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

Objectors must be submitted to the Reviewing Officer at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Please be explicit as to whether the objection is to the “Gila National Forest Plan Revision” or the `Regional Forester's list of Species of Conservation Concern for the Gila National Forest”. An objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision comment period.

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

The responsible official who will approve the Record of Decision and the revised Plan for the Gila National Forest is Forest Supervisor Camille Howes, Gila National Forest Supervisor's Office, 3005 E Camino del Bosque, Silver City, NM 88061, Phone: (575) 388-8201. The responsible official for the list of species of conservation concern is Michiko Martin, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway Blvd. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

The Regional Forester is the reviewing officer for the revised Plan since the Forest Supervisor is the responsible official (36 CFR 219.56(e)). Objection review of the Regional Forester's list of species of conservation concern will be subject to a separate objection process from the objection review of the Forest Plan. The Chief of the Forest Service is the reviewing officer for species of conservation concern identification since the Regional Forester is the responsible official (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)).

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

On December 16, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on mattresses from China. 1 On December 1, 2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. 2 On December 29, 2023, Commerce received a timely request from domestic interested parties Corsicana Mattress Company, Future Foam Inc., FXI, Inc., Kolcraft Enterprises Inc., Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC, and Tempur Sealy International, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), to conduct an administrative review of the Order for 44 companies. 3

On February 8, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to imports of mattresses exported by 44 companies, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 4 On February 27, 2024, we placed on the record U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for entries of mattresses from China during the POR, showing no reviewable POR entries and invited interested parties to comment. 5 No interested party submitted comments to Commerce regarding the CBP data.

On April 2, 2024, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review in full because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise by any of the 44 companies listed in the Initiation Notice during the POR and invited interested parties to comment. 6 No interested party submitted comments to Commerce in response to this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 7 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the antidumping duty assessment rate calculated for the review period. 8 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct CBP to liquidate at the antidumping duty assessment rate calculated for the review period. 9 As noted above, there were no entries of subject merchandise for any of the 44 companies listed in the Initiation Notice during the POR. Accordingly, in the absence of suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we are hereby rescinding this administrative review, in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the Federal Register .

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

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

On July 13, 2015, Commerce published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Malaysia. 1 On September 11, 2023, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the Order. 2 On March 18, 2024, we extended the time limit for completion of these preliminary results to July 23, 2024, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3 On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days. 4 The deadline for the preliminary results is now July 30, 2024.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by the scope of the Order are certain steel nails from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Between October 4 and 11, 2023, we received letters from non-selected respondents Astrotech Steels Private Limited (Astrotech), Geekay Wires Limited (Geekay), Modern Factory for Steel Industries Co. Ltd. (Modern Factory), Trinity Steel Private Limited (Trinity), and Oman Fasteners LLC (Oman Fasteners) timely notifying Commerce that they had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. 6 We issued a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with respect to each of these companies, and CBP responded that it has no record of any shipments of subject merchandise for these companies during the POR. 7 The record, therefore, demonstrates that Astrotech, Geekay, Modern Factory, Trinity, and Oman Fasteners had no shipments during the POR. On this basis, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Astrotech, Geekay, Modern Factory, Trinity, and Oman Fasteners, and will issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review. 8

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

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”

In these preliminary results, we have calculated a non- de minimis weighted-average dumping margins for both Region International Co., Ltd. and Region System Sdn. Bhd. (collectively, Region) and Inmax Sdn. Bhd. and Inmax Industries Sdn. Bhd. (collectively, Inmax). Region's and Inmax's weighted-average dumping margins were not determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, for the preliminary results of this review, we are assigning a dumping margin which is determined as the simple average of the margins for Region and Inmax to the non-selected mandatory respondents. Therefore, the preliminary rate for non-selected respondents is 1.01 percent.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs or other written comments to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 10 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 11

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 12 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 13

