consider it to be a credible analysis. Separately, it appears that LBI equates Level A harassment with serious injury and mortality in suggesting that Incidental Take Regulations are required. As discussed herein, Level A harassment is not an expected outcome of the specified activity. However, we clarify that section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, which governs the issuance of IHAs, indicates that the “the Secretary shall authorize . . . . taking by harassment [. . . .]” The definition of “harassment” in the MMPA clearly includes both Level A and Level B harassment.

To reiterate, NMFS does not expect any serious injury or mortality, even absent mitigation efforts, because of the nature of the activities described in the proposed Federal Register notice. Furthermore, NMFS included a vessel strike analysis in the proposed notice under the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section. We identified that at average transit speed for geophysical survey vessels, the probability of serious injury or mortality resulting from a strike is low enough to be discountable. However, the likelihood of a strike actually happening is again low given the smaller size of these vessels and generally slower speeds during transit. Further, NEETMA is required to implement monitoring and mitigation measures during transit, including observing for marine mammals and maintaining defined separation distances between the vessel and any marine mammal (see the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting sections). Finally, despite several years of marine site characterization surveys occurring off the U.S. east coast, no vessels supporting offshore wind development have struck a marine mammal either in transit or during surveying. Because vessel strikes are not reasonably expected to occur, no such take is authorized. The mitigation measures in the IHA related to vessel strike avoidance are not limited to vessels operating within the survey area or cable corridors and therefore apply to transiting vessels. Because of these reasons and the addition of mitigation efforts, including required vessel separation distances to further reduce any risk, we do not find that a Rulemaking is necessary for NEETMA's HRG surveys.

Comment 11: LBI recommends that NMFS should require Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) at all times to maximize the probability of detection for NARW. LBI provided recommendations that NMFS should require PAM at all times, both day and night, to maximize the probability of detection for NARW, as well as other species and stocks.

NMFS response: LBI does not explain why it expects 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 μPa (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 NARW 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 isn't a required monitoring measure during HRG survey IHAs in past Federal Register notices (see 86 FR 21289, April 22, 2021; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022; 87 FR 24103; April 22, 2022 for examples).

Comment 12: LBI, Oceana, and COA all express concern regarding the potential for vessel strike and recommendations to reduce the potential for vessel strike. 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)(5.14 meters per second) at all times due to the risk of vessel strikes to NARWs and other large whales. Oceana and LBI both provide recommendations for additional mitigation measures, including a larger exclusion zone (from 500 m for NARWs and 100 m for all other species to 736 m from LBI and a suggestion of a 1,000 m Exclusion Zone for NARWs from Oceana); a prohibition of site characterization surveys at night unless a PAM system is employed; a 736 m buffer on the NARW's migratory corridor during primary migration months (January, February, March, April, and November), and the development of additional Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) adjacent to the survey area to reduce against ship strike.

NMFS 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. LBI 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.

Regarding the recommendation for PAM usage, NMFS refers to the response provided for Comment #11.

LBI's recommendation to implement a 736 m buffer zone on the NARW migratory corridor is based on its own analysis using the a 15LogR transmission loss coefficient. Regarding assumptions related to transmission loss, we refer the reader to the response to Comment #3, which invalidates the premise that a larger zone is appropriate (as discussed previously). In addition, as previously stated, given the large size of the migratory corridor (BIA of 269,448 km 2 ) compared with the survey area (5,184 km 2 ), an additional buffer is unnecessary. This would unnecessarily slow down NEETMA's site characterization surveys, prolonging the duration of the survey effort to make up for the lost survey days.

While NMFS acknowledges that vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality, we have analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting from NEETMA's activities 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(5.14 m/s) 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. Existing and permanent SMAs have been previously established under a different rulemaking (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008) and can also be found on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales#speedlimit ).

Comment 13: LBI asserts that NMFS has not complied with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the use of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Office (GARFO) Programmatic Consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/consultations/section-7-take-reporting-programmatics-greater-atlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessment-and-site-characterization-activities-programmatic-consultation ).

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees with LBI's assertion that NMFS has not complied with ESA section 7. LBI suggests that a BiOp is required, and that because GARFO's programmatic consultation is not a BiOp, NMFS is not compliant with the requirements of Section 7. LBI misunderstands the relevant legal requirements, as an informal consultation concluding that the effects of an action are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species (as GARFO's consultation document does) is a sufficient endpoint of consultation under section 7. LBI's additional complaints regarding GARFO's analysis are misdirected.

Comment 14: LBI has stated its opposition to the use of a categorical exclusion under NEPA, asserting that, at minimum, an EA is the appropriate level of review.

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

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

Specifically for this action, NMFS independently evaluated the use of the CE for issuance of NEETMA's IHA, which included consideration of extraordinary circumstances. As part of that analysis, NMFS considered including whether this IHA issuance would result in cumulative impacts that could be significant. In particular, the issuance of an IHA to NEETMA is expected to result in minor, short-term behavioral effects on marine mammal species due to exposure to underwater sound from site characterization survey activities. Behavioral disturbance is expected to occur intermittently in the vicinity of NEETMA's survey area during the one-year timeframe. Level B harassment will be reduced through use of mitigation measures described herein. Additionally, as discussed elsewhere, NMFS has determined that NEETMA's activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021), which concluded surveys such as those planned by NEETMA are not likely to adversely affect endangered listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of this IHA will result in no more than negligible (as that term is defined by the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A) adverse effects on species protected by the ESA and the MMPA.

