These committee meeting is available to the public through the meeting link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. At the meeting, an open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez at bdelaviez@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-312-353-8311.

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

Based upon timely requests for review, Commerce initiated administrative reviews of certain companies for the periods of review and the AD and CVD orders listed in the table below, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 1 All requests for these reviews have been timely withdrawn. 2

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested the review withdraw their review requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation for the requested review. All parties withdrew their requests for the reviews listed in the table below within the 90-day deadline. No other parties requested administrative reviews of these AD/CVD orders for the periods noted in the table. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding, in their entirety, the administrative reviews listed in the table below.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping and/or countervailing duties on all appropriate entries during the periods of review noted above for each of the listed administrative reviews at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping or countervailing duties, as applicable, required at the time of entry, or withdrawal of merchandise from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this recission notice in the Federal Register for rescinded administrative reviews of AD/CVD orders on countries other than Canada and Mexico. For rescinded administrative reviews of AD/CVD orders on Canada or Mexico, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of this recission notice in the Federal Register .

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The ETTAC is mandated by Section 2313(c) of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the Environmental Trade Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, through the Secretary of Commerce, on the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental technologies, goods, services, and products. The ETTAC was most recently re-chartered through August 16, 2024.

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST, the ETTAC will hold the sixth meeting of its current charter term. During the meeting, committee members will participate in breakout discussions to discuss issues of interest to specific environmental technology sectors and to deliberate on potential recommendation topics. The committee will also hear briefings on U.S. government resources and programs to support U.S. environmental technology exporters, including the International Trade Administration's efforts to strengthen U.S. supply chains and U.S. Export-Import Bank tools for U.S. exporters. An agenda will be made available one week prior to the meeting upon request to Megan Hyndman.

The meeting will be open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment before the close of the meeting. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting are required to register by Wednesday, January 17, at 5:00 p.m. EST, via the contact information provided above. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at Megan.Hyndman@trade.gov or (202) 823-1839 no less than one week prior to the meeting. Requests received after this date will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate them.

Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received by Wednesday, January 17, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. EST to ensure transmission to the members before the meeting. Draft minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.

The IAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ).

The IAC advises the Secretary on matters relating to the promotion and retention of foreign direct investment in the United States. At the meeting, the IAC members will discuss work done within the three subcommittees: Economic Competitiveness, Workforce, and SelectUSA 2.0. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce website for the IAC at: https://www.trade.gov/selectusa-investment-advisory-council, prior to the meeting.

Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the ADDRESSES caption. Last minute requests will be accepted but may be impossible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker and a brief statement summarizing the comments. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.

Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5 p.m. ET on February 1, 2024, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the Members of the IAC.

In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the IAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Claire Pillsbury at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. ET on February 1, 2024, to ensure transmission to the IAC members prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting.

Comments and statements will be posted on the IAC website ( https://www.trade.gov/selectusa-investment-advisory-council ) without change, including any business or personal information provided such as it includes names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers. All comments and statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.

Copies of the meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting date.

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 U.S. waters of the 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 LLOG on January 20, 2022, for the take of marine mammals incidental to the following vertical seismic profile (VSP) survey types: Zero Offset, Offset, Walk Away, Salt Proximity and/or Check Shots after reaching total depth of any of the proposed wells operated by LLOG within the Keathley Canyon Area, effective March 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. Please see the Federal Register notice of issuance (87 FR 3084, January 20, 2022) for additional detail regarding the LOA and the survey activity.

LLOG subsequently requested modification of the December 31, 2022, expiration date to December 31, 2023, due to survey delays and NMFS modified the LOA accordingly (87 FR 41670, July 13, 2022). More recently, LLOG informed NMFS that the survey would be further delayed, and requested a second modification to the expiration date of the LOA (from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2026) to accommodate the delays. There are no other changes to LLOG's planned activity. Since issuance of the LOA, no survey work has occurred.

NMFS has changed the expiration date of the LOA from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2026. There are no other changes to the LOA as described in the January 20, 2022, Federal Register notice of issuance (87 FR 3084): the specified survey activity; estimated take by incidental harassment; and small numbers analysis and determination remain unchanged and are incorporated here by reference.

This request is for revision and extension to an approved collection of information, OMB Control Number 0648-0646, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This previously-approved information collection assists NOAA in the administration of the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP), which was established by the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) under the authority of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, 16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq. This act authorizes CRCP to, among other things, conserve and restore the condition of United States coral reef ecosystems and enhance public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of coral reefs and coral reef ecosystems and their ecological and socioeconomic value. In accordance with its mission goals, NOAA developed a survey to track relevant information regarding each jurisdiction's population, social and economic structure, the benefits of coral reefs and related habitats, the impacts of society on coral reefs, and the impacts of coral management on communities. The survey is repeated in each jurisdiction every five to seven years in order to provide longitudinal data and information for managers to effectively conserve coral reefs for current and future generations.

The purpose of this information collection is to obtain human dimensions information from residents in the seven United States (U.S.) jurisdictions containing coral reefs: Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Specifically, NOAA is seeking information on the behaviors and activities related to coral reefs, as well as information on perceptions of coral reef conditions and attitudes toward specific reef conservation activities. Each survey has a core set of questions that are asked across all jurisdictions to allow for information to be tracked over time and across jurisdictions. To account for geographical, cultural and linguistic differences between jurisdictions, the survey questions include items that are specific to the local context and developed based on jurisdictional partner feedback.

We intend to use the information collected through this instrument for research purposes, as well as for measuring and improving the results of our reef protection programs. Because many of our efforts to protect reefs rely on education and changing attitudes toward reef protection, the information collected will allow CRCP to ensure that programs are designed appropriately at the start, future program evaluation efforts are as successful as possible, and outreach efforts are targeting the intended recipients with useful information.

Pursuant to a request from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this collection of information was restructured in 2021 as a hybrid-generic collection. That structure is maintained herein.

Information will be collected using the most efficient and effective methodology that is feasible in the individual jurisdiction. Dependent upon the jurisdiction, data will be collected via in-person or mail recruitment, in-person interviews, and/or push-to-web online survey platforms. For the three years covered by this clearance, data collection will target the USVI, Florida, and Hawai'i and will be collected as such: in-person interviews with an online option in the USVI and via mail push-to-web in Florida and Hawai'i.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0646.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission. Revision and extension to a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,840.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 469 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, 16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.

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

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. If you would rather make an anonymous comment, please submit comments through regulations.gov .

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 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.

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

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

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

On August 31, 2023, NMFS received a request from Atlantic Shores for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting marine site characterization surveys in waters off of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, specifically within BOEM Lease Areas OCS-A 0499, OCS-A 0541, OCS-A 0549, and associated ECC areas. Following NMFS' review of the application, Atlantic Shores submitted revised versions on October 11 and November 17, 2023. The application was deemed adequate and complete on November 20, 2023. Atlantic Shores' request is for take of small numbers of 14 species (15 stocks) of marine mammals by Level B harassment. Neither Atlantic Shores nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS previously issued IHAs to Atlantic Shores for similar work (85 FR 21198, April 16, 2020; 86 FR 21289, April 22, 2021; 87 FR 24103, April 20, 2022; 87 FR 50293, August 10, 2022; 88 FR 38821, June 9, 2023; 88 FR 54575, August 10, 2023). Atlantic Shores complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs and did not exceed authorized levels of take under previous IHAs issued for surveys offshore of New York and New Jersey. These previous monitoring results are available to the public on our website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-bight-llcs-marine-site.

Atlantic Shores proposes to conduct marine site characterization surveys, including high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys, in waters off of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, specifically within BOEM Lease Areas OCS-A 0499, OCS-A 0541, OCS-A 0549, and associated ECC areas, collectively considered the Survey Area.

Atlantic Shores currently has two active IHAs associated with ongoing HRG survey activities: one in BOEM Lease Areas OCS-A 0499 and OCS-A 0549 effective June 9, 2023 through June 8, 2024 (88 FR 38821) and another in BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0541 effective August 10, 2023 through August 9, 2024 (88 FR 54575). The purpose of the IHA request addressed herein is to combine all ongoing HRG survey activities, including remaining survey activity associated with the two existing IHAs as well as new activity, under a single IHA. The new activity includes additional areas not currently covered under either currently active Atlantic Shores HRG survey IHAs. If NMFS ultimately makes the required determinations and issues the requested IHA, NMFS will concurrently modify the effective dates of the two active IHAs to reflect an end date that is one day earlier in time than the start date of the requested IHA.

The proposed marine site characterization surveys are designed to obtain data sufficient to meet BOEM guidelines for providing geophysical, geotechnical, and geohazard information for site assessment plan surveys and/or construction and operations plan development. The objective of the surveys is to support the site characterization, siting, and engineering design of offshore wind project facilities including wind turbine generators, offshore substations, and submarine cables within the Survey Area. Up to two vessels may conduct survey efforts concurrently. Underwater sound resulting from Atlantic Shores' marine site characterization survey activities, specifically HRG surveys, have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of Level B harassment.

The proposed activity is planned to begin on April 1, 2024. The proposed surveys are estimated to require a maximum of 300 survey days within a single year across a maximum of two vessels, which would include one vessel operating nearshore (less than 10 meters (m; 33 feet (ft)) depth) and one vessel operating offshore (greater than 10 m (33 ft) depth). The survey days are proposed to occur any month throughout the year as the exact timing of the surveys during the year is not yet certain. A “survey day” is defined as a 24-hour (hr) activity period in which an active acoustic sound source is used offshore and a 12-hr activity period when a vessel is operating nearshore. Surveyed at a speed of approximately 3.5 knots (kn; 6.5 kilometer (km) per hr (km/hr)), it is expected that the nearshore vessel would cover approximately 30 km (18.6 miles (mi)) of trackline per day, and the offshore vessel would cover approximately 140 km (87 mi) of trackline per day, based on Atlantic Shores' data acquisition efficiency expectations.

Atlantic Shores' proposed activities would occur in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean within Federal and State waters off of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland in BOEM Lease Areas OCS-A 0499, OCS-A 0541, OCS-A 0549, and along the associated ECC areas (Figure 1). Overall, the Survey Area is approximately 20,251 square kilometers (km 2 ; 7,819 mi 2 ) and extends from the shoreline to approximately 74 km (46 mi) offshore and a maximum depth of approximately 60 m (197 ft).

Atlantic Shores' marine site characterization surveys within the Survey Area include geotechnical and geophysical surveys, including depth sounding to determine water depth, site bathymetry, and general seafloor topography using a single beam and multibeam echosounder (MBES); magnetic intensity measurements using a gradiometer; seafloor imaging using a side scan sonar; shallow penetration sub-bottom profilers (SBPs; parametric); and a medium penetration SBP (sparker). NMFS does not expect the following acoustic sources to present a reasonably anticipated risk of causing incidental take of marine mammals, and these activities are not discussed further in this notice:

• Single and MBES and side-scan sonars are used to determine water depths and general seafloor topography. The proposed MBES and side-scan sonar both have operating frequencies greater than 180 kilohertz (kHz) and are, therefore, outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.

• Gradiometers are used to detect local variations in regional magnetic field from geological strata and potential ferrous objects on and below the seafloor. The proposed gradiometer has an operating frequency greater than 180 kHz and is, therefore, outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.