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

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin for a mandatory respondent is not zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 14 If the weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or if an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 15 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent(s) for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 16 The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 2.66 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 17 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) proposes to revise and extend a current information collection designed to assess the extent of hook and line interactions between recreational anglers on piers and other shore-based fishing locations and sea turtles. The collection comprises an Angler Intercept Survey, a Fishing Site Characterization Form, and a Survey Cover Sheet. The Angler Intercept Survey will be verbally administered on piers and shore-based fishing locations within NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region and Southeast Region and will be administered to approximately 20,000 individual recreational fishermen. The respondents will be verbally asked a series of questions about their fishing practices and observations of sea turtles and the interviewer will record their answers. The survey will also assess the feasibility of an intercept survey for this purpose in terms of response rates and data collection. The Fishing Site Characterization Form will be completed by the survey administrator at each fishing location and collects information on the structure and operation of the pier or shore-based fishing location. The Site Characterization Sheet will be completed by the survey administrator during each survey period and collects information on the environmental conditions for that particular day, the number of anglers fishing, number of lines in the water, and the number of surveys completed. The collection previously included a Sea Turtle Incidental Capture Form. This form will be removed from this collection and is now included in the National Sea Turtle Stranding & Salvage Network Stranding & Gear Interaction Data Collection (0648-0496).

Collection of data on sea turtle interactions in the shore-based recreational fishing sector is necessary to fulfill statutory requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). This collection will allow NOAA Fisheries obtain specific information about recreational piers (defined here to include piers and other shore-based structures), the anglers that fish on piers, the nature of interactions between pier-based anglers and sea turtles, as well as to determine specific factors that may influence the rate of interactions. NOAA Fisheries can use the information collected to evaluate the impact of these interactions on sea turtle populations and determine conservation measures that can be implemented to reduce interactions and support the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened sea turtle populations.

The survey will be implemented through verbal interviews.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0774.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission [Extension including a revision of a current information collection.]

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes for the Fishing Site Characterization Form, 5 minutes for the Survey Cover Sheet, 10 minutes for the Angler Intercept Survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,145.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Collection of these data on sea turtle interactions in the shore-based recreational fishing sector is necessary to fulfill statutory requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

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

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

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 December 19, 2023, NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project in Elliott Bay of the Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. Following NMFS' review of the application, WSDOT submitted revised versions on March 4, April 8, April 18, and April 29, 2024. A final revised monitoring plan was submitted on May 14, 2024 and a final revised application was submitted on May 16, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on May 20, 2024. WSDOT's request is for take of 12 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

WSDOT is proposing to replace the Seattle Slip 3 VTS at Colman Dock which is located in Elliott Bay of the Puget Sound in Seattle, Washington. The purpose of the construction project is to preserve the transportation function of an aging, seismically deficient transfer span. The existing VTS will be removed and replaced with a hydraulic transfer span consisting of steel drilled shafts and a new steel wingwall. In-water construction includes cutting sheet piles, installation and removal of steel piles with a vibratory hammer, and proofing steel piles with an impact hammer to drive them to the maximum depth and ensure load bearing capacity. In-water pile removal and driving with vibratory and impact hammers may result in incidental take by Level B harassment of 12 marine mammal species within Elliott Bay and the Central Puget Sound. The effective construction window for the project, which is expected to require a maximum of 19 days, is from August 1, 2024 through February 15, 2025. Replacement of the Seattle Slip 3 VTS will allow WSDOT to continue to provide safe and reliable transportation services throughout the Puget Sound and San Juan Islands.

Construction for the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project has an effective work window from August 1, 2024 through February 15, 2025 to avoid when ESA listed salmonids are most likely to be present. A maximum of 19 in-water construction days will occur, which includes a flexibility for adverse weather conditions and equipment malfunction. Operation hours for in-water construction will occur during daylight hours from sunrise to sunset but will be contingent upon weather conditions with good visibility. The IHA would be valid for 1 year from the date of issuance.

Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is part of the Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock and located along the Seattle waterfront in Elliott Bay (Figures 1 and 2). Elliott Bay is an urban embayment that is approximately 8 square miles (mi 2 ) (21 square kilometers (km 2 )), central in the Puget Sound, Washington. The Seattle waterfront is highly urbanized with residential, business, and industrial areas including the Port of Seattle container loading facility, the Pioneer Square Historic District, and local parks.