Further, the issuance of this IHA will not result in highly controversial environmental effects or result in environmental effects that are uncertain, unique, or unknown because numerous entities have been engaged in site characterization surveys that result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the United States. This type of activity is well documented; prior authorizations and analysis demonstrates issuance of an IHA for this type of action only affects the marine mammals that are the subject of the specific authorization and, thus, no potential for significant cumulative impacts are expected, regardless of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions, even though the impacts of the action may not be significant by itself. Based on this evaluation, we concluded that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Comment 15: LBI requests that NMFS conduct an analysis and submit a Federal consistency determination to the State of New Jersey pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), if NMFS had not done so already. Referencing a March 2015 consistency determination issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) involving a separate and unrelated proposed marine geophysical survey in the Atlantic Ocean off the Coast of New Jersey, LBI expressed concern that the survey proposed by NEETMA may not be consistent with New Jersey Coastal Zone Management rules.

NMFS response: NMFS cannot submit a Federal consistency determination to the State of New Jersey, because this activity is not a Federal agency activity proposed by NMFS under NOAA's CZMA regulations at 15 CFR part 930, subpart C. Rather, NMFS is reviewing an application for a Federal authorization for NEETMA's proposed survey. As such, whether a CZMA review is required is determined by the regulations governing CZMA Federal consistency review of Federal license or permit activities found at 15 CFR part 930, subpart D. If an applicant for a Federal license or permit activity is not required by 15 CFR part 930, subpart D to submit a CZMA consistency certification to a state, then the authorizing Federal agency, in this case, NMFS cannot compel or require the applicant to submit a consistency certification.

In this case, NEETMA was not, and is not, required to submit a CZMA consistency certification to the State of New Jersey under 15 CFR part 930, subpart D, because NMFS MMPA IHAs are not, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.53, listed in New Jersey's federally-approved coastal management program and New Jersey has not described a geographic location in Federal waters for the NMFS authorization. In addition, the State of New Jersey did not request approval from the Director of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management (formerly known as the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management) to review NEETMA's application to NMFS as an unlisted activity pursuant to 15 CFR 930.54, and the time period to make such a request has passed. Regarding the CZMA Federal consistency unlisted activity review request process under 15 CFR 930.54, NMFS published its Federal Register notice for NEETMA's MMPA IHA application on May 9, 2022. The State of New Jersey then had 30 days to notify NEETMA, NMFS and the Director of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management that it was seeking approval to review the activity as an unlisted activity. The State of New Jersey did not make such a request and the 30-day period ended on June 8, 2022. Accordingly, NEETMA's IHA application is not subject to Federal consistency review under the CZMA and NMFS denies LBI's request.

Comment 16: Oceana made comments objecting to NMFS' renewal process regarding the extension of any one-year IHA with a 15-day public comment period, and suggested a 30-day public comment period is necessary for any renewal request.

NMFS 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.

In particular, we emphasize that any renewal IHA does have a 30-day public comment period associated with initial issuance of the IHA, and accordingly each renewal IHA is made available for a total 45-day public comment period. The notice of the proposed IHA published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2022 (87 FR 27575) made clear that NMFS was seeking comment on the proposed IHA and the potential issuance of a renewal for this survey. As detailed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA and on the agency's website, 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. NMFS' analysis of the anticipated impacts on marine mammals caused by the applicant's activities covers both the Initial IHA period and the possibility of a 1-year renewal. Therefore a member of the public considering commenting on a proposed initial IHA also knows the scope of activities (or subset of activities) that would be included in a proposed renewal IHA, the potential impacts of those activities, the maximum amount and type of take that could be caused by those activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures that would be required, and the basis for the agency's negligible impact determinations, least practicable adverse impact findings, small numbers findings, and (if applicable) the no unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence use finding—all the information needed to provide complete and meaningful comments on a possible renewal at the time of considering the proposed initial IHA. Reviewers have the information needed to meaningfully comment on both the immediate proposed IHA and a possible 1-year renewal, should the IHA holder choose to request one.

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 the same as those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or would 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, which includes NMFS' direct notice to anyone who commented on the proposed initial IHA, 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 17: 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 NARW such as updated population estimates and recent habitat usage patterns in NEETMA'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 North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card ( https://www.narwc.org/report-cards.html ).

NMFS response: While NMFS agrees that the best available science should be used for assessing NARW abundance estimates, we disagree that the North Atlantic Right Whale Report Card ( i.e., Pettis et al. (2022)) study represents the most recent and 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' right whale 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 ). (See the footnote under Table 3 in the proposed Federal Register notice (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022)). We anticipate that this information will be presented in the draft 2022 SAR. We note that this change in abundance estimate would not change our analysis regarding the estimated take of NARWs, nor affect our ability to make the required findings under the MMPA for NEETMA's survey activities.

NMFS further notes that Oceana seems 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 draft 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 a portion of migratory habitat for NARWs, year-round “core” NARW foraging habitat (Oleson et al., 2020) is 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 NEETMA, such as in the Great South Channel and Georges Bank Shelf Break feeding BIA. Furthermore, and as discussed in the proposed Notice (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022), 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 Notice announcing the proposed IHA, 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 approximately 5,184 km 2 and the NARW migratory BIA is 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 18: 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.

NMFS 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 NEETMA 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 (5,184 km 2 ). Thus, the transitory nature of NARWs at this location means it is unlikely for any exposure to cause chronic effects as NEETMA'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 NEETMA's described survey activities.

Comment 19: Oceana states that NMFS must make an assessment of which activities, technologies and strategies are truly necessary to provide information to inform site characterization surveys and 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.

NMFS response: The MMPA requires that an IHA include measures that will effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stocks and 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 evaluates the effects expected as a result of the specified activity, makes the necessary findings, and prescribes 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 20: Oceana has requested NMFS prepare a vessel traffic plan on the basis that the site characterization surveys will increase the vessel traffic in and around the project area.