• Parametric SBPs are shallow penetration non-impulsive sources used to map the near-surface stratigraphy (soil down to 5 m) of sediment below seabed and can provide high data density in subsurface profiles that are typically required for cable routes, very shallow water, and archaeological surveys. These sources generate short, very narrow-beam (1 to 3.5 degrees (°)) signals at high frequencies (generally around 85-115 kHz). The narrow beamwidth significantly reduces the potential that a marine mammal could be exposed to the signal while the high frequency of operation means that the signal is rapidly attenuated in seawater (and cannot be heard by mysticetes). These sources are typically deployed on a pole rather than towed behind the vessel.

Atlantic Shores proposes to use a sparker during HRG survey activities that has the potential to cause incidental take of marine mammals. Sparkers are medium penetration impulsive sources used to map deep subsurface stratigraphy (soils down to at least 100 m (328 ft) below the seabed in sand and at least 125 m (410 ft) below the seabed in mixed sediments). Sparkers create omnidirectional acoustic pulses from 50 hertz (Hz) to 4 kHz, are typically towed behind the vessel, and may be operated with different numbers of electrode tips to allow tuning of the acoustic waveform for specific applications. There is one sparker system planned for use: GeoMarine Geo-Source 400, which would collect two-dimensional (2D) single-channel ultra-high resolution seismic (SUHRS) data while operating 400 tips at a power level of 400 Joules (J; table 2).

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions instead of reprinting the information. 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 expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 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 serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (annual M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. 2022 SARs. All values presented in table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, all 14 species (15 managed stocks) in table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the proposed activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While other species have been documented in the area (see table 3-1 of the IHA application), the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further.

North Atlantic right whales (NARW) range from calving grounds in the southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters and into Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 2023). They are observed year round in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and surveys have demonstrated the existence of seven areas where NARW congregate seasonally in Georges Bank, off Cape Cod, and in Massachusetts Bay (Hayes et al., 2023). In the late fall months ( e.g., October), NARW are generally thought to depart from the feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and move south to their calving grounds off Georgia and Florida. However, recent research indicates our understanding of their movement patterns remains incomplete (Davis et al., 2017). A review of passive acoustic monitoring data from 2004 to 2014 throughout the western North Atlantic demonstrated nearly continuous year-round NARW presence across their entire habitat range (for at least some individuals), including in locations previously thought of as migratory corridors, suggesting that not all of the population undergoes a consistent annual migration (Davis et al., 2017). Given that Atlantic Shores' surveys would be concentrated in the New York Bight and Mid-Atlantic Bight, some NARW may be present year round. However, the majority of NARW in the vicinity of the Survey Area are likely to be transient, migrating through the area.

Recent aerial surveys in the New York Bight showed NARW in the proposed Survey Area in the winter and spring, preferring deeper waters near the shelf break (NARW observed in depths ranging from 33-1,041 m) but were observed throughout the aerial survey area (Zoidis et al., 2021, Robinson et al., 2021). Similarly, passive acoustic data collected from 2018 to 2020 in the New York Bight showed detections of NARW throughout the year (Estabrook et al., 2021). Seasonally, NARW acoustic presence was highest in the fall. NARW can be anticipated to occur in the proposed Survey Area year-round but with lower levels in the summer from July-September.

Since 2010, the NARW population has been in decline (Pace III et al., 2017), with a 40 percent decrease in calving rate (Kraus et al., 2016). In 2018, no new NARW calves were documented in their calving grounds; this represented the first time since annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 1989 that no new NARW calves were observed. Calf numbers have increased since 2018 with 20 NARW calves documented in 2021 and 15 in 2022.

Elevated NARW mortalities have occurred since June 7, 2017, along the U.S. and Canadian coast. This event has been declared an unusual mortality event (UME), with human interactions, including entanglement in fixed fishing gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at least 60 of the mortalities or serious injuries thus far. As of October 4, 2023, a total of 121 confirmed cases of mortality, serious injury, or morbidity (sublethal injury or illness) have been documented. The preliminary cause of most of these cases is from rope entanglements or vessel strikes. More information is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023- north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event.

The proposed Survey Area is within a migratory corridor biologically important area (BIA) for NARW that extends from Massachusetts to Florida (LaBrecque et al., 2015). There is possible migratory behavior that could occur in this area between November and April. Off the coast of New Jersey, the migratory BIA extends from the coast to beyond the shelf break.

NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 designated nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMA) for NARW in 2008. SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and NARW around their migratory route and calving grounds. The New York/New Jersey SMA, which occurs in the New York Bight, is in the proposed Survey Area and is active from November 1 through April 30 of each year. Within SMAs, the regulations require a mandatory vessel speed (less than 10 kn (18.52 km/hr)) or 5.14 m/sec for all vessels longer than 19.8 m (65 ft).

On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing NARW vessel speed regulations to further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered right whales from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2022). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and become effective during the effective period of this IHA (or any other MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained within the final rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in the MMPA authorization would remain in place. These changes would become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final vessel speed rule and would not require any further action on NMFS's part.

Fin whales are present north of 35° N latitude in every season and are broadly distributed throughout the western North Atlantic for most of the year (Hayes et al., 2022). They are typically found in small groups of up to five individuals (Brueggeman et al., 1987). The main threats to fin whales are fishery interactions and vessel collisions (Hayes et al., 2022).

The western North Atlantic stock of fin whales includes the area from central Virginia to Newfoundland/Labrador, Canada. This region is primarily a feeding ground for this migratory species that tend to calve and breed in lower latitudes or offshore. There is currently no critical habitat designated for this species.

Aerial surveys in the New York Bight observed fin whales year-round throughout the proposed Survey Area, but they preferred deeper waters near the shelf break (Robinson et al., 2021). Passive acoustic data from 2018-2020 also detected fin whales throughout the year (Estabrook et al., 2021).

On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single species of humpback whales into 14 distinct population segments (DPSs), removed the current species-level listing, and, instead, listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The West Indies DPS, which is not listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whale that is expected to occur in the Survey Area. Members of the West Indies DPS disperse to multiple western North Atlantic feeding populations, including the Gulf of Maine stock designated under the MMPA. Whales occurring in the proposed survey area are considered to be from the West Indies DPS but are not necessarily from the Gulf of Maine stock. Barco et al. (2002) estimated that, based on photo-identification, only 39 percent of individual humpback whales observed along the mid- and south Atlantic U.S. coast are from the Gulf of Maine stock. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size of this population at 12,312 (95 percent confidence interval (CI) 8,688-15,954) whales in 2004-2005, which is consistent with previous population estimates of approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 2003, Smith et al., 1999) and the increasing trend for the West Indies DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015).

Humpback whales utilize the mid-Atlantic as a migration pathway between calving/mating grounds to the south and feeding grounds in the north (Waring et al., 2007a, Waring et al., 2007b). A key question with regard to humpback whales off the Mid-Atlantic States is to which feeding population whales in these waters belong.

Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on approximately half of the 209 known cases (as of November 2, 2023). Of the whales examined, about 40 percent had evidence of human interaction, either vessel strike or entanglement. While a portion of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, this finding is not consistent across all whales examined and more research is needed. NOAA is consulting with researchers that are conducting studies on the humpback whale populations, and these efforts may provide information on changes in whale distribution and habitat use that could provide additional insight into how these vessel interactions occurred. More information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2023-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.

Minke whales can be found in temperate, tropical, and high-latitude waters. The Canadian East Coast stock can be found in the area from the western half of the Davis Strait (45° W longitude) to the Gulf of Mexico (Hayes et al., 2022). This species generally occupies waters less than 100 m deep on the continental shelf. There appears to be a strong seasonal component to minke whale distribution in the Survey Area, in which spring to fall are times of relatively widespread and common occurrence while during winter the species appears to be largely absent (Hayes et al., 2022). Aerial surveys in the New York Bight area found that minke whales were observed throughout the proposed Survey Area with highest numbers sighting in the spring months (Robinson et al., 2021).

Since January 2017, elevated minke whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with a total of 160 strandings (as of September 26, 2023). This event has been declared a UME; as of 2023, it is pending closure. Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on more than 60 percent of the stranded whales. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease, but these findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more research is needed. More information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.

The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters of the continental shelf edge waters of the northeastern U.S. and northeastward to south of Newfoundland. Sei whales occur in shallower waters to feed. Currently there is no critical habitat for sei whales, though they can be observed along the shelf edge of the continental shelf. The main threats to this stock are interactions with fisheries and vessel collisions.

Aerial surveys conducted in the New York Bight observed sei whales in both winter and spring, though they preferred deeper waters near the shelf break (Robinson et al., 2021). Passive acoustic data in the proposed Survey Area detected sei whales throughout the year except January and July with highest detections in March and April (Estabrook et al., 2021).

Only long-finned pilot whales are expected to occur in this project area due to their more northerly distribution and association with colder water compared to short-finned pilot whales (Garrison and Rosel, 2017). Long-finned pilot whales are found from North Carolina to Iceland, Greenland, and the Barents Sea (Hayes et al., 2022). In U.S. Atlantic waters, the Western North Atlantic stock is distributed principally along the continental shelf edge off the northeastern U.S. coast in winter and early spring. In late spring, pilot whales move onto Georges Bank and into the Gulf of Maine and more northern waters and remain in these areas through late autumn (Hayes et al., 2022).

Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in tropical and warm temperate waters ranging from southern New England, south to the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al., 2020). The Western North Atlantic stock regularly occurs in continental shelf waters south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and in continental shelf edge and continental slope waters north of this region (Hayes et al., 2020).

White-sided dolphins are found in temperate and sub-polar waters of the North Atlantic, primarily in continental shelf waters to the 100-m depth contour from central west Greenland to North Carolina (Hayes et al., 2022). The Gulf of Maine stock is most common in continental shelf waters from Hudson Canyon to Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy. Sighting data indicate seasonal shifts in distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). During January to May, low numbers of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to Jeffreys Ledge (off New Hampshire) with even lower numbers south of Georges Bank as documented by a few strandings collected on beaches of Virginia to South Carolina. From June through September, large numbers of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to the lower Bay of Fundy. From October to December, white-sided dolphins occur at intermediate densities from southern Georges Bank to southern Gulf of Maine (Payne and Heinemann, 1990). Sightings south of Georges Bank, particularly around Hudson Canyon, occur year round but at low densities. Aerial studies confirmed observations in fall and winter in the New York Bight area with preference for deep water at the shelf break throughout the year (Robinson et al., 2021).

There are two distinct bottlenose dolphin morphotypes in the Western North Atlantic: coastal and offshore (Hayes et al., 2020, Hayes et al., 2021). Coastal morphotype dolphins generally reside in waters along the inner continental shelf (within 7.5 km (4.6 mi) of shore), around islands, and are continuously distributed south of Long Island, New York, into the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal dolphins in this area are expected to belong to the Northern Migratory Coastal Stock. Torres et al. (2003) found a statistically significant break in the distribution of the morphotypes at 34 km from shore based upon the genetic analysis of tissue samples collected in nearshore and offshore waters from New York to central Florida. Both morphotypes are likely to occur in the proposed Survey Area. The offshore stock is distributed primarily along the outer continental shelf and continental slope in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from Georges Bank to the Florida Keys.

The Western North Atlantic stock of Risso's dolphin occurs from Florida to eastern Newfoundland. They are common on the northwest Atlantic continental shelf in summer and fall with lower abundances in winter and spring. Aerial surveys in the New York Bight area sighted Risso's dolphins throughout the year at the shelf break with highest abundances in spring and summer (Robinson et al., 2021).