Removal of the existing VTS and wingwall pile includes the extraction of 16 14-inch steel H-piles with a vibratory hammer and removal of a 30-inch concrete filled wingwall pile that would be cut at or below the mudline. Following removal of the VTS, 12 24-inch steel piles would be temporarily installed via a vibratory hammer and proofed with an impact hammer to confirm load bearing capacity for a temporary work platform. WSDOT would then permanently install 2 78-inch hollow steel drilled shafts via vibratory hammer. All the materials inside the 78-inch steel shafts would be extracted with an auger or clamshell bucket and then dewatered for the hydraulic VTS. A 30-inch steel wing wall pile would then be installed with a vibratory hammer and then the 12 24-inch temporary steel piles would be extracted via a vibratory hammer which concludes in-water construction. Table 1 provides a summary of the number of piles that would be removed and installed, the driving method, pile size, number of piles per day, time needed to drive each pile, and the maximum number of days needed to complete the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project.

Pile driving activities described above may result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in Elliott Bay and the central Puget Sound to the eastern shore of Bainbridge Island. Cutting the 30-inch wingwall pile and removal of the material from inside the 78-inch piles is expected to produce negligible in-water sound, which is unlikely to cause any incidental take of marine mammals. In-water construction would be a maximum of 19 days from August 1, 2024 through February 15, 2025. The Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project would not use multiple hammers for installation or removal concurrently but vibratory and impact hammer could be used on the same day.

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 2 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 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. Survey abundance (as compared to stock or species abundance) is the total number of individuals estimated within the survey area, which may or may not align completely with a stock's geographic range as defined in the SARs. For some species, this geographic area or surveys may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, all 12 species in table 2 spatially and temporally co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project areas are included in table 3 of the IHA application. While southern resident killer whales (SRKW), and humpback whales (HW) (Central America/Southern Mexico—California-Oregon-Washington, Mainland Mexico—California-Oregon-Washington, and Hawaii stocks) have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

Generally SRKWs are considered common in the Puget Sound (Olson et al., 2018). During the Seattle Multimodal Project 170 observations of SRKWs occurred over 377 construction days. Although SRKWs are relatively common in the construction area, WSDOT has expertise with monitoring for SRKWs and halting construction when they approach or enter established shutdown zones. For the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project, WSDOT would establish shutdown zones for SRKWs at the estimated Level B harassment zones rounded up to the nearest 50 meters. WSDOT would also monitor marine mammal occurrence and movement with the Orca Network and the Whale Report Alert System (WRAS) networks daily for this project. Considering SRKWs frequency of occurrence in the project area and WSDOTs experience mentioned above, take of SRKW is not expected.

The occurrence of HWs in Puget Sound is considered common with the greatest density of sightings off the south end of Vancouver Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Olsen et al., 2024). During the Seattle Multimodal Project 8 observations of HWs occurred over 377 construction days. Since the Seattle Slip 3 VTS Replacement Project is in the same area, HW occurrence in the construction area is expected to be rare. WSDOT would establish shutdown zones and monitor marine mammal occurrence and movement for HWs (identical to the measures described above for SRKWs). Therefore take of HWs in not expected. Details about mitigation measures, shutdown zones, and protected species observers (PSOs) can be found in the Proposed Mitigation and the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting sections below.

Due to these mitigation measures and these species being highly conspicuous, incidental take of SRKWs or HWs is not expected for the duration of this project.

Generally, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales feed in the Arctic in summer and fall months and then breed during winter and spring months off the coast of Mexico (Carretta et al. 2022, Calambokidis et al. 2024). During migration from Mexico to the Arctic, a subpopulation of the Eastern North Pacific stock of Gray whales, commonly referred to as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG), stop and feed along the coasts of Oregon and Washington including the Northern Puget Sound (Calambokidis et al. 2024). A subgroup of the PCFG that feed in the Puget Sound, recently termed as “Sounders” gray whales, are the most abundant from February through May. The highest concentrations Sounders Gray Whales occurs on the Southern ends of Whidbey and Camano Islands in the North Puget Sound (Calambokidis et al. 2024). Although Sounders gray whale observations are the highest in the Northern Puget Sound but observations also occur in the Southern Puget Sound and Elliott Bay, which is in the proposed action area (Orca Network, 2021).

There are Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for migrating gray whales in the inland waters of the Northern Puget Sound from January through July and October through December and for feeding gray whales between February and June (Calambokidis et al., 2015; Calambokidis et al., 2024).