NMFS response: NMFS disagrees that vessel traffic would increase significantly to a level where adverse impacts would occur to marine mammals in and around NEETMA's survey site. NEETMA anticipates the use of up to three concurrently operating survey vessels during the entire effective period of the IHA, over the approximate survey area of 5,183.97 km 2 . Due to the size of the planned survey area and the small number of vessels expected to be operating specifically relating to NEETMA's project, NMFS considers it highly unlikely that this level of additional vessels would increase the risk to the species in and around the area.

Furthermore, NEETMA did not request authorization for take incidental to vessel traffic during their site characterization surveys. Nevertheless, NMFS analyzed the potential for vessel strikes to occur during the survey, and determined that the potential for vessel strike is so low as to be discountable. NMFS does not authorize any take of marine mammals incidental to vessel strike resulting from the survey. If NEETMA were to strike a marine mammal with a vessel, this would be an unauthorized take and be in violation of the MMPA. This gives NEETMA a strong incentive to operate its vessels with all due caution and to effectively implement the suite of vessel strike avoidance measures called for in the IHA. NEETMA proposed a very conservative suite of mitigation measures related to vessel strike avoidance, including measures specifically designed to avoid impacts to NARWs. Section 4(f) in the IHA contains a suite of non-discretionary requirements pertaining to ship strike avoidance, including vessel operation protocols and monitoring. To date, NMFS is not aware of site characterization vessel from surveys reporting a ship strike within the United States. When considered in the context of low overall probability of any vessel strike by NEETMA vessels, given the limited additional survey-related vessel traffic relative to existing traffic in the survey area, the comprehensive visual monitoring, and other additional mitigation measures described herein, NMFS believes these measures are sufficiently protective to avoid ship strike. These measures are described fully in the Mitigation section below, and include, but are not limited to: Training for all vessel observers and captains, daily monitoring of NARW Sighting Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and USCG Channel 16 for situational awareness regarding NARW presence in the survey area, communication protocols if whales are observed by any NEETMA personnel, vessel operational protocol should any marine mammal be observed, and visual monitoring.

Comment 21: Oceana suggests that protected species observers (PSOs) complement their survey efforts using additional technologies, such as infrared detection devices when in low-light conditions.

NMFS 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 22: Oceana suggests that NMFS require vessels maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from NARWs at all times.

NMFS 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 23: 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.

NMFS 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, those activities carried the potential for much more significant impacts than the marine site characterization surveys to be carried out by NEETMA, 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 24: 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.

NMFS 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 NEETMA, the vessel operators, the lead PSO, and any other relevant designees of NEETMA carrying out activities subject to this IHA. The IHA also states that NEETMA must ensure that the vessel operator and other relevant vessel personnel, including the 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 25: Oceana stated that the IHA must include a requirement for all phases of the NEETMA's 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

NMFS 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. NEETMA 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, NEETMA must immediately report sighting information to the NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System and to the U.S. Coast Guard, and that any discoveries of injured or dead marine mammals be reported by Atlantic Shores 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 26: 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 shutdown in these situations.

NMFS response: There are several shutdown requirements described in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (87 FR 27575; May 9, 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, NEETMA must notify NMFS if a NARW is observed at any time by any survey vessels during surveys or during vessel transit. Additionally, NEETMA 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 right whale is detected within the Exclusion Zone before a shutdown is implemented, the right whale and its distance from the sound source, including if it is within the Level B harassment zone, would be reported in NEETMA's final monitoring report and made publicly available on NMFS' website. NEETMA 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 27: 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.

NMFS response: NMFS agrees with this recommendation and included in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022) and in this final IHA, which includes a stipulation that, when technically feasible, survey equipment must be ramped up at the start or restart of survey activities. Operators must ramp up sources to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power. 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 zone (EZ).

Comment 28: 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 species 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.

NMFS 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 NEETMA'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. Furthermore, 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.

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.

Sections 3 and 4 of NEETMA's application summarize the 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; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).

Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the species or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 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 authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' 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 stocks managed under the MMPA in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SAR). NMFS has utilized the more recent SAR information (in this case, the draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal SARs). All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2021 SARs) and are available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ).

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by NEETMA'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 27575; May 9, 2022). 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.

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

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

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.

The effects of underwater noise from the deployed acoustic sources have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the study area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022) included a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (87 FR 27575; May 9, 2022) for that information.

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

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

For this IHA, authorized takes are by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise from certain HRG acoustic sources. Based primarily on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned for use, Level A harassment is neither anticipated (even absent mitigation), nor authorized. Consideration of the anticipated effectiveness of the measures ( i.e., exclusion zones and shutdown measures), discussed in detail below in the Mitigation section, further strengthens the conclusion that Level A harassment is not a reasonably anticipated outcome of the survey activity. Furthermore and as previously described, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

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

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

Level B Harassment —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012). NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals may be behaviorally harassed ( i.e., Level B harassment) when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for the impulsive sources ( i.e., boomers, sparkers) and non-impulsive, intermittent sources ( e.g., CHIRP SBPs) evaluated here for NEETMA's survey activities.

Level A Harassment —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). For more information, see NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

NEETMA's survey activities include the use of impulsive ( i.e., sparkers and boomers) and non-impulsive, intermittent ( e.g., CHIRP SBP) sources. These can be found in Table 2.

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

NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for estimating the extent of the Level B harassment isopleths associated with relevant HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). This methodology incorporates frequency and directionality to refine estimated ensonified zones. For acoustic sources that operate with different beamwidths, the maximum beamwidth was used, and the lowest frequency of the source was used when calculating the frequency-dependent absorption coefficient.

NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to represent the best available information on source levels associated with HRG equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the method described previously to estimate isopleth distances to harassment thresholds. In cases when the source level for a specific type of HRG equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS recommends that either the source levels provided by the manufacturer be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by the manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Refer back to Table 2 to see the HRG equipment types that may be used during the planned surveys and the source levels associated with those HRG equipment types. Table 5 depicts the estimated Level B harassment isopleths for each acoustic source.

Results of modeling using the methodology described previously indicated that, of the HRG survey equipment planned for use by NEETMA that has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals, the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHDs and GeoMarine Geo-Source sparkers will produce the largest Level B harassment isopleth (141 m). Estimated Level B harassment isopleths for all sources evaluated here, including the sparkers, are provided in Table 5. Although NEETMA does not expect to use sparker sources on all planned survey days, it assumed, for purposes of analysis, that the sparker will be used on all survey days. This is a conservative approach, as the actual sources used on individual survey days may produce smaller harassment distances.

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.

Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory and the Marine-life Data and Analysis Team, based on the best available marine mammal data from 1992-201 obtained in a collaboration between Duke University, the Northeast Regional Planning Body, the University of North Carolina Wilmington, the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center, and NOAA (Roberts et al., 2016a; Curtice et al., 2018), represent the best available information regarding marine mammal densities in the survey area. More recently, these data have been updated with new modeling results and include density estimates for pinnipeds (Roberts et al., 2016b, 2017, 2018).

The density data presented by Roberts et al. (2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020) incorporates aerial and shipboard line-transect survey data from NMFS and other organizations and incorporates data from eight physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and biological covariates, and controls for the influence of sea state, group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the probability of making a sighting. These density models were originally developed for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016a). In subsequent years, certain models have been updated based on additional data as well as certain methodological improvements. More information is available online at https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/. Marine mammal density estimates in the survey area (animals/km 2 ) were obtained using the most recent model results for all taxa (Roberts et al., 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020). The updated models incorporate additional sighting data, including sightings from NOAA's Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys.

For the exposure analysis, marine mammal density data from Roberts et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021a, 2021b) were mapped for the survey area using a geographic information system (GIS). NEETMA used all 10 × 10 km (6.2 × 6.2 mile) grid cells (5 × 5 km (3.1 × 3.1 mile) for the North Atlantic right whale) where the centroid was within each survey area in developing estimated density values for each species. For data in which the Roberts et al. data does not provide outputs at the species level ( i.e., pilot whale spp. and pinnipeds) the single annual density was used. For all other species, the monthly densities were used to yield the average annual density. Bottlenose dolphin density estimates were also divided based on the specified stock.

In the Roberts et al. (2016b, 2017, 2018) models, species-specific delineations were not made for some marine mammals, including some pinniped species' (harbor seal and gray seal) and for pilot whale spp. (long-finned and short-finned). For pilot whales, both species are known to share similar habitat in the Project area, feed on similar prey, and have overlapping distributions (Mintzer et al., 2008; Rone and Pace, 2012). Hayes et al. (2017) noted a particular overlap between the two species between New Jersey and George's Bank. Furthermore, due to their similar appearances at sea and difficulty in distinguishing species-specific characteristics, observers are likely to combine sightings of pilot whales (Waring, 1993; Rone and Pace, 2012; Stepanuk et al., 2018).

Regarding the pinniped species, because the seasonality, feeding preferences, and habitat use by gray seals often overlaps with that of harbor seals in the survey areas, it was assumed that modeled takes of seals could occur to either of the respective species.

As discussed in the application, the single annual density for each marine mammal group (pilot whale spp. and pinnipeds) was applied and the results were divided between each species, resulting in an equal split based on the lack of evidence to support a different allocation.

For the bottlenose dolphin densities, Roberts et al. (2016b, 2017, 2018) does not differentiate by stock. The Western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal stock is generally expected to occur only in coastal waters from the shoreline to approximately the 20-m (65-ft) isobath (Hayes et al., 2018). Both of these stocks have the potential to occur in the Northern and Southern survey areas. To account for the potential for mixed stocks within the survey areas, the densities of the two stocks were apportioned based on the 20-m isobaths contour. Any grid cells in the Roberts et al. data that feel entirely inshore of the 20-m isobaths were assigned to the coastal migratory stock. Any grid cells that fell outside this 20-m isobaths were apportioned to the offshore stock.

Densities from both of the survey sites were averaged annually to provide a density estimate for each species; please see Table 6 for density values used in the exposure estimation process. Additional data regarding average group sizes from survey effort in the region was considered to ensure adequate take estimates are evaluated.

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

In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that will result in harassment, radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described previously. The maximum distance ( i.e., 141 m distance associated with the Medium SBPs) to the Level B harassment criterion and the estimated distance traveled per day by a given survey vessel ( i.e., 62 km (38.5 mi)) are then used to calculate the daily ensonified area, or zone of influence (ZOI) around the survey vessel.

NEETMA estimates that the surveys will achieve a maximum daily track line distance of 62 km per day (24-hour period). This distance accounts for the vessel traveling at approximately 4-knots and accounts for non-active survey periods. Based on the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 141 m (refer back to Table 5) and the maximum estimated daily track line distance of 62 km across both survey sites, an area of 5,183.97 km 2 will be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold during NEETMA's surveys (Table 7) based on the following formula:

As described in Space Policy Directive-3 (83 FR 28969; June 21, 2018) and the 2021 United States Space Priorities Framework ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/United-States-Space-Priorities-Framework-_-December-1-2021.pdf ), OSC is developing the capability to share space situational awareness (SSA) data and provide basic spaceflight safety services to all space operators, including conjunction analysis and warning services. OSC may leverage data, products, and services provided from a variety of government, commercial, academic, and international sources, taking over and potentially expanding upon the service currently provided by the Department of Defense.