Common dolphins within the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) belong to the Western North Atlantic stock, generally occurring from Cape Hatteras to the Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2022). Common dolphins are a highly seasonal, migratory species. Within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ, this species is distributed along the continental shelf and typically associated with Gulf Stream features (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982, Hamazaki, 2002, Selzer and Payne, 1988, Hayes et al., 2022). They are commonly found over the continental shelf between the 100-m and 2,000-m isobaths and over prominent underwater topography and east to the mid-Atlantic Ridge (Hayes et al., 2022). Common dolphins occur from Cape Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35° N to 42° N latitude) during mid-January to May and move as far north as the Scotian Shelf from mid-summer to fall (Selzer and Payne, 1988). Migration onto the Scotian Shelf and continental shelf off Newfoundland occurs when water temperatures exceed 51.8 °F (11° Celsius; (Sergeant et al., 1970, Gowans and Whitehead, 1995). Breeding usually takes place between June and September (Hayes et al., 2022). Summer surveys included observations of the most individuals followed by fall, winter, and then spring.

In the project area, only the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoises may be present in the fall and winter. This stock is found in U.S. and Canadian Atlantic waters and is concentrated in the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of Fundy region, generally in waters less than 150 m deep (Hayes et al., 2022). During fall (October-December) and spring (April-June), they are more widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine with lower densities farther north and south. In winter (January-March), intermediate densities of harbor porpoises can be found in waters off New Jersey to North Carolina with lower densities found in waters off New York to New Brunswick, Canada (Hayes et al., 2022). They are seen from the coastline to deep waters (greater than 1,800 m; (Westgate and Read, 1998), although the majority of the population is found over the continental shelf (Hayes et al., 2022). The main threat to the species is interactions with fisheries, with documented take in the U.S. northeast sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic gillnet, and northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in the Canadian herring weir fisheries (Hayes et al., 2022).

Gray seals have been observed in the proposed Survey Area and these seals belong to the western North Atlantic stock. The range for this stock is thought to be from New Jersey to Labrador Sea. Current population trends show that gray seal abundance is likely increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Hayes et al., 2021). Although the rate of increase is unknown, surveys conducted since their arrival in the 1980s indicate a steady increase in abundance in both Maine and Massachusetts (Hayes et al., 2021). It is believed that recolonization by Canadian gray seals is the source of the U.S. population increase (Hayes et al., 2021). Documented haulouts for gray seals exist in the Long Island area, with a possible rookery on Little Gull Island.

Since June 2022, elevated numbers of sick and dead harbor seals and gray seals have been documented along the southern and central coast of Maine. This event has also been declared a UME; as of late 2023, it is pending closure. Preliminary testing of samples found that some harbor and gray seals were positive for the highly pathogenic avian influenza. NMFS and other partners are working on an ongoing investigation of this UME. From June 1, 2022-July 16, 2023, there have been 492 seal strandings. Information on these UMEs are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-2023-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along-maine-coast.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. 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), Southall et al. (2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). 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 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 et al., 2013).

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

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices, including for survey activities using the same methodology by Atlantic Shores (87 FR 4200, January 27, 2022; 87 FR 24103, April 22, 2022; 87 FR 38067, June 27, 2022; 87 FR 50293, August 16, 2022). At present, there is no new information on potential effects that would impact our analysis and we incorporate by reference the detailed discussions in those documents rather than repeating the details here.

The Estimated Take section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

For general information on sound, its interaction with the marine environment, and a description of acoustic terminology, please see, e.g., (Institute, 1986, Institute, 1995, Au and Hastings, 2008, Hastings and Popper, 2005, Mitson, 1995, Health, 1998, Southall et al., 2007, Urick, 1983). Underwater sound from active acoustic sources can cause one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, behavioral disturbance, masking, stress, and non-auditory physical effects. The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent (PTS; permanent threshold shift), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS; temporary threshold shift), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).

When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear ( i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical injury ( e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to constitute auditory injury.

Animals in the vicinity of Atlantic Shores' proposed HRG survey activities are unlikely to incur even TTS due to the characteristics of the sound source, which include generally very short pulses and potential duration of exposure. These characteristics mean that instantaneous exposure is unlikely to cause TTS because it is unlikely that exposure would occur close enough to the vessel for received levels to exceed peak pressure TTS criteria, and the cumulative duration of exposure would be insufficient to exceed cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) criteria. Even for high-frequency cetacean species ( e.g., harbor porpoises), which have the greatest sensitivity to potential TTS, individuals would have to make a very close approach and remain very close to the vessel operating the source in order to receive multiple exposures at relatively high levels as would be necessary to cause TTS. Intermittent exposures—as would occur due to the brief, transient signals produced by these sources—require a higher cumulative SEL to induce TTS than would continuous exposures of the same duration ( i.e., intermittent exposure results in lower levels of TTS). Moreover, most marine mammals would more likely avoid a loud sound source rather than swim in such close proximity as to result in TTS. Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when a sub-bottom profiler emits a pulse is small—because if the animal was in the area, it would have to pass the transducer at close range in order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause TTS and would likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the area near the transducer rather than swim through at such a close range.

Behavioral disturbance to marine mammals from sound may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior ( e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal.

In addition, sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural ( e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic ( e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. Marine mammal communications would not likely be masked appreciably by the acoustic signals given the directionality of the signals for the HRG survey equipment planned for use (table 2) and the brief period for when an individual mammal would likely be exposed.

Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton) ( i.e., effects to marine mammal habitat). Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. The most likely impacts, if any, for most prey species in a given area would be temporary avoidance of the area. Surveys using active acoustic sound sources move through an area, limiting exposure to multiple pulses. In all cases, sound levels would return to ambient once a survey ends and the noise source is shut down and, when exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/or physiological responses are expected to end relatively quickly. Finally, the HRG survey equipment will not have significant impacts to the seafloor and does not represent a source of pollution.

Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or vessel strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales, which are less maneuverable than are smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to large vessels. Vessel strikes generally involve commercial shipping vessels, which are normally larger and of which there is much more traffic in the ocean than geophysical survey vessels. Jensen et al. (2003) summarized vessel strikes of large whales worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most collisions occurred in the open ocean and involved large vessels ( e.g., commercial shipping). For vessels used in geophysical survey activities, vessel speed while towing gear is typically only 4-5 kn (2.1-2.6 m/s). At these speeds, both the possibility of striking a marine mammal and the possibility of a strike resulting in serious injury or mortality are so low as to be discountable. At average transit speed for geophysical survey vessels, the probability of serious injury or mortality resulting from a strike is less than 50 percent. However, the likelihood of a strike actually happening is again low given the smaller size of these vessels proposed for use and generally slower speeds. Notably in the Jensen and Silber study, no strike incidents were reported for geophysical survey vessels during that time period.

The potential effects of Atlantic Shores' specified survey activity are expected to be limited to Level B behavioral harassment. No permanent or temporary auditory effects or significant impacts to marine mammal habitat, including prey, are expected.

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

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

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to sound produced by the sparker. Based on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic source planned for use ( i.e., sparker), Level A harassment is neither anticipated (even absent mitigation) nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below, we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

For acoustic impacts, 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 potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimates.

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

Level B Harassment —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 or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007, Southall et al., 2021, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above RMS pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 microPascal (re 1 μPa)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals ( e.g., conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

Atlantic Shores' marine site characterization surveys include the use of an impulsive ( i.e., sparker) source, and therefore the SPL threshold of 160 dB re 1 μPa is applicable.

Level A Harassment —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0; (NMFS, 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).

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

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including 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 (when relevant) 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 (table 2). Atlantic Shores used 180° beamwidth in the calculation for the proposed sparker system as is appropriate for an omnidirectional source.

NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to represent the best available information on source levels associated with HRG survey equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the method described above to estimate isopleth distances to harassment thresholds. In cases where the source level for a specific type of HRG equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS recommends that, in instances where data from a suitable proxy is presented, Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used, or, alternatively, when no suitable proxy is available, source levels provided by the manufacturer may be used instead. Table 2 shows the HRG equipment type used during the proposed surveys and the source levels associated with the HRG equipment type.

Atlantic Shores proposes to use the GeoMarine Geo-Source 400 Marine Multi-tip Sparker System (400 tip/400 J). No data are provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) for the GeoMarine Geo-Source sparker system, therefore, Atlantic Shores proposes to use the data provided for the SIG ELC 820 operating at 400 J with 100 electrode tips as a proxy for the GeoMarine Geo-Source operating at 400 J with 400 electrode tips. Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) indicates an operational source level of 195 dB RMS for the SIG ELC 820 while operating at a power of 400 J using 100 electrode tips, and Atlantic Shores has determined that an increase in the number of electrode tips decreases the overall peak source pressure translating to a lower operational source level. NMFS concurs with this selection, which is described in table 2. Using the proxy source level of 195 dB RMS SPL results in an estimated distance of 56 m to the Level B harassment isopleth.

In this section, we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.

Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2023) represent the best available information regarding marine mammal densities in the proposed Survey Area. These density data incorporate aerial and shipboard line-transect survey data from NMFS and other organizations and incorporate data from numerous physiographic and 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 in 2016 and models for all taxa were updated in 2022 (Roberts et al., 2023). More information is available online at: https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/. Marine mammal density estimates in the proposed Survey Area (animals/km 2 ) were obtained using the most recent model results for all taxa.

For the exposure analysis, density data from Roberts et al. (2023) were mapped using a geographic information system (GIS). For the proposed Survey Area, the monthly densities of each species as reported by Roberts et al. (2023) were averaged by season; thus, a density was calculated for each species for spring, summer, fall, and winter. Density seasonal averages were calculated for both the nearshore and offshore areas ( i.e., inside and outside the 10-m isobath) for each species to assess the greatest average seasonal densities for each species. To be conservative since the exact timing for the survey during the year is uncertain, the greatest average seasonal density calculated for each species was carried forward in the exposure analysis, with exceptions noted later in this discussion. Estimated greatest average seasonal densities (animals/km 2 ) of marine mammal species that may be taken incidental to the proposed survey can be found in tables C-1 and C-2 of Atlantic Shores' IHA application. Below, we discuss how densities were assumed to apply to specific species for which the Roberts et al. (2023) models provide results at the genus or guild level.

There are two stocks of bottlenose dolphins that may be impacted by the surveys (Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock (coastal stock) and Western North Atlantic Offshore Stock (offshore stock)), however, Roberts et al. (2023) do not differentiate by stock. These two stocks are considered geographically separated and multiple isobaths, including the 20-m (Hayes et al. 2021) and 25-m (Hayes et al. 2020), have been considered as the delineation between the two. Atlantic Shores used the 25-m isobath in their calculation and NMFS has accepted this interpretation. The nearshore area of the proposed Survey Area is considered waters less than 10 m depth and only the coastal stock would occur and potentially be taken by survey effort in that area. Both stocks could occur in the offshore area (greater than 10 m depth), so Atlantic Shores calculated separate mean seasonal densities to use for estimating take of the coastal and offshore stocks of bottlenose dolphins, respectively.

In addition, the Roberts et al. (2023) density model does not differentiate between the different pinniped species. For seals, given their size and behavior when in the water, seasonality, and feeding preferences, there is limited information available on species-specific distribution. Density estimates from Roberts et al. (2023) include all seal species that may occur in the Western North Atlantic combined ( i.e., gray, harbor, harp, hooded). For this IHA, only gray seals and harbor seals are reasonably expected to occur in the proposed Survey Area; densities of seals were split evenly between these two species.

Finally, the Roberts et al. (2023) density model does not differentiate between pilot whale species. While the exact latitudinal ranges of the two species are uncertain, only long-finned pilot whales are expected to occur in this project area due to their more northerly distribution and tolerance of shallower, colder shelf waters (Hayes et al., 2022). Short-finned pilot whales are not anticipated to occur as far north as the Survey Area so we assume that all pilot whales near the project area would be long-finned pilot whales (Garrison and Rosel, 2017). For this IHA, densities of pilot whales are assumed to be only long-finned pilot whale.