The NMFS declared an unusual mortality event (UME) for gray whales on May 30, 2019 after elevated numbers of strandings occurred along the Pacific coast of North America, The UME started December 17, 2018 and was closed on November 9, 2023, with peak standings occurring from December 17, 2018 through December 31, 2020. The UME included 690 gray whale standings, 347 in the United States, 316 in Mexico, and 27 in Canada. Necropsies were performed on a subset of the dead whales and malnutrition was common followed by evidence of killer whale predation, entanglement, vessel strikes, and biotoxins were found in some carcasses as in years without UMEs. NMFS concluded that the nutritional conditions of live gray whales was lower prior to and during the UME. Gray whale abundance declined and calf production decline following the UME but calf production has begun to rebound. Additional information about this UME can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2023-eastern-north-pacific-gray-whale-ume-closed.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognizes three stocks of minke whales in the North Pacific: The Sea of Japan/East China Sea, the rest of the western Pacific west of 180° N, and the remainder of the Pacific (Donovan 1991). Minke whales are relatively common in the Bering and Chukchi seas and in the Gulf of Alaska, but are not considered abundant in any other part of the eastern Pacific (Brueggeman et al., 1990). In the far north, minke whales are thought to be migratory, but they are believed to be year-round residents in coastal waters off the west coast of the United States (Dorsey et al., 1990).

Minke whales are reported in Washington inland waters year-round, although few are reported in the winter ( i.e., during the anticipated in-water work window for these projects; Calambokidis and Baird 1994). They are relatively common in the San Juan Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca (especially around several of the banks in both the central and eastern Strait), but are relatively rare in Puget Sound and the Orca Network has no sighting records of minke whales in the project areas. Although minke whales are considered rare within the Puget Sound, three minke whales were observed during the Seattle Multimodal Project during the 377 days of marine mammal monitoring from 2017-2021.

There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales recognized in the north Pacific: resident, transient, and offshore. The three ecotypes differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically. Resident killer whales exclusively prey upon fish, with a clear preference for salmon (Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., 2021; Ford et al., 2016), while transient killer whales exclusively prey upon marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). Less is known about offshore killer whales, but they are believed to consume primarily fish, including several species of shark (Dahlheim et al., 2008). Currently, there are eight killer whale stocks recognized in the U.S. Pacific (Carretta et al., 2021; Muto et al., 2021). Of those, individuals from the West Coast Transient stock may occur in the project areas and be taken incidental to WSDOT's proposed activities.

Within Puget Sound, transient killer whales primarily hunt pinnipeds and porpoises, though some groups will occasionally target larger whales. The West Coast Transient stock of killer whales occurs from California through southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 2021). The seasonal movements of transients are largely unpredictable, although there is a tendency to investigate harbor seal haulouts off Vancouver Island more frequently during the pupping season in August and September (Baird 1995; Ford 2014). Transient killer whales have been observed in central Puget Sound in all months (Orca Network 2021). During WSDOTs Seattle Multimodal Project, 79 transient killer whales were observed throughout the 377 days of in water work from 2017 through 2021 with a maximum of 20 individuals observed on a single day.

Bottlenose dolphins are distributed worldwide from approximately 45° N to 45° S. Bottlenose dolphins inhabiting west coast U.S. waters are considered to be in either the California coastal stock, which ranges from Mexico to the San Francisco area within approximately 1 kilometer of shore, or the California/Oregon/Washington offshore stock, which is most commonly found along the California coast, northward to about the Oregon border. NMFS offshore surveys from 1991 to 2014 resulted in no sightings during study transects off the Oregon or Washington coasts (Carretta et al., 2019). In September 2017, however, multiple sightings of a bottlenose dolphin throughout the Puget Sound and in Elliott Bay were reported to Cascadia Research Collective and Orca Network. One of the individuals was identified as belonging to the California coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). Although bottlenose dolphins are considered rare in Puget Sound, six were observed during construction of the Seattle Multimodal Project from 2017 through 2022 (WSDOT 2022).