OSC seeks public input broadly from the space community, including spacecraft operators, SSA data providers (current and prospective, ground and space-based), SSA analytic and value-added service providers, academia, nonprofit entities, space insurance providers, and the legal community.

OSC greatly appreciated responses to prior requests for information, including its request for information about “Commercial Capabilities in Space Situational Awareness Data and Space Traffic Management Services” in April 2019 and “Space Object Commercial Data” in February 2022. In addition, OSC has conducted numerous Industry Day meetings with companies from November 2020 to January 2021 and provided an opportunity to respond to desired learning objectives from a Commercial Sprint Advanced Concept Training. In addition, OSC is currently engaged in a listening tour with satellite operators and commercial space situational awareness data providers to understand basic services they expect to see when OSC takes over the service currently provided by the Department of Defense. The responses help OSC better understand key aspects of current and future non-governmental space object commercial data, and advanced SSA services that exceed the basic spaceflight safety services described above. This request builds on that input and, in addition, requests comments on usage rights and liability concerns associated with OSC's provision of SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services.

OSC seeks responses to four categories of questions, and invites any member of the public to provide input:

A. Data, products, and services needed by spacecraft operators;

B. Usage rights in data, products, and services needed and provided by spacecraft operators and value-added providers;

C. Framework for legal liability of spacecraft operators and the private sector; and

D. General feedback.

Respondents are encouraged to explain how the capabilities to be provided by OSC's SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services can be structured for a policy and regulatory environment that enables a competitive and burgeoning U.S. commercial space sector. Responses may also explain how the U.S. Government can work with industry and international partners in the development and implementation of open, transparent, and credible international standards, policies, and practices that establish the foundation for global space traffic coordination.

Prior requests for information have informed OSC on the specific capabilities commercial entities could currently provide and could provide in the future through an open architecture data repository that provides SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services. OSC is seeking to supplement this information by learning which SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services should be provided by OSC as a government service to spacecraft operators based on the most current needs of spacecraft operators.

Currently OSC is planning to develop a public catalog of tracked space objects and provide basic spaceflight safety services at no cost to satellite owners and operators, commercial service providers, and the public, including international participants. There are multiple basic services currently under consideration. First, OSC would provide on-orbit orbital safety assessments that include ephemeris and tracking-based conjunction assessment screenings, conjunction data message production with a calculated likelihood of collision probability, orbital determination quality assessment, timing of any future expected tracking, and pre-maneuver ephemeris screening. Second, OSC would provide end-of-life reentry assessments that estimate both the actual decay time and the ellipse of possible earth impact as satellites approach decay. Third, OSC would provide pre-launch coordination and launch coordination such as launch collision avoidance assessments, and disposal and reentry of launch detritus assessments. Finally, OSC would provide evaluations of satellite owner and operator data before such data's use in conjunction assessments.

OSC invites public comment on the scope of those SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services and on whether additional services from OSC would be of value to spacecraft operators.

OSC sought public input on its plans to procure SSA data on February 16, 2022 ( https://sam.gov/opp/7611eabcd5a74979a267199ea8689de2/view ), and will be seeking detailed public input later this year on the potential procurement of SSA products and services. This input will help OSC understand what data and products the private sector can provide. OSC may also obtain SSA data from spacecraft operators. OSC now seeks public input regarding the usage rights for the acquired data and products. OSC is inviting comments addressing what usage and sharing rights for acquired SSA data, products, and services will enable spacecraft operators and value-added service providers to best rely on OSC's data and basic spaceflight safety services. OSC also invites comments regarding how usage rights will impact those providing commercial SSA data or products to OSC. Furthermore, OSC invites comment on the following questions:

(1) For value-added service providers, what type of usage rights in SSA data and products would enable use of such data and products to build advanced SSA services beyond basic spaceflight safety services? For example, would a condition prohibiting commercial use be problematic? Name specific acceptable data licenses if known ( e.g., Creative Commons Zero Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0) ( https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode ), Creative Commons Attribution International (CC BY 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode ), Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International (CC BY-NC 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode )). For spacecraft operators, what type of usage rights in SSA data and products, if any, are of value to rely on OSC's SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services?

(2) For value-added service providers, would access to the algorithms used to process SSA data and create products and services be helpful? If so, why, and what type of usage rights would enable use? Name specific acceptable software licenses, if known ( e.g., CC0, Apache 2.0 ( https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ), MIT, GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html ), GNU General Public License (GPL) ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html ), etc.).

(3) For commercial data and product providers from whom OSC acquires SSA data and products, how would various usage rights in those data and products impact those commercial data and product providers? For example, are SSA data providers willing to provide data under an open license, but only at a significantly higher cost?

(4) For spacecraft operators from whom OSC acquires data, how would various usage rights in those data impact spacecraft operators? For example, are spacecraft operators willing to share some data only on the condition that it is not shared with the public, or only shared with the public on the condition that it is used for noncommercial purposes?

(5) Are non-Federal entities developing SSA products and services willing to share their algorithms with OSC, either freely or under a procurement contract? Would they be willing to share their algorithms with the public, either freely or if OSC procures public sharing and use rights? If so, under what usage rights (name specific acceptable software licenses, if applicable)?

OSC is evaluating the legal liability implications associated with the provision of governmental SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services. In this context, OSC is seeking information to consider whether the provision of governmental SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services that incorporate industry data or products raises liability concerns for those providing the relied on data or products. OSC is also seeking public input on whether there are liability concerns with respect to spacecraft operators or value-added providers that rely on governmental SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services.