Here, we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.

In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in harassment, radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to Level B harassment thresholds were calculated, as described above. The distance ( i.e., 56 m distance associated with the sparker system) to the Level B harassment criterion and the total length of the survey trackline were then used to calculate the total ensonified area, or harassment zone, around the survey vessel. Atlantic Shores proposes to conduct HRG surveys for a maximum total of 28,800 km trackline length, of which 25,200 km are in the offshore area and 3,600 km are in the nearshore area. Based on the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold (56 m) for the sparker system and maximum total survey length, the total ensonified area is 3,228 km 2 (2,824 km 2 offshore area and 404 km 2 nearshore area), based on the following formula, where the total estimated trackline length ( Distance/day ) in each area was used and buffered with the horizontal distance to the Level B harassment threshold ( r ) to determine the total area ensonified to 160 dB SPL.

The number of marine mammals expected to be incidentally taken during the total survey is then calculated by estimating the number of each species predicted to occur within the ensonified area (animals/km 2 ), incorporating the greatest seasonal estimated marine mammal densities as described above. The product is then rounded to generate an estimate of the total number of instances of harassment expected for each species over the duration of the survey (up to 300 days). A summary of this method is illustrated in the following formula, where the Harassment Zone is multiplied by the highest seasonal mean density ( D ) of each species or stock (animals/km 2 ; except for pilot whales where annual density was used based on data availability).

Estimated Take = Harassment Zone × D × number of days

The resulting take of marine mammals (Level B harassment) is shown in table 5.

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

In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS considers two primary factors:

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

(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.

Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, Atlantic Shores is also required to adhere to relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast ( 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 proposes the following mitigation measures be implemented during Atlantic Shores' proposed marine site characterization surveys.

Atlantic Shores must employ independent, dedicated, trained protected species observers (PSOs), meaning that the PSOs must (1) be employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for geophysical surveys. Visual monitoring must be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs. PSO resumes must be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities.

During survey operations ( e.g., any day in which use of the sparker system is planned to occur, and whenever the sparker system is in the water, whether activated or not), a minimum of one visual marine mammal observer (PSO) must be on duty on each source vessel and conducting visual observations at all times during daylight hours ( i.e., from 30 minutes (min) prior to sunrise through 30 min following sunset). A minimum of two PSOs must be on duty on each source vessel during nighttime hours. Visual monitoring must begin no less than 30 min prior to ramp-up (described below) and must continue until 30 min after use of the sparker system ceases.

Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and shall conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs shall establish and monitor applicable pre-start clearance and shutdown zones (see below). These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the sparker system (rather than being based around the vessel itself).

Two pre-start clearance and shutdown zones are defined, depending on the species and context. Here, an extended pre-start clearance and shutdown zone encompassing the area at and below the sea surface out to a radius of 500 m from the sparker system (0-500 m) is defined for NARW. For all other marine mammals, the pre-start clearance and shutdown zone encompasses a standard distance of 100 m (0-100 m) during the use of the sparker. Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any vessel associated with the survey shall be relayed to the PSO team.

Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hr between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hr of observation per 24-hr period.

A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the sparker system when technically feasible. If technically feasible, operators must ramp up sparker to half power for 5 min and then proceed to full power. A 30 min pre-start clearance observation period of the pre-start clearance zones must occur prior to the start of ramp-up. The intent of the pre-start clearance observation period (30 min) is to ensure no marine mammals are within the pre-start clearance zones prior to the beginning of ramp-up. The intent of the ramp-up is to warn marine mammals of pending operations and to allow sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate vicinity. All operators must adhere to the following pre-start clearance and ramp-up requirements:

• The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 min prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the pre-start clearance zones for 30 min prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance). During this 30 min pre-start clearance period the entire pre-start clearance zone must be visible, except as indicated below.

• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the sparker activated.

• A visual PSO conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed.

• Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey operations if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable pre-start clearance zone.

• The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that mitigation commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.

If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species, PSOs may use best professional judgment in making the decision to call for a shutdown.

• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal to which the pre-start clearance requirement applies is within the pre-start clearance zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the pre-start clearance zone during the 30 min pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings.

• PSOs must monitor the pre-start clearance zones 30 min before and during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the sparker must be shut down upon observation of a marine mammal within the applicable pre-start clearance zone.

• Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in the 30 min prior to beginning ramp-up. Sparker activation may only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances.

If the sparker is shut down for brief periods ( i.e., less than 30 min) for reasons other than implementation of prescribed mitigation ( e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be activated again without ramp-up if PSOs have maintained constant visual observation and no detections of marine mammals have occurred within the applicable pre-start clearance zone. For any longer shutdown, pre-start clearance observation and ramp-up are required.

All operators must adhere to the following shutdown requirements:

• Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for shutdown of the sparker system if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable shutdown zones.

• The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the source to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.

• When the sparker system is active and a marine mammal appears within or enters the applicable shutdown zones, the sparker must be shut down. When shutdown is instructed by a PSO, the sparker system must be immediately deactivated and any dispute resolved only following deactivation.

• Two shutdown zones are defined, depending on the species and context. An extended shutdown zone encompassing the area at and below the sea surface out to a radius of 500 m from the sparker system (0-500 m) is defined for NARW. For all other marine mammals, the shutdown zone encompasses a standard distance of 100 m (0-100 m) during the use of the sparker.

The shutdown requirement is waived for small delphinids and pinnipeds. If a small delphinid (individual belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae: Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, and Tursiops ) or pinniped is visually detected within the shutdown zones, no shutdown is required unless the PSO confirms the individual to be of a genus other than those listed, in which case a shutdown is required.

If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species ( i.e., whether the observed marine mammal(s) belongs to one of the delphinid genera for which shutdown is waived or one of the species with a larger shutdown zone), PSOs may use best professional judgment in making the decision to call for a shutdown.

Upon implementation of shutdown, the sparker may be reactivated after the marine mammal has been observed exiting the applicable shutdown zone or following a clearance period (30 min for all baleen whale species, long-finned pilot whales, and Risso's dolphins; 15 min for harbor porpoises) with no further detection of the marine mammal.

If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone (56 m), shutdown must occur.

Crew and supply vessel personnel must use an appropriate reference guide that includes identifying information on all marine mammals that may be encountered. Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.

Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel(s), or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammals. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (species-specific distances are detailed below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers ( i.e., PSOs) or crew members, but crew members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient training to (1) distinguish marine mammal from other phenomena, and (2) broadly to identify a marine mammal as a NARW, other whale (defined in this context as baleen whales other than NARWs), or other marine mammals.

All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-kn (18.52 km/hr) speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the protection of NARWs from vessel strikes. These include all SMAs established under 50 CFR 224.105 (when in effect), any dynamic management areas (DMA) (when in effect), and Slow Zones. See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-ship-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales for specific detail regarding these areas.

• All vessels must reduce speed to 10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel.

• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m from NARWs, other ESA-listed species, and any unidentified large whales. If a NARW, other ESA-listed species, and any unidentified large whale is sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must steer a course away at 10 kn or less until the 500-m separation distance has been established. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a NARW, the vessel operator must assume that it is a NARW and take appropriate action.

• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from all non-ESA-listed baleen whales.

• All vessels 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).

• When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel must take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance ( e.g., attempt to remain parallel to the animal's course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the animal has left the area, reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral). This does not apply to any vessel towing gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained.

Atlantic Shores and members of the PSO team will consult the NMFS NARW reporting system and Whale Alert, daily and as able, for the presence of NARWs throughout survey operations, and for the establishment of DMAs and/or Slow Zones. It is Atlantic Shores' responsibility to maintain awareness of the establishment and location of any such areas and to abide by these requirements accordingly.

As described above, a section of the proposed Survey Area partially overlaps with portions of two NARW SMAs off the ports of New York/New Jersey and the entrance to Delaware Bay. These SMAs are active from November 1 through April 30 of each year. The survey vessels, regardless of length, would be required to adhere to vessel speed restrictions (less than 10 kn) when operating within the SMAs during times when the SMAs are active (table 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Visual monitoring must be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs. Atlantic Shores must submit PSO resumes for NMFS review and approval prior to commencement of the survey. Resumes should include dates of training and any prior NMFS approval, as well as dates and description of last experience, and must be accompanied by information documenting successful completion of an acceptable training course.

For prospective PSOs not previously approved, or for PSOs whose approval is not current, NMFS must review and approve PSO qualifications. Resumes should include information related to relevant education, experience, and training, including dates, duration, location, and description of prior PSO experience. Resumes must be accompanied by relevant documentation of successful completion of necessary training.

NMFS may approve PSOs as conditional or unconditional. A conditionally-approved PSO may be one who is trained but has not yet attained the requisite experience. An unconditionally-approved PSO is one who has attained the necessary experience. For unconditional approval, the PSO must have a minimum of 90 days at sea performing the role during a geophysical survey, with the conclusion of the most recent relevant experience not more than 18 months previous.

At least one of the visual PSOs aboard the vessel must be unconditionally-approved. One unconditionally-approved visual PSO shall be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team. This lead should typically be the PSO with the most experience, who would coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. To the maximum extent practicable, the duty schedule shall be planned such that unconditionally-approved PSOs are on duty with conditionally-approved PSOs.

At least one PSO aboard each acoustic source vessel must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in the role, with no more than 18 months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One PSO with such experience must be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team and serve as the primary point of contact for the vessel operator. (Note that the responsibility of coordinating duty schedules and roles may instead be assigned to a shore-based, third-party monitoring coordinator.) To the maximum extent practicable, the lead PSO must devise the duty schedule such that experienced PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience.

PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or more) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program.

PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written justification. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; and (3) previous work experience as a PSO (PSO must be in good standing and demonstrate good performance of PSO duties).

Atlantic Shores must work with the selected third-party PSO provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine mammals, and to ensure that PSOs are capable of calibrating equipment as necessary for accurate distance estimates and species identification. Such equipment, at a minimum, shall include:

• At least one thermal (infrared) imaging device suited for the marine environment;

• Reticle binoculars ( e.g., 7 × 50) of appropriate quality (at least one per PSO, plus backups);

• Global positioning units (GPS) (at least one plus backups);

• Digital cameras with a telephoto lens that is at least 300-mm or equivalent on a full-frame single lens reflex (SLR) (at least one plus backups). The camera or lens should also have an image stabilization system;

• Equipment necessary for accurate measurement of distances to marine mammal;

• Compasses (at least one plus backups);

• Means of communication among vessel crew and PSOs; and,

• Any other tools deemed necessary to adequately and effectively perform PSO tasks.

The equipment specified above may be provided by an individual PSO, the third-party PSO provider, or the operator, but Atlantic Shores is responsible for ensuring PSOs have the proper equipment required to perform the duties specified in the IHA. Reference materials must be available aboard all project vessels for identification of protected species.

The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding the survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting conditions, including pre-start clearance and shutdown zones, during all HRG survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals, including those approaching or entering the established pre-start clearance and shutdown zones during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the PSO(s) on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate.

PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in proximity to shutdown zones. Reticulated binoculars must also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals. During nighttime operations, appropriate night-vision devices ( e.g., night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and infrared technology) would be used. Position data would be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each sighting.

During good conditions ( e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), to the maximum extent practicable, PSOs must also conduct observations when the acoustic source is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of the active acoustic sources and between acquisition periods. Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard the vessel associated with the survey would be relayed to the PSO team.