Long-beaked common dolphins are commonly found along the U.S. West Coast, from Baja California, Mexico (including the Gulf of California), northward to about central California (Carretta et al., 2020). The Salish Sea is not considered part of their typical range (Carretta et al., 2020), but there have been reports of long-beaked common dolphins in inland waters. Two individual common dolphins were observed in August and September of 2011 (Whale Museum, 2015). The first record of a pod of long-beaked common dolphins in this area came in the summer of 2016. Beginning on June 16, 2016 long-beaked common dolphins were observed near Victoria, B.C. Over the following weeks, a pod of 15 to 20 (including a calf) was observed in central and southern Puget Sound. They were positively identified as long-beaked common dolphins (Orca Network 2016). Marine mammal monitors observed two long-beaked common dolphins during construction for the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle from 2017-18 construction window (WSDOT 2022).

The Pacific white-sided dolphin is found in cool temperate waters of the North Pacific from the southern Gulf of California to Alaska. Across the North Pacific, it appears to have a relatively narrow distribution between 38° N and 47° N (Brownell et al., 1999). In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the Pacific white-sided dolphin is one of the most common cetacean species, occurring primarily in shelf and slope waters (Green et al., 1993; Barlow 2003, 2010). It is known to occur close to shore in certain regions, including (seasonally) southern California (Brownell et al., 1999). Results of aerial and shipboard surveys strongly suggest seasonal north-south movements of the species between California and Oregon/Washington; the movements apparently are related to oceanographic influences, particularly water temperature (Green et al., 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; Buchanan et al., 2001). During winter, this species is most abundant in California slope and offshore areas; as northern waters begin to warm in the spring, it appears to move north to slope and offshore waters off Oregon/Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Forney 1994; Forney et al., 1995; Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow 2003). The highest encounter rates off Oregon and Washington have been reported during March-May in slope and offshore waters (Green et al., 1993). Large groups of Pacific white-sided dolphins have been observed in San Juan Channel (Orca Network 2012), north of Puget Sound, and may rarely occur in Central Puget Sound. During construction for the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, only 2 Pacific white-sided dolphins were observed on one of the 377 days of construction from 2017 through 2021 (WSDOT 2022).

Dall's porpoises are endemic to temperate waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Off the U.S. West Coast, they are commonly seen in shelf, slope, and offshore waters (Morejohn 1979). Sighting patterns from aerial and shipboard surveys conducted in California, Oregon, and Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; Barlow 2016) suggest that north-south movement between these states occurs as oceanographic conditions change, both on seasonal and inter-annual time scales. Dall's porpoise are considered rare in Puget Sound. During construction for the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, only 8 Dall's porpoises were observed, with a maximum of 5 individuals observed on a single day during the 377 construction days from 2017 through 2021 (WSDOT 2022).

In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, harbor porpoise are found in coastal and inland waters from Point Barrow, along the Alaskan coast, and down the west coast of North America to Point Conception, California (Gaskin 1984). Harbor porpoise are known to occur year-round in the inland trans-boundary waters of Washington and British Columbia, Canada (Osborne et al., 1988), and along the Oregon/Washington coast (Barlow 1988, Barlow et al., 1988, Green et al., 1992). There was a significant decline in harbor porpoise sightings within southern Puget Sound between the 1940s and 1990s but sightings have increased seasonally in the last 10 years (Carretta et al., 2019). Annual winter aerial surveys conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from 1995 to 2015 revealed an increasing trend in harbor porpoise in Washington inland waters, including the return of harbor porpoise to Puget Sound. The data suggest that harbor porpoise were already present in Juan de Fuca, Georgia Straits, and the San Juan Islands from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, and then expanded into Puget Sound and Hood Canal from the mid-2000s to 2015, areas they had used historically but abandoned. Changes in fishery-related entanglement was suspected as the cause of their previous decline and more recent recovery, including a return to Puget Sound (Evenson et al., 2016).

Seasonal surveys conducted in spring, summer, and fall 2013-2015 in Puget Sound and Hood Canal documented substantial numbers of harbor porpoise in Puget Sound. Observed porpoise numbers were twice as high in spring as in fall or summer, indicating a seasonal shift in distribution of harbor porpoise (Smultea 2015). The reasons for the seasonal shift and for the increase in sightings is unknown. During 377 total days of construction at the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle from 2017 through 2021, 413 sightings of harbor porpoises were recorded in total, with a maximum of 40 sightings on a single day.