By “liability framework,” OSC means the set of legal rules that govern—or could govern—liability for a collision. In some of the questions below, OSC asks what the current liability framework is. OSC wants to ensure that it has accurate, comprehensive information about the current state of the world faced by parties involved in providing or using SSA or spaceflight safety services. In other questions, OSC asks what the liability framework could or should be in the future to address any potential liability issue. Responders are encouraged to think about liability broadly and consider mechanisms such as disclaimers of warranty, indemnity, immunity, cross-waivers of liability, and others. OSC invites general responses regarding legal liability. Furthermore, OSC has identified the following questions:

(1) In the event of an on-orbit collision between two U.S. spacecraft operators, what liability framework currently applies and what role, if any, would governmental SSA data or basic spaceflight safety services play in that framework? What liability framework should apply? What incentives or regulatory approaches to liability will increase competitiveness of U.S. industry in the global market and increase spaceflight safety?

(2) In the event of an on-orbit collision between a U.S. spacecraft operator and a foreign spacecraft operator, what liability framework currently applies and what role, if any, would governmental SSA data or basic spaceflight safety services play in that framework? What liability framework should apply? What incentives or regulatory approaches to liability will increase competitiveness of U.S. industry in the global market and increase spaceflight safety?

(3) In the event of an on-orbit collision, what insurance regimes are available to U.S. spacecraft operators? What liability mechanisms ( e.g., cross-waiver of liability provisions) can provide stability and risk assurance to both insurers and U.S. spacecraft operators? What role can or should governmental SSA data or basic spaceflight safety services play in insurance regimes?

(4) Are there any liability concerns that would prevent spacecraft operators or commercial SSA data, product, or service providers from providing data, products, or services to OSC? Are there liability concerns caused by OSC creating derived or value-added data, products, or services developed using the provider's data, products, or services? If so, what could be done to address these concerns? With respect to SSA data, products and services released to the public, would the disclaimers included in standard open data licenses (such as CC0 or CC BY 4.0) adequately address those liability concerns?

(5) Are there any liability concerns that would prevent spacecraft operators or commercial SSA data, product, or service providers from providing SSA data, products, or services to the public? What incentives or regulatory approaches to liability will be in the best interest of U.S. spacecraft operators and value-added providers in terms of international competitiveness and increased spaceflight safety?

(6) Currently, OSC does not have specific space traffic control authority over space objects. What, if any, future space traffic control regimes would be desirable? Should provision of OSC SSA data or basic spaceflight safety services be accompanied with binding directions or procedures to spacecraft operators? What impact, if any, would such directions or procedures have on liability for U.S. spacecraft operators or value-added service providers?

OSC welcomes feedback about any other related topics. For example, are there any matters not discussed above that OSC should or must consider before it provides SSA data and basic spaceflight safety services?

To facilitate review of your responses, please reference the subject of the RFI in your response. You may respond to some or all of the topic areas covered in the RFI, and you can suggest other factors or relevant questions. You may also include links to online material or interactive presentations. If including data sets, please make the data available in a downloadable, machine-readable format with accompanying metadata.

Please note that this is a request for information (RFI) only. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), this general solicitation is exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof, provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration, are not generally considered information collections and therefore not subject to the PRA.

This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a request for proposals, applications, proposal abstracts, or quotations. This RFI does not commit the U.S. Government to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, we are not seeking proposals through this RFI and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Choosing not to respond to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future procurement, if conducted.

Deletions

On 9/10/2021, 9/17/2021, 12/10/2021, and 12/17/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are//Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:

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

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following product(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

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

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Childbirth and Breastfeeding Support Demonstration Survey; OMB Control Number 0720-CBDS.

Type of Request: New.

Number of Respondents: 16,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 16,000.

Average Burden per Response: 9 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,400 hours.

Needs and Uses: The Childbirth and Breastfeeding Support Demonstration Survey is necessary to solicit information from TRICARE beneficiaries who have given birth in the specified reporting period (initial survey for beneficiaries who gave birth in calendar year 2021, with follow on surveys sent to beneficiaries who give birth each calendar year quarter through the end of 2026, with the final survey sent in early 2027). Approximately 100,000 TRICARE beneficiaries give birth each year; about 60 percent of those births occur in private sector care and the other 40 percent in direct care (military treatment facilities). The survey is mandated by Section 746 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283, enacted on January 1, 2021). The end result of the survey will be data that can be used to develop mandatory Reports to Congress as well as recommendations for permanent implementation of some or all of the demonstration elements into the TRICARE Program.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

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

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

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

DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

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

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Commission in the U.S. Navy/U.S. Naval Reserve; NAVCRUIT Form 1131/238, OMB Control Number 0703-0029.

Needs and Uses: All persons interested in entering the U.S. Navy or U.S. Navy Reserve, in a commissioned status must provide various personal data in order for a Selection Board to determine their qualifications for naval service and for specific fields of endeavor which the applicant intends to pursue. This information is used to recruit and select applicants who are qualified for commission in the U.S. Navy or U.S. Navy Reserve.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 14,000.

Number of Respondents: 14,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 14,000.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Response to the Marine Corps NAF Debt Collection Notice, NAVMC Form 11787, OMB Control Number 0703-0075.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to maintain a tracking and accounting system for the purpose of repayment management or to transfer the debt collection to the Treasury Offset Program, dependent on the response option elected by the respondent. Respondents are authorized vendors and patrons indebted to Marine Corps Community Services businesses and services as well as applicable supported Marine Corps Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities. The completed form is maintained to manage the repayment option elected by the respondent. If the form was not completed, the outstanding alleged debt would be automatically submitted to the Treasury Offset Program to withhold or reduce federal payment(s) to satisfy the debt. Having a means to manage outstanding debt collection supports financial accountability.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 173.