Data on all PSO observations would be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements (see Proposed Reporting Measures ). This would include dates, times, and locations of survey operations; dates and times of observations, location and weather; details of marine mammal sightings ( e.g., species, numbers, behavior); and details of any observed marine mammal behavior that occurs ( e.g., noted behavioral disturbances). Members of the PSO team shall consult the NMFS NARW reporting system and Whale Alert, daily and as able, for the presence of NARWs throughout survey operations.

Atlantic Shores shall submit a draft comprehensive report to NMFS on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammals sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). The draft report shall also include geo-referenced, time-stamped vessel tracklines for all time periods during which acoustic sources were operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in acoustic source status ( e.g., when the sources began operating, when they were turned off, or when they changed operational status such as from full array to single gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be provided in Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) shapefile format and include the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) date and time, latitude in decimal degrees, and longitude in decimal degrees. All coordinates shall be referenced to the WGS84 geographic coordinate system. In addition to the report, all raw observational data shall be made available. The report must summarize the information. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report. All draft and final marine mammal monitoring reports must be submitted to PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov, nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov, and ITP.clevenstine@noaa.gov.

PSOs must use standardized electronic data forms to record data. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of marine mammal to the acoustic source and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following information must be recorded:

1. Vessel names (source vessel), vessel size and type, maximum speed capability of vessel;

2. Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;

3. PSO names and affiliations;

4. Date and participants of PSO briefings;

5. Visual monitoring equipment used;

6. PSO location on vessel and height of observation location above water surface;

7. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey on/off effort and times corresponding with PSO on/off effort;

8. Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort begins and ends and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;

9. Vessel location at 30-second intervals if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical regular interval;

10. Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;

11. Water depth (if obtainable from data collection software);

12. Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;

13. Factors that may contribute to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change ( e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and,

14. Survey activity information (and changes thereof), such as acoustic source power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in an array, tow depth of an acoustic source, and any other notes of significance ( i.e., pre-start clearance, ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, ramp-up completion, end of operations, streamers, etc. ).

15. Upon visual observation of any marine mammal, the following information must be recorded:

a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);

b. Vessel/survey activity at time of sighting ( e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, shooting, data acquisition, other);

c. PSO who sighted the animal;

d. Time of sighting;

e. Initial detection method;

f. Sightings cue;

g. Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);

h. Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);

i. Speed of the vessel(s) from which the observation was made;

j. Identification of the animal ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level or unidentified); also note the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;

k. Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in identification);

l. Estimated distance to the animal and method of estimating distance;

m. Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);

n. Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc. );

o. Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars, or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);

p. Detailed behavior observations ( e.g., number of blows/breaths, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in behavior before and after point of closest approach);

q. Mitigation actions; description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting ( e.g., delays, shutdowns, ramp-up, speed or course alteration, etc. ) and time and location of the action;

r. Equipment operating during sighting;

s. Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source; and,

t. Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting ( e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and time and location of the action.

If a NARW is observed at any time by PSOs or personnel on the project vessel, during surveys or during vessel transit, Atlantic Shores must report the sighting information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System (866-755-6622) within 2 hr of occurrence, when practicable, or no later than 24 hr after occurrence. NARW sightings in any location may also be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16 and through the Whale Alert app ( https://www.whalealert.org ).

In the event that personnel involved in the survey activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the incident must be reported to NMFS as soon as feasible by phone (866-755-6622) and by email ( nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov and PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov ). The report must include the following information:

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

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

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

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

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

6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

In the event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities, Atlantic Shores must report the incident to NMFS by phone (866-755-6622) and by email ( nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov and PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov ) as soon as feasible. The report would include the following information:

1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

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

3. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

4. Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);

5. Status of all sound sources in use;

6. Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;

7. Environmental conditions ( e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the strike;

8. Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;

9. Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and/or following the strike;

10. If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;

11. Estimated fate of the animal ( e.g., dead, injured but alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, status unknown, disappeared); and

12. To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).

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

To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 3, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are included as separate sub-sections below. Specifically, we provide additional discussion related to NARW and to other species currently experiencing UMEs.

NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result from HRG surveys, even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, non-auditory physical effects, auditory physical effects, and vessel strike are not expected to occur. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be in the form of Level B harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012).

In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment zone around a survey vessel is 56 m. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the proposed Survey Area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed Survey Area and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the Survey Area. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals in the Survey Area.

The status of the NARW population is of heightened concern and, therefore, merits additional analysis. As noted previously, elevated NARW mortalities began in June 2017 and there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings attribute human interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of NARWs. As noted previously, the Survey Area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA for NARWs that extends from Massachusetts to Florida and from the coast to beyond the shelf break. Due to the fact that the proposed survey activities are temporary (will occur for up to 1 year) and the spatial extent of sound produced by the survey would be small relative to the spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the BIA, NARW migration is not expected to be impacted by the survey. This important migratory area is approximately 269,488 km 2 in size (compared with the approximately 3,228 km 2 of total estimated Level B harassment ensonified area associated with the Survey Area) and is comprised of the waters of the continental shelf offshore the East Coast of the United States, extending from Florida through Massachusetts.

Given the relatively small size of the ensonified area, it is unlikely that prey availability would be adversely affected by HRG survey operations. Required vessel strike avoidance measures will also decrease risk of vessel strike during migration; no vessel strike is expected to occur during Atlantic Shores' proposed activities. Additionally, only very limited take by Level B harassment of NARWs has been requested and is being proposed for authorization by NMFS as HRG survey operations are required to maintain and implement a 500-m shutdown zone. The 500-m shutdown zone for NARWs is conservative, considering the Level B harassment zone for the acoustic source ( i.e., sparker) is estimated to be 56 m, and thereby minimizes the intensity and duration of any potential incidents of behavioral harassment for this species. As noted previously, Level A harassment is not expected due to the small estimated zones in conjunction with the aforementioned shutdown requirements. NMFS does not anticipate NARW takes that would result from Atlantic Shores' proposed activities would impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes that occur would not result in population level impacts.

As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of Atlantic Shores' Survey Area. Elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half had evidence of human interaction ( i.e., vessel strike, entanglement). The UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback whales (the West Indies breeding population, or DPS) remains stable at approximately 12,000 individuals.

Beginning in January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event does not provide cause for concern regarding population level impacts, as the likely population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales.

Elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities were first observed from 2018-2020 and, as part of a separate UME, again in 2022. These have occurred across Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Based on tests conducted so far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus (2018-2020) and avian influenza (2022), although additional testing to identify other factors that may be involved in the UMEs is underway. The UMEs do not provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts to any of these stocks. For harbor seals, the population abundance is over 60,000 and annual M/SI (339) is well below PBR (1,729) (Hayes et al., 2022). The population abundance for gray seals in the United States is over 27,000, with an estimated abundance, including seals in Canada, of approximately 450,000. In addition, the abundance of gray seals is likely increasing in the U.S. Atlantic as well as in Canada (Hayes et al., 2021, Hayes et al., 2022).

The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes for all species listed in table 3, including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable adverse impact. In particular, they would provide animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed to sound levels that have the potential to cause injury. No Level A harassment is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or proposed for authorization.

NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring)—reactions that (at the scale and intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity, with no lasting biological consequences. Since both the sources and marine mammals are mobile, animals would only be exposed briefly to a small ensonified area that might result in take. Additionally, required mitigation measures would further reduce exposure to sound that could result in more severe behavioral harassment.

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

• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized;

• No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or proposed to be authorized;

• Foraging success is not likely to be significantly impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;

• The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the ensonified areas during the proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;

• Take is anticipated to be by Level B harassment only consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance of the ensonified area;

• Survey activities would occur in such a comparatively small portion of the BIA for the NARW migration that any avoidance of the area due to survey activities would not affect migration. In addition, mitigation measures require shutdown at 500 m (over eight times the size of the Level B harassment zone of 56 m) to minimize the effects of any Level B harassment take of the species; and

• The proposed mitigation measures, including visual monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.

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

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

NMFS proposes to authorize incidental take by Level B harassment only of 14 marine mammal species with 15 managed stocks. The total amount of takes proposed for authorization relative to the best available population abundance is less than 1 percent for 14 of the 15 managed stocks (less than 7 percent for the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock of bottlenose dolphins; table 5). The take numbers proposed for authorization are considered conservative estimates for purposes of the small numbers determination as they assume all takes represent different individual animals, which is unlikely to be the case.

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

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

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

NMFS' Office of Protected Resources is proposing to authorize take of three species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA ( i.e., NARW, fin whale, and sei whale) and has determined these activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in the NMFS GARFO 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).

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Atlantic Shores for conducting marine site characterization surveys in waters off of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland for a period of 1 year, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable.

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine site characterization surveys. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.

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

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

• The request for renewal must include the following:

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

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

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

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's); International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion in the webinar are as follows:

Participants will discuss red tide modeling work to date available for use in the assessment of Gulf of Mexico red grouper.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

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

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

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

On 12/1/2023, 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) 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) 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) deleted from the Procurement List.

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

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer, the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its January 3, 2024 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) chapter 10 (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or FACA), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The UFBAP will review and comment on recommendations made by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee to the Director, Defense Health Agency regarding the Uniform Formulary.

Agenda:

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 1009(a)(1) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of phone lines, this meeting is open to the public. Telephone lines are limited and available to the first 220 people dialing in. There will be 220 lines total: 200 domestic and 20 international, including leader lines.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140(c), and section 1009(a)(3) of title 5, U.S.C., interested persons or organizations may submit written statements to the UFBAP about its mission and/or the agenda to be addressed in this public meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the UFBAP's DFO. The DFO's contact information can be found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Written comments or statements must be received by the UFBAP's DFO no later than 8:00 a.m. EST, Wednesday, January 3, 2024, so they may be made available to the UFBAP for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments received are releasable to the public. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to UFBAP.

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Application for the Educational Flexibility (Ed-Flex) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0737.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 32.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 620.

Abstract: This is a request for a revision to the Educational Flexibility program application to include the annual reporting template. The Educational Flexibility (Ed-Flex) program is authorized under the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 and was reauthorized by section 9207 of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The Ed-Flex program allows the Secretary to authorize a State educational agency (SEA) that serves an eligible State to waive statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to one or more the included programs for any local educational agency (LEAs), educational service agency, or school within the State. Section 4(a)(3) of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 requires each SEA desiring to participate in the education flexibility program to submit an application detailing that SEAs education flexibility plan. Section 4(a)(5)(B) requires each SEA that is authorized to become an Ed-Flex Partnership State to submit an annual report on the results of its oversight and the impact of the waivers on school and student performance. Previously, the annual reporting requirement instructions and burden hours were included as part of the application. In order to standardize reporting, we have created an annual reporting template and are increasing the burden hours related to the annual reporting based on feedback from the field. However, overall, there is a decrease in burden due to a change in the estimated number of responses based on past experience with the program.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0205;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report;

(3) Type of Request: Thee-year extension with changes; revision of the currently approved Form EIA-914.

(4) Purpose: Form EIA-914 Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report collects monthly data on natural gas production, and crude oil and lease condensate production, and crude oil and lease condensate sales by API gravity category in 22 state/areas (Alabama, Arkansas, California (including State Offshore), Colorado, Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico, Federal Offshore Pacific, Kansas, Louisiana (including State Offshore), Michigan, Mississippi (including State Offshore), Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas (including State Offshore), Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Other States (defined as all remaining states, except Alaska)). The data appear in the Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report on EIA's website and in the EIA publications; Monthly Energy Review, Petroleum Supply Annual volumes, Petroleum Supply Monthly, Natural Gas Annual, and Natural Gas Monthly .