The California sea lion is the most frequently sighted pinniped found in Washington waters and uses haul-out sites along the outer coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haul-out sites are located on jetties, offshore rocks and islands, log booms, marina docks, and navigation buoys. This species also may be frequently seen resting in the water, rafted together in groups in Puget Sound. Only male California sea lions migrate into Pacific Northwest waters, with females remaining in waters near their breeding rookeries off the coast of California and Mexico. The California sea lion was considered rare in Washington waters prior to the 1950s. More recently, peak numbers of 3,000 to 5,000 animals move into the Salish Sea during the fall and remain until late spring, when most return to breeding rookeries in California and Mexico (Jeffries et al., 2000).

There are four commonly used haul-out sites near the construction site, with the closest haul-out site located 3 km (2 mi) southwest. During the Seattle Multimodal Project from 2017 through 2021, a total of 3,669 sightings of California sea lions were recorded over 377 days with a maximum of 29 observations on a single day.

Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California (Loughlin et al., 1984). There are two separate stocks of Steller sea lions, the Eastern U.S. stock, which occurs east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144° W), and the Western U.S. stock, which occurs west of that point. Only the Western stock of Steller sea lions, which is designated as the Western DPS of Steller sea lions, is listed as endangered under the ESA (78 FR 66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, there has been a sustained and robust increase in abundance of the Eastern U.S. stock throughout its breeding range. The eastern stock of Steller sea lions has historically bred on rookeries located in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California. However, within the last several years a new rookery has become established on the outer Washington coast (at the Carroll Island and Sea Lion Rock complex), with more than 100 pups born there in 2015 (Muto et al., 2020).

Steller sea lions use haul-out locations in Puget Sound, and may occur at the same haul-outs as California sea lions, but are considered rare visitors to Elliott Bay and the Seattle waterfront area. Few Steller sea lions have been observed during monitoring of recent construction projects in the area; typically fewer than 5 total observations per year ( e.g., Anchor QEA 2018, 2019). However, a total of 112 sightings of Steller sea lions were recorded over 377 days of monitoring from 2017 through 2021 at the Seattle Multimodal project with a maximum of 10 sightings on a single day.

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters off Baja California, north along the western coasts of the continental United States, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska, west through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and in the Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands (Carretta et al., 2014). They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals generally are non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). Within U.S. West Coast waters, 5 stocks of harbor seals are recognized: (1) Southern Puget Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge); (2) Washington Northern Inland Waters (including Puget Sound north of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca); (3) Hood Canal; (4) Oregon/Washington Coast; and (5) California. Harbor seals in the project areas would be from the Washington Northern Inland Waters stock.

Harbor seals are the only pinniped species that occurs year-round and breeds in Washington waters (Jeffries et al., 2000). Pupping seasons vary by geographic region, with pups born in coastal estuaries (Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor) from mid-April through June; Olympic Peninsula coast from May through July; San Juan Islands and eastern bays of Puget Sound from June through August; southern Puget Sound from mid-July through September; and Hood Canal from August through January (Jeffries et al., 2000). The most recent estimate for the Washington Northern Inland Waters Stock is 16,451 based on surveys conducted in 2019 (Carretta et al., 2023).

There is only one routinely used harbor seal haulout near Elliott Bay and the Seattle waterfront at Blakely Rocks, approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) west of the project sites. The haulout, which is estimated at less than 100 animals, consists of intertidal rocks and reef areas (Jefferies et al., 2000). Harbor seals are a commonly observed marine mammal in the area of potential effects and are known to be comfortable and seemingly curious around human activities. Observations of harbor seals were reported during many recent construction projects along the Seattle waterfront. During construction for the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, a maximum of 32 harbor seals were observed on a single day from 2017 through 2021 for all 377 construction days.

Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California (U.S.) and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands (Stewart et al., 1994), from December to March (NOAA 2015). Males migrate to the Gulf of Alaska and western Aleutian Islands along the continental shelf to feed on benthic prey, while females migrate to pelagic areas in the Gulf of Alaska and the central North Pacific Ocean to feed on pelagic prey