Number of Respondents: 2,080.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 2,080.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

If the Secretary selects an applicant for verification, the applicant's Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) includes flags that indicate (1) that the applicant has been selected by the Secretary for verification and (2) the Verification Tracking Group (VTG) in which the applicant has been placed. The VTG indicates which FAFSA information needs to be verified for the applicant and, if appropriate, for the applicant's parent(s) or spouse. The Student Aid Report (SAR) provided to the applicant will indicate that the applicant's FAFSA information has been selected for verification and direct the applicant to contact the institution for further instructions for completing the verification process.

To help institutions and applicants deal with the challenges resulting from the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the Secretary has provided flexibilities to the verification regulations through the end of the first payment period that begins after the date that the COVID-19 national emergency is rescinded.

The following chart lists, for the 2023-2024 award year, the FAFSA information that an institution and an applicant and, if appropriate, the applicant's parent(s) or spouse may be required to verify under 34 CFR 668.56. The chart also lists the acceptable documentation that must, under § 668.57, be provided to an institution for that information to be verified.

Only the following FAFSA/ISIR information must be verified:

For dependent students—

• The parents' AGI if the parents were tax filers;

• The parents' income earned from work if the parents were non-tax filers; and

• The student's identity/statement of educational purpose, if required.

For independent students—

• The student's and spouse's AGI if they were tax filers;

• The student's and spouse's income earned from work if they were non-tax filers;

• The student's identity/statement of educational purpose, if required; and

• The number of household members to determine if the independent student has one or more dependents other than a spouse.

Note: Verification of non-filing  4 from the IRS (or other relevant tax authority, if applicable) dated on or after October 1, 2022, must be provided for (1) independent students (and spouses, if applicable) and parents of dependent students who did not file and are not required to file a 2021 income tax return, and (2) individuals who are required to file a 2021 IRS income tax return but have not filed because they have been granted a tax filing extension by the IRS beyond the automatic 6-month extension for the 2021 tax year.

The individual FAFSA items that an applicant must verify are based upon the Verification Tracking Group to which the applicant is assigned as outlined in the following chart.

We provide a more detailed discussion on the verification process in the following resources that will be available on the Knowledge Center web page at https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center:

• 2023-2024 Application and Verification Guide.

• 2023-2024 ISIR Guide.

• 2023-2024 SAR Comment Codes and Text.

• 2023-2024 COD Technical Reference.

• Program Integrity Information—Questions and Answers on Verification at www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/verification.html.

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

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

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

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070b-1070b-4, 1087a-1087j, and 20 U.S.C. 1087-51-1087-58.

The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-414) and the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 114-182) (all together referred to as MEBA), amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; 15 U.S.C. 2601-2629) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. 6939f) to address, among other things, the export and long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. MEBA prohibits the sale, distribution, or transfer by Federal agencies to any other Federal agency, any state or local government agency, or any private individual or entity, of any elemental mercury under the control or jurisdiction of a Federal agency (with certain limited exceptions). MEBA also amended section 266(c) of TSCA to prohibit the export of elemental mercury from the United States (with certain limited exceptions). MEBA directs DOE to designate a facility (or facilities) of DOE for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. MEBA further provides the Secretary of Energy with the authority to establish such terms, conditions, and procedures as are necessary to carry out this long-term management and storage function. Although the phrase “facility (or facilities) of [DOE]” is not defined in MEBA, DOE has a longstanding practice in various other contexts of leasing facilities to accomplish the Department's core mission. Consistent with that practice, DOE construes the term “facility of DOE” to include a facility leased from a commercial entity or by another Federal agency over which the Department provides an appropriate level of oversight and guidance. Accordingly, if DOE were to designate a facility that currently is owned by a commercial entity or by another Federal agency, DOE would obtain an appropriate leasehold interest in that facility to comply with MEBA. DOE would ensure that any such facility currently owned by a commercial entity or by another Federal agency would afford DOE an appropriate level of responsibility and control over the facility.

The primary sources of elemental mercury in the United States include mercury generated as a byproduct of the gold-mining process and mercury reclaimed from recycling and waste recovery activities. In addition, DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) stores approximately 1,200 metric tons of elemental mercury at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, which was generated in support of NNSA's mission.

The 2011 Mercury Storage EIS evaluated seven candidate locations for the elemental mercury storage facility, as well as a No-Action Alternative. The locations included new facility construction, use of existing facilities, or both. The candidate locations evaluated in 2011 were: DOE Grand Junction Disposal site near Grand Junction, Colorado (new construction); DOE Hanford Site near Richland, Washington (new construction); Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada (existing facilities); DOE Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho (new construction and an existing facility); Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri (existing facility); DOE Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina (new construction); and the Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) site near Andrews, Texas (new construction and an existing facility).

The 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS evaluated three additional alternative locations, all in the vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico (all new construction). The 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS also updated some of the relevant analyses for alternatives presented in the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS.

For the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and the 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS, DOE estimated that up to approximately 10,000 metric tons of elemental mercury would need to be managed and stored at the DOE facility during the 40-year period of analysis.

On December 6, 2019, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to document its designation of the WCS site near Andrews, Texas, for the management and storage of up to 6,800 metric tons of elemental mercury in leased portions of existing buildings at the WCS site (84 FR 66890). The ROD was supported by DOE's Supplement Analysis of the Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0423-SA-1), which determined that the long-term management and storage of up to 6,800 metric tons of elemental mercury in existing buildings at the WCS site would not constitute a substantial change from the proposal evaluated in the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and updated in the 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS. On December 23, 2019, DOE published its rule to establish the fee for long-term management and storage of elemental mercury (84 FR 70402; the “Fee Rule”).