(4a) Changes to Information Collection: EIA proposes to make the following changes to Form EIA-914, Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report:

• Section 4 of Form EIA-914, Crude Oil and Lease Condensate Run Ticket Volumes (Sales) by API Gravity, which collected density data for crude oil and lease condensate production for selected States would be discontinued and deleted from Form EIA-914.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 4,800.

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 14,400.

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $1,257,984 (14,400 burden hours times $87.36). EIA estimates that respondents will have no additional costs associated with the surveys other than the burden hours and that the information is maintained during the normal course of business.

Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1194.

Title: AM Station Modulation Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL) Notification Form; FCC Form 338.

Form Number: FCC Form 338.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 15 respondents and 15 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 15 hours.

Total Annual Costs: No cost.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 154(i), 303, 310 and 533 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 338, AM Station Modulation Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL) Notification Form is used by AM broadcasters to implement MDCL technologies without prior authorization, by electronic notification within 10 days of commencing MDCL operations. In addition to the standard general contact information, FCC Form 338 solicits minimal technical data, as well as the date that MDCL control operations commenced.

In October 2015, the Commission adopted its proposal for wider implementation of MDCL control technologies and amended section 73.1560(a) of the rules. 47 CFR 73.1560(a)(1) is consequentially covered by this information collection. This rule specifies the limits on antenna input power for AM stations. AM stations using MDCL control technologies are not required to adhere to these operating power parameters. The rule provides that an AM station may commence MDCL control technology without prior Commission authority, provided that within ten days after commencing such operation, the AM station licensee submits an electronic notification of commencement of MDCL operation using FCC Form 338.

The Commission is now requesting a three year extension for this collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

GSA, in compliance with the FedRAMP Authorization Act of 2022, established the FSCAC, an advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 10). The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) within GSA is responsible for providing a standardized, reusable approach to security assessment and authorization for cloud computing products and services that process unclassified information used by agencies.

The FSCAC will provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of GSA, the FedRAMP Board, and agencies on technical, financial, programmatic, and operational matters regarding the secure adoption of cloud computing products and services. The FSCAC will ensure effective and ongoing coordination of agency adoption, use, authorization, monitoring, acquisition, and security of cloud computing products and services to enable agency mission and administrative priorities. The purposes of the Committee are:

• To examine the operations of FedRAMP and determine ways that authorization processes can continuously be improved, including the following:

○ Measures to increase agency reuse of FedRAMP authorizations.

○ Proposed actions that can be adopted to reduce the burden, confusion, and cost associated with FedRAMP authorizations for cloud service providers.

○ Measures to increase the number of FedRAMP authorizations for cloud computing products and services offered by small businesses concerns (as defined by section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).

○ Proposed actions that can be adopted to reduce the burden and cost of FedRAMP authorizations for agencies.

• Collect information and feedback on agency compliance with, and implementation of, FedRAMP requirements.

• Serve as a forum that facilitates communication and collaboration among the FedRAMP stakeholder community.

The FSCAC will meet no fewer than three (3) times a calendar year. Meetings shall occur as frequently as needed, called, and approved by the DFO. Meetings may be held virtually or in person. Members will serve without compensation and may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5703.

The Committee shall be comprised of not more than 15 members who are qualified representatives from the public and private sectors, appointed by the Administrator, in consultation with the Director of OMB, as follows:

i. The GSA Administrator or the GSA Administrator's designee, who shall be the Chair of the Committee.

ii. At least one representative each from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

iii. At least two officials who serve as the Chief Information Security Officer within an agency, who shall be required to maintain such a position throughout the duration of their service on the Committee.

iv. At least one official serving as Chief Procurement Officer (or equivalent) in an agency, who shall be required to maintain such a position throughout the duration of their service on the Committee.

v. At least one individual representing an independent assessment organization

vi. At least five representatives from unique businesses that primarily provide cloud computing services or products, including at least two representatives from a small business (as defined by section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a))).

vii. At least two other representatives from the Federal Government as the Administrator determines to be necessary to provide sufficient balance, insights, or expertise to the Committee.

Each member shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years, except the initial terms, which were staggered into one (1), two (2) or three (3) year terms to establish a rotation in which one third of the members are selected. No member shall be appointed for more than two (2) consecutive terms nor shall any member serve for more than six (6) consecutive years. GSA values opportunities to increase diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility on its federal advisory committees.

Members will be designated as Regular Government Employees (RGEs) or Representative members as appropriate and consistent with Section 3616(d) of the FedRAMP Authorization Act of 2022. GSA's Office of General Counsel will assist the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to determine the advisory committee member designations. Representatives are members selected to represent a specific point of view held by a particular group, organization, or association. Members who are full time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees shall be appointed to serve as Regular Government Employee (RGE) members. In accordance with OMB Final Guidance published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2011 and revised on August 13, 2014, federally registered lobbyists may not serve on the Committee in an individual capacity to provide their own individual best judgment and expertise, such as RGEs members. This ban does not apply to lobbyists appointed to provide the Committee with the views of a particular group, organization, or association, such as Representative members.

Applications are being accepted to fill the remaining terms of two vacant seats and to fill two seats with upcoming expiring terms. These four seats will be designated as Representative members:

Two (2) seats for representatives of a unique business that primarily provides cloud computing products or services. One seat will be appointed to serve for the remainder of the vacant term, scheduled to end in May 2025, and the other will be appointed for a three year term.

Two (2) seats for representatives of a unique business that primarily provides cloud computing products or services from a small business (as defined by section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a))). One seat will be appointed to serve for the remainder of the vacant term, scheduled to end in July 2026, and the other will be appointed for a three year term.

Applications for membership on the Committee will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Monday, January 22, 2024.

There are two parts to submitting an application. First, complete the information requested via this electronic form https://forms.gle/kxscdjX6P7oB9vua7 . Next, email your CV or resume and a letter of endorsement from your organization or organization's leadership, endorsing you to represent your company, to fscac@gsa.gov with the subject line: FSCAC APPLICATION—[Applicant Name]. The letter of endorsement must come from your organization or organization's leadership. If you are the CEO, then it must come from another member of the executive team of your organization, as you cannot endorse yourself. The letter must be signed and specifically state that you are authorized to apply to FSCAC as a representative of your organization.

Please note: Letters of “recommendation” or other unsolicited deliverables will neither be accepted nor acknowledged. Do not include them.

Applications that do not include the completion of the above instructions will not be considered.

Pursuant to the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy Making Act of 2018, 1 the CDO Council is charged with establishing best practices for the use, protection, dissemination, and generation of data in the Federal Government. In reviewing existing activities and literature from across the Federal Government, the CDO Council has determined that:

• the Federal Government would benefit from developing consensus of a more formalized definition for synthetic data generation,

• synthetic data generation has wide-ranging applications, and

• there are challenges and limitations with synthetic data generation.

The CDO council is interested in consolidating feedback and inputs from qualified experts to gain additional insight and assist with establishing a best practice guide around synthetic data generation. The CDO Council has preliminarily drafted a working definition of synthetic data generation and several key questions to better inform its work.

Synthetic data generation is an important part of modern data science work. In the broadest sense, synthetic data generation involves the creation of a new synthetic or artificial dataset using computational methods. Synthetic data generation can be contrasted with real-world data collection. Real-world data collection involves gathering data from a first-hand source, such as through surveys, observations, interviews, forms, and other methods. Synthetic data generation is a broad field that employs varied techniques and can be applied to many different kinds of problems. Data may be fully or partially synthetic. A fully synthetic dataset wholly consists of points created using computational methods, whereas a partially synthetic dataset may involve a mix of first-hand and computationally generated synthetic data.

Throughout this RFI, we use the following definitions:

• data—recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is recorded;  2

• data asset—a collection of data elements or data sets that may be grouped together;  3

• open government data asset—a public data asset that is (A) machine-readable; (B) available (or could be made available) in an open format; (C) not encumbered by restrictions, other than intellectual property rights, including under titles 17 and 35, that would impede the use or reuse of such asset; and (D) based on an underlying open standard that is maintained by a standards organization. 4

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines synthetic data generation as “a process in which seed data is used to create artificial data that has some of the statistical characteristics as the seed data”. 5

The CDO Council believes that this definition of synthetic data generation includes techniques such as using statistics to create data from a known distribution, generative adversarial networks (GANs), 6 variational autoencoding (VAE), 7 building test data for use in software development, 8 privacy-preserving synthetic data generation  9 and others.

The CDO Council also believes that it is important to draw contrasts between synthetic data generation and other activities. For example, synthetic data generation does not include collection of data without any inference. Synthetic data generation does not include signal processing, such as automated differential translations of global positioning satellite data. Synthetic data generation also does not include enriching data during data analysis—such intermediate steps that involve augmenting or enhancing existing data but do not involve the creation of artificial data.

Other analysis techniques, such as distribution fitting and parametric modeling, are closely related to synthetic data generation. The CDO Council believes the key difference; however, is the purpose of the computational methods. Synthetic data generation seeks to create wholly new data points based on the statistical properties of a dataset, whereas distribution fitting seeks to `fill in' a dataset based on a known distribution. Notably, the fitted distribution can be used to generate points that are not part of the original dataset—which is an application of synthetic data generation.

• Are there any limitations to relying on the NIST definition to describe the field of synthetic data generation? How should it be improved?

• How well does the CDO Council's list of examples and contrasts improve understanding? How should these be improved?

Synthetic data generation can enable the creation of larger and more diverse datasets, enhance model performance, and protect individual privacy. The CDO Council's review of potential applications of synthetic data generation found examples in:

• Data augmentation. 10 This application involves creating new data points or datasets from existing data. This application can be particularly useful in developing training datasets for machine learning and advanced analytics.

• Data synthesis. 11 This application involves using an existing dataset to create a new dataset, sharing similar statistical properties with the original dataset, to protect individual privacy. Generating such datasets has wide-ranging applications including, but not limited to, facilitating reproducible investigation of clinical data while preserving individual privacy.

• Modeling and simulation. 12 This application involves setting assumptions, parameters and rules to develop data for further analysis. The synthetic dataset can be used for developing insights, testing hypotheses, and/or understanding a model's behavior. This application supports the conduct of controlled experiments, predicting potential future outcomes from current conditions, generating scenarios for rare or extreme events, and validating or calibrating a model.

• Software development. 13 This application involves using existing database schemas to simulate real-world scenarios and ensure that a software application can handle different types of data and errors effectively. This application assists in the creation of representative data, makes it easier to generate edge cases, protects individual privacy, and improves testing efficiency.

Notably, the CDO Council believes that not all applications of modeling and simulation would meet the definition of synthetic data generation. For example, weather forecasting applies numerical models and applies a complex mix of data analysis, meteorological science, and computation methods but does not involve the creation of synthetic or artificial data points. Instead, the purpose of these models is to predict future conditions.

• How are these examples representative of synthetic data generation? How should they be revised?

• What other examples of synthetic data generation should the CDO Council know about?

• What are the key advantages for the use of synthetic data generation?

The CDO Council recognizes that synthetic data generation can be a valuable technique. However, it should be noted that there are some challenges and limitations with the technique. For example, there can be challenges generating data that realistically simulates the real world and the diversity of real data. Additionally, evaluating the quality of a synthetic dataset may also be extremely challenging.

Synthetic data generation is also subject to challenges commonly facing any statistical methods, such as overfitting and imbalances in the source data. These challenges reduce the utility of the generated synthetic data because they may not be properly representative, including failing to represent rare classes.

• What other challenges and limitations are important to consider in synthetic data generation?

• What tools or techniques are available for effectively communicating the limitations of generated synthetic data?

• What are best practices for CDOs to coordinate with statistical officials on synthetic data?

• What approaches can CDOs consider to help address these challenges?

Synthetic data generation techniques hold great promise, but also introduce questions of ethics and equity. Consistent with Federal privacy practices, 14 any data generation technique involving individuals must respect their privacy rights and obtain informed consent before using real-world data to generate synthetic data. As noted in Section 3, synthetic data generation is also subject to challenges commonly facing any statistical methods and has the potential to introduce and encode errors or bias, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes.

Uses of generated synthetic data must also be carefully considered. The context and quality of the generated synthetic data will impact its practical utility and impact. Assessing and understanding the fitness of a generated synthetic dataset is essential. For instance, a generated synthetic dataset may not sufficiently represent the diversity of the source dataset. In addition, a generated synthetic dataset may not contain sufficient variables to fully represent the system and the drivers of differences in the phenomenon it is meant to represent.

• What techniques are available to facilitate transparency around generated synthetic data?

• What are best practices for CDOs to coordinate with privacy officials on ethics and equity matters related to synthetic data generation?

• How can we apply the Federal Data Ethics Framework  15 to address these ethics and equity concerns?

Synthetic data generation can enable the production of evidence for use in policymaking. Applications such as simulation or modeling can help policymakers explore scenarios and their potential impacts. Likewise, policymakers can conduct controlled experiments of potential policy interventions to better understand their impacts. Data synthesis may help policymakers make more data publicly available to spur research and other foundational fact-finding activities that can inform policymaking.

• What other applications of synthetic data generation support evidence-based policymaking?  16

• What is the relationship between synthetic data generation and open government data?  17

• How can CDOs and Evaluation Officers best collaborate on synthetic data generation to support evidence-building?  18 What about other evidence officials?  19

9000-0064, Certain Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 36 Construction Contract Requirements.

DoD, GSA, and NASA are combining OMB Control Nos. by FAR part. This consolidation is expected to improve industry's ability to easily and efficiently identify burdens associated with a given FAR part. This review of the information collections by FAR part allows improved oversight to ensure there is no redundant or unaccounted for burden placed on industry. Lastly, combining information collections in a given FAR part is also expected to reduce the administrative burden associated with processing multiple information collections.

This justification supports the extension of OMB Control No. 9000-0064 and combines it with the previously approved information collection under OMB Control No. 9000-0062, with the new title “Certain Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 36 Construction Contract Requirements”. Upon approval of this consolidated information collection, OMB Control No. 9000-0062 will be discontinued. The burden requirements previously approved under the discontinued number will be covered under OMB Control No. 9000-0064.

This clearance covers the information that contractors must submit to comply with the following FAR requirements:

• FAR 52.236-5, Material and Workmanship. This clause requires contractors to obtain contracting officer approval of the machinery, equipment, material, or articles to be incorporated into the work. The contractor's request must include: the manufacturer's name, the model number, and other information concerning the performance, capacity, nature, and rating of the machinery and mechanical and other equipment; and full information concerning the material or articles. When directed by the contracting officer, the contractor must submit samples of the items requiring approval for incorporating into the work. The contracting officer uses this information to determine whether the machinery, equipment, material, or articles meet the standards of quality specified in the contract. A contracting officer may reject work, if the contractor installs machinery, equipment, material, or articles in the work without obtaining the contracting officer's approval.

• FAR 52.236-13, Accident Prevention, Alternate I. This alternate to the basic clause requires contractors to submit a written proposed plan to provide and maintain work environments and procedures that will safeguard the public and Government personnel, property, materials, supplies, and equipment exposed to contractor operations and activities; avoid interruptions of Government operations and delays in project completion dates; and control costs in the performance of this contract. The plan must include an analysis of the significant hazards to life, limb, and property inherent in contract work performance and a plan for controlling these hazards. The contracting officer and technical representatives analyze the Accident Prevention Plan to determine if the proposed plan will satisfy the safety requirements identified in the contract, to include certain provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (per FAR 36.513(c)) and applicable standards issued by the Secretary of Labor at 29 CFR part 1926 and 29 CFR part 1910.

• FAR 52.236-15, Schedules for Construction Contracts. This clause requires contractors to prepare and submit to the contracting officer for approval three copies of a practicable schedule showing the order in which the contractor proposes to perform the work, and the dates on which the contractor contemplates starting and completing the several salient features of the work (including acquiring materials, plant, and equipment). The contracting officer uses this information to monitor progress under a Federal construction contract when other management approaches for ensuring adequate progress are not used.

• FAR 52.236-19, Organization and Direction of the Work. This clause requires contractors, under cost-reimbursement construction contracts, to submit to the contracting officer a chart showing the general executive and administrative organization, the personnel to be employed in connection with the work under the contract, and their respective duties. The contractor must keep the data furnished current by supplementing it as additional information becomes available. The contracting officer uses this information to ensure the work is performed by qualified personnel at a reasonable cost to the Government.

Respondents: 3,771.

Total Annual Responses: 13,267.

Total Burden Hours: 21,338.

Obtaining Copies: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the GSA Regulatory Secretariat Division by calling 202-501-4755 or emailing GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0064, Certain Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 36 Construction Contract Requirements.

Description: The HBCC-NSAC Toolkit is designed for home-based providers who regularly care for at least 1 school-age child who is not their own. The purpose of the HBCC-NSAC Toolkit is to help home-based providers identify their caregiving strengths and areas for growth. The HBCC-NSAC Toolkit consists of a self-administered provider questionnaire (composed of multiple newly developed measures) and a family communication questionnaire (composed of 1 communication tool). For validation purposes, the study will include the provider questionnaire from the HBCC-NSAC Toolkit with additional items from existing measures and a separate family survey with child and family background information items and items from an existing measure. A subset of providers will be observed with an existing observation measure. Study participants will include home-based providers who can complete the provider questionnaire in English. They must currently care for at least 1 school-age child (age 5 and in kindergarten, or ages 6 through 12) in a home for at least 10 hours per week and for at least 8 weeks in the past year. These providers may also care for younger children (ages birth through 5 and not yet in kindergarten). Families (a parent or guardian of school-age children receiving care in the HBCC setting) who can complete the family survey in English will also be included in the study. The study will be based on a purposive sample of home-based providers in at least 10 geographic locations to maximize variation in the sample. OPRE proposes to collect survey and observational data from home-based providers who are licensed or regulated by states to provide child care and early education (CCEE) and providers who are unlicensed or legally exempt from state regulations for CCEE. Study participants may or may not participate in the child care subsidy program. The data collection activities are designed to provide critical information that is needed to analyze the reliability and validity of the HBCC-NSAC Toolkit's provider questionnaire. The resulting data will help ACF understand if the HBCC-NSAC Toolkit's provider questionnaire can be used to support home-based providers in identifying and reflecting on their caregiving strengths and areas for growth.

Respondents: Home-based providers; families of the children cared for by the providers.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 337.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9858.

Information Collection Request Title: Voluntary Partner Surveys to Implement Executive Order 14058 in the Health Resources and Services Administration, OMB No. 0915-0212—Revision.

Abstract: The purpose of information collections under this generic umbrella ICR package is to conduct a limited number of partner surveys. If this generic ICR is approved, information on each individual partner survey conducted under this generic ICR will not be published separately in the Federal Register . Approval of this specific umbrella ICR would allow HRSA to continue to conduct voluntary customer surveys of its partners to assess strengths and weaknesses in program services and processes. A previous version of this ICR was done in response to Executive Order 12862, which called on the Federal Government to gather feedback from customers, set customer service standards, and measure performance against those standards. In December 2021, the White House issued Executive Order 14058, calling on the Federal Government to improve its service delivery to its customers and put people at the center of Federal Government activity. In accordance with this directive, HRSA is requesting approval of this generic umbrella ICR from OMB to conduct the partner surveys with a slight increase in the allotted burden hours so that HRSA can assess its performance from a larger swath of its partner population to help ensure that HRSA's customer service delivery continues to improve, in accordance with the directive in Executive Order 14058.

HRSA customer service feedback will continue to be gathered in the form of focus groups, in-class evaluation forms, mail surveys, and telephone surveys. Although HRSA cannot anticipate all of the collections that will fall under this generic umbrella ICR, HRSA anticipates receiving OMB approval to include the following collections:

• Surveys of HRSA grantees to determine satisfaction with grant processes or technical assistance provided by a HRSA contractor. Surveys may also be done to determine partner satisfaction with HRSA products or services. Surveys may be conducted by mail, telephone, or online. These surveys include the Division of Practitioner Data Bank Usability Survey generic fast track ICR, which helps identify strengths and weaknesses of the National Practitioner Data Bank customer service call center agents, and the HRSA Electronic Handbooks Customer Service Survey generic fast track ICR, which gathers public feedback about HRSA's electronic handbooks.

• Evaluation forms completed by providers who receive training from HRSA funding recipients, to measure satisfaction with the training experience. Evaluation forms may also be done after a conference or other training session with HRSA partners. Evaluation forms may be done hard-copy or online. One evaluation form generic fast track ICR that is expected to be included in this generic umbrella ICR is the National Ryan White Conference survey forms evaluating the National Ryan White Conference on HIV Care and Treatment and the Federal Cervical Cancer Collaborative Post-Roundtable Evaluation helping HRSA to gain better understanding of participants' experiences.

• Focus groups of HRSA grantees to learn more about their needs and concerns ( e.g., professional development, technical assistance, and current or expected issues with program operations). Focus groups may also be conducted to learn more about how the people served by HRSA programs react to messaging related to HRSA program activities. Focus groups may be conducted online or in person. The HRSA focus group generic fast track ICR that is expected to be included in this generic umbrella ICR includes the HRSA Division of Transplantation Formative Evaluation Minority Organ Donation Outreach consisting of a group of online focus groups designed to gather feedback on several campaign concepts.

A 60-day notice published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2023, 88 FR 72494-95.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Results of these surveys will be used to plan and redirect resources and efforts as needed to improve services and processes. Focus groups may also be used to gain partner input into the design of mail and telephone surveys.

Likely Respondents: HRSA partners are typically state or local governments, tribes and tribal organizations, health care facilities, health care consortia, health care providers, and researchers. HRSA partners may also include individuals served by HRSA programs and/or funding recipients. Participation in any collections under this clearance will be entirely voluntary, and the privacy of respondents will be preserved to the extent requested by participants and as permitted by law.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, the preventive care and screenings set forth in HRSA-supported guidelines are required to be covered without cost-sharing by certain group health plans and health insurance issuers. The Department adopted the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule as a HRSA-supported guideline for infants, children, and adolescents under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act. See 75 FR 41726, 41740 (July 19, 2010). The Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule is a schedule of clinical recommendations for preventive screenings and assessments at each well-child visit from infancy through adolescence.

To develop recommendations for HRSA's consideration, the ICAPS Program, carried out by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) under a cooperative agreement with HRSA, convenes a panel of pediatric primary care experts to conduct rigorous reviews of current scientific evidence, solicit and consider public input, and make recommendations to HRSA regarding screenings and assessments recommended at each well-child visit from infancy through adolescence. HRSA then determines whether to support, in whole or in part, the recommended updates. The schedule of preventive care and screenings for infants, children, and adolescents is detailed in the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. The ICAPS Program also disseminates final HRSA-supported recommendations through the annual publication of the updated Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule, with associated resources for practitioners and families.

The ICAPS Program bases its recommended updates to the Guidelines on review and synthesis of existing clinical guidelines and new scientific evidence. Additionally, HRSA requires that the ICAPS Program incorporate processes to assure opportunity for public comment in the development of the updated Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule.

The ICAPS Program proposed and HRSA has accepted recommended updates to footnotes to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. None of these footnote updates change the HRSA-supported clinical recommendations and associated requirement for coverage without cost-sharing, as each of the footnotes merely update references to the supporting evidence base for these recommendations. The footnote updates are as follows:

1. Footnote 4, relating to the 3-5 Day Visit, is being updated by replacing the previous reference with a new reference that aligns with the Bright Futures recommendation regarding providers helping families that choose to breastfeed.

2. Footnote 5, relating to Body Mass Index, is being updated by replacing the previous reference with an updated reference to the Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060640 ), published in the January 2023 issue of Pediatrics. This updated footnote reference aligns with the Bright Futures recommendation regarding measuring body mass index starting at the 24-month visit through the 21-year visit and provides non-stigmatizing recommendations for evaluating and treating children who are experiencing weight gains.

The updated footnote now reads:

Screen per “Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060640 ).

3. Footnote 14, relating to Behavioral/Social/Emotional Screening, is being updated by adding a reference to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement, Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents ( https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/screening-anxiety-children-adolescents ), published in the October 2022 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. This additional reference aligns with the Bright Futures recommendation to use screening instruments to better identify children experiencing anxiety, followed by a confirmatory diagnostic assessment and follow-up.

The updated footnote now reads:

Screen for behavioral and social-emotional problems per “Promoting Optimal Development: Screening for Behavioral and Emotional Problems” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3716 ), “Mental Health Competencies for Pediatric Practice” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2757 ), “Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Anxiety Disorders” ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32439401 ), “Screening for Anxiety in Adolescent and Adult Women: A Recommendation From the Women's Preventive Services Initiative” ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32510990 ), and “Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: Screening” ( https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/screening-anxiety-children-adolescents ). The screening should be family centered and may include asking about caregiver emotional and mental health concerns and social determinants of health, racism, poverty, and relational health. See “Poverty and Child Health in the United States” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0339 ), ”The Impact of Racism on Child and Adolescent Health” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1765 ), and “Preventing Childhood Toxic Stress: Partnering With Families and Communities to Promote Relational Health” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052582 ).

4. Footnote 15, relating to Tobacco, Alcohol, or Drug Use Assessment, is being updated by adding clarifying information about providers' use of validated screening tools and recommending or prescribing naloxone and by adding new references to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Evidence-Based Strategies for Preventing Opioid Overdose: What's Working in the United States ( https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pubs/2018-evidence-based-strategies.pdf ) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse's policy brief, Naloxone for Opioid Overdose: Life-Saving Science ( https://nida.nih.gov/publications/naloxone-opioid-overdose-life-saving-science ). This updated footnote aligns with the Bright Futures recommendation to assess patients for substance use with a validated screening tool and describes the utility of providers recommending or prescribing naloxone if there is concern for substance or opioid use.

The updated footnote now reads:

A recommended tool to assess use of alcohol, tobacco and nicotine, and marijuana is available at http://crafft.org. In addition, CDC and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) recommend assessing patients for opioid use using a validated screening tool and if positive, providers should consider recommending or prescribing naloxone (see https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pubs/2018-evidence-based-strategies.pdf and https://nida.nih.gov/publications/naloxone-opioid-overdose-life-saving-science ).

5. Footnote 21, relating to Newborn Bilirubin Screening, is being updated by replacing the previous reference with a new reference to Management of Hyperbilirubinemia in the Newborn Infant 35 or More Weeks of Gestation ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-058859 ), published in the August 2022 issue of Pediatrics. This updated reference aligns with the Bright Futures recommendation for universal bilirubin screening for all newborn infants between 24 and 28 hours after birth.

The updated footnote now reads:

Confirm initial screening was accomplished, verify results, and follow up, as appropriate.

See Clinical Practice Guideline Revision: “Management of Hyperbilirubinemia in the Newborn Infant 35 or More Weeks of Gestation” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-058859).

6. Footnotes 35 and 36, relating to Oral Health, are being updated by replacing the previous reference with a new reference to Maintaining and Improving the Oral Health of Young Children ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060417 ), published in the December 2022 issue of Pediatrics. This reference aligns with the Bright Futures recommendation that every child has a dental home by 1 year of age (footnote 35). Additionally, the new reference encourages providers to screen for social determinants of health, as well as access to medical and dental care, as they influence oral health status and oral health inequities (footnote 36). These footnotes refer to the same updated reference.

The updated footnotes now read:

Assess whether the child has a dental home. If no dental home is identified, perform a risk assessment ( https:// www.aap.org/en/patient-care/oral-health/oral-health-practice-tools/ and refer to a dental home. Recommend brushing with fluoride toothpaste in the proper dosage for age. See “Maintaining and Improving the Oral Health of Young Children” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060417 ).

and

Perform a risk assessment ( https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/oral-health/oral-health-practice-tools/ ). See “Maintaining and Improving the Oral Health of Young Children” ( https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060417 ).

A Federal Register notice on October 24, 2023, sought public comment on these proposed footnote updates (88 FR 73034). 1 The ICAPS Program considered all public comments as part of its deliberative process and provided the comments to HRSA for its consideration. A total of 25 respondents commented on one or more of the six proposed footnote updates. From the 25 respondents, 119 responses were provided. Of these, 107 responses (89 percent) expressed agreement and 13 responses (11 percent) provided other comments or concerns. HRSA appreciates the comments in support of the updates. The additional comments and responses are summarized below.

1. Footnote 4, relating to the first week well-child visit, also called the 3-5 Day Visit.

20 respondents responded to this proposed footnote update, and 19 indicated agreement. One respondent expressed concern that formal breastfeeding evaluation is not possible in every situation and suggested the proposed footnote include a qualified statement such as, “if services are available.” As this suggestion pertains to implementation and not the updated reference, the proposed footnote update will not be modified.

2. Footnote 5, relating to Body Mass Index.

18 respondents responded to this proposed footnote update, and 17 indicated agreement. One respondent expressed concern regarding the use of BMI at the individual level to determine intervention for children. This suggestion does not align with the recommendation in the clinical practice guidelines, which is the updated reference within the proposed footnote change. The proposed footnote update will not be modified.

3. Footnote 14, relating to Behavioral/Social/Emotional Screening.

20 respondents responded to this proposed footnote update, and 15 indicated agreement. One respondent comment did not specifically address the proposed footnotes or the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule and is therefore beyond the scope of the proposed updates. Three respondents expressed concerns related to implementation resources. As these suggestions pertain to implementation and not the additional reference that was added, the proposed footnote update will not be modified. One respondent suggested including the screening for anxiety in children under 8 years of age. This suggestion does not align with the AAP clinical guidance or the updated USPSTF reference. The footnote update will be finalized as proposed.

4. Footnote 15, relating to Tobacco, Alcohol, or Drug Use Assessment.

20 respondents responded to this proposed footnote update and 17 indicated agreement. Of the three respondents expressing concern, one respondent noted the need to ensure insurance companies do not violate the adolescent's privacy to safely perform recommended preventive services. This suggestion is beyond the scope of the proposed footnote update and the proposed footnote update will not be modified. One respondent expressed concern with overprescribing naloxone and the potential to create drug shortage as well as suggesting the need for oversight with how to administer. The AAP has not found evidence supporting the concern of overprescribing in the pediatric primary care setting. The footnote will be finalized as proposed. Another respondent suggested removing “prescribing” from the proposed footnote since naloxone is also available over the counter. This comment is reflected in the updated footnote language stating that providers should consider recommending or prescribing naloxone. The footnote will be finalized as proposed.

5. Footnote 21, relating to Newborn Bilirubin Screening.

20 respondents responded to this proposed footnote update and 18 indicated agreement. Two respondents expressed concern about the implementation of this screening due to the cost and time for the primary care provider to obtain patient hospital records. As these suggestions pertain to implementation and not the updated reference. The proposed footnote update will not be modified.

6. Footnote 35 and 36, relating to Oral Health.

22 respondents responded to this proposed footnote update and 21 indicated agreement. One respondent suggested adding the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) recommendation that the first oral exam occur by age 12 months and that the interval of exams be based on the child's individual needs or risk status and susceptibility to disease. The proposed footnote simply adds an updated reference to the latest AAP clinical report, which recommends a dental visit for children by 1 year of age. The proposed footnote update will not be modified in response to this comment.

After consideration of public comment, the ICAPS Program submitted recommended footnote updates to HRSA for consideration, as detailed above. On December 29, 2023, the HRSA Administrator accepted the ICAPS Program recommendations and, as such, updated the HRSA-supported guidelines as set forth in the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. While non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage must cover without cost-sharing the services and screenings listed as the HRSA-supported preventive services guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents as indicated above, these updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule footnotes do not change the clinical recommendations or the requirements for coverage without cost-sharing under section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act. Additional information regarding the ICAPS Program can be accessed at the following link: https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-health-topics/child-health/bright-futures.html.

Authority: Section 2713(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4).

Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). Topics of the Meeting: subcommittee recommendations, NIA bypass budget, FDA drug coverage decisions, and CDC Health Brain Initiative.

Procedure and Agenda: The meeting will be webcast at www.hhs.gov/live and video recordings will be added to the National Alzheimer's Project Act website when available after the meeting. This meeting is open to the public. Please allow 30 minutes to go through security and walk to the meeting room. Participants joining in person should note that seating may be limited. Those wishing to attend the meeting in person must send an email to napa@hhs.gov and put “January 22 Meeting Attendance” in the subject line by Wednesday, January 17 so that their names may be put on a list of expected attendees and forwarded to the security officers at the Department of Health and Human Services. Any interested member of the public who is a non-U.S. citizen should include this information at the time of registration to ensure that the appropriate security procedure to gain entry to the building is carried out. Although the meeting is open to the public, procedures governing security and the entrance to Federal buildings may change without notice. If you wish to make a public comment, you must note that within your email.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11225; Section 2(e)(3) of the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The panel is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Prior Disclosure.

OMB Number: 1651-0076.

Form Number: N/A.

Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with a decrease in annual burden hours.

Type of Review: Extension (w/change).

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract: The Prior Disclosure program establishes a method for a potential violator to disclose to CBP that they have committed an error or a violation with respect to the legal requirements of entering merchandise into the United States, such as underpaid tariffs or duties, or misclassified merchandise, or regarding the payment or credit of any drawback claim. The procedure for making a prior disclosure is set forth in 19 CFR 162.74. This provision requires that respondents submit information about the merchandise involved, a specification of the false statements or omissions, and what the true and accurate information should be. A valid prior disclosure will entitle the disclosing party to the reduced penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(4) or 19 U.S.C. 1593a(c)(3).

The respondents to this information collection are members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.

The information is to be used by CBP officers to verify and validate the commission of a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1592 or 19 U.S.C. 1593a by the disclosing party. A valid prior disclosure will entitle the disclosing party to reduced penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(4) or 19 U.S.C. 1593a(c)(3). A prior disclosure may be submitted orally or in writing to CBP. In the case of an oral disclosure, the disclosing party shall confirm the disclosure in writing within 10 days of the date of the oral disclosure. A written prior disclosure must be addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, have conspicuously printed on the face of the envelope the words “prior disclosure,” and be presented to a Customs officer at the Customs port of entry or a Center of the disclosed violation.

Type of Information Collection:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 762.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 762.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,286.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. The currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. The currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.