Two domestic generators of elemental mercury subsequently filed complaints in United States District Court challenging, among other things, the validity of the Fee Rule and the ROD ( Coeur Rochester, Inc. v. Brouillette et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03860-RJL [D.D.C. filed December 31, 2019] and Nevada Gold Mines LLC v. Brouillette et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-RJL [D.D.C filed January 17, 2020]). On August 21, 2020, DOE and Nevada Gold Mines LLC executed a settlement agreement that resolved Nevada Gold Mines' lawsuit. Consistent with that agreement, on September 3, 2020, DOE filed a motion in the District Court asking the Court to vacate and remand the Fee Rule. The District Court granted the motion to vacate and remand the Fee Rule on September 5, 2020. Given the rulemaking process required to establish a fee for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury, and the expiration of DOE's lease with WCS in June 2021, DOE also agreed in the settlement with Nevada Gold Mines to withdraw the designation of WCS. DOE subsequently withdrew the designation of WCS under MEBA in an amended ROD on October 6, 2020 (85 FR 63105). On April 25, 2021, the District Court signed a joint stipulation to dismiss Coeur Rochester, Inc.'s lawsuit.

MEBA established January 1, 2019, as the date by which a DOE facility for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States must be operational. MEBA requires that DOE adjust fees for generators temporarily accumulating elemental mercury if the DOE facility is not operational by January 1, 2019. If the DOE facility is not operational by January 1, 2020, DOE must: (1) immediately accept the conveyance of title to all elemental mercury that has accumulated on site prior to January 1, 2020, 1 (2) pay any applicable Federal permitting costs, and (3) store, or pay the cost of storage of, until the time at which a facility is operational, accumulated mercury to which the Secretary has title in a facility that has been issued a permit. Because statutory milestone dates have now passed, DOE needs to designate a facility and begin accepting elemental mercury as soon as practicable.

DOE proposes to designate one or more facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury in accordance with MEBA. Facilities must comply with applicable requirements of section 5(d) in MEBA, “Management Standards for a Facility,” including the requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by RCRA, and other state-specific permitting requirements. Consistent with the Supplement Analysis prepared in 2019 but updated to account for accumulation of elemental mercury since then, the SEIS-II evaluates the potential environmental impacts of an estimated inventory of up to 7,000 metric tons of elemental mercury that could require management and storage during the 40-year period of analysis.

After completion of DOE's Proposed Action, DOE would establish the fee for long-term management and storage of elemental mercury through a rulemaking conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ). DOE would evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the rulemaking in accordance with NEPA implementing procedures at 10 CFR part 1021 at that time.

The Mercury Storage SEIS-II evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action in existing facilities at the following reasonable alternative locations:

• Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada;

• WCS in Andrews County, Texas;

• Bethlehem Apparatus in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania;

• Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., in Kingston, Tennessee;

• Veolia North America in Gum Springs, Arkansas; and

• Clean Harbors (facilities in Pecatonica, Illinois; Greenbrier, Tennessee; and Tooele, Utah).

DOE has also updated the analysis of the No-Action Alternative.

For each of the above alternative locations, the Mercury Storage SEIS-II provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts for the following resource areas: land use and ownership, and visual resources; geology, soils, and geologic hazards; water resources; air quality and noise; ecological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; site infrastructure; waste management; occupational and public health and safety (including normal operations, facility accidents, transportation, and intentional destructive acts); socioeconomics; and environmental justice. The SEIS-II also includes a description of reasonably foreseeable environmental trends and planned actions within the region of influence for each alternative site. The SEIS-II evaluates the potential cumulative impacts of actions that have a reasonably close causal relationship or that occur at the same time and place as the Proposed Action.

In the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and the 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS, DOE identified the WCS alternative as the preferred alternative. DOE no longer has a specific preferred alternative. However, DOE does prefer one or more of the alternative locations with existing commercial facilities because selection of one or more of these facilities would best address DOE's schedule urgency established by MEBA.

DOE has published the Draft Mercury Storage SEIS-II on the internet at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/doeeis-0423-s2-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement-long-term-management-and-storage. Additionally, DOE has scheduled two web-based public hearings to allow DOE to present information about the Draft SEIS-II and to receive oral comments from the public. The first hearing will be held on August 2, 2022, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. EDT. The second hearing will be held on August 4, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. Registration details are included below and are also available on the DOE website for long-term management and storage of elemental mercury ( https://www.energy.gov/em/long-term-management-and-storage-elemental-mercury ). If you are joining the web-based public hearing via the internet (the preferred approach), use the link below to log in to the Zoom Meeting Room. If you are joining the web-based public hearing via phone, dial the number below and follow the prompts. Documents and the presentation for the public hearing will be made available on the DOE website for long-term management and storage of elemental mercury ( https://www.energy.gov/em/long-term-management-and-storage-elemental-mercury ). Persons who wish to provide oral comments at the hearing may sign up either before the hearing by submitting a request to Julia.Donkin@em.doe.gov (preferred approach) or during the meeting. To join the first web-based public hearing (August 2, 2022) via Zoom Meeting Room : https://em-doe.zoomgov.com/j/1608025687?pwd=Zndsbkp6THA4V2lFdXE3ZGExclF6Zz09 (copy and paste into web browser).

To join the second web-based public hearing (August 4, 2022) via Zoom Meeting Room: https://em-doe.zoomgov.com/j/1608025687?pwd=Zndsbkp6THA4V2lFdXE3ZGExclF6Zz09 (copy and paste into web browser).

This document of the U.S. Department of Energy was signed on June 27, 2022, by William I. White, Senior Advisor for Environmental Management, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with the requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the U.S. Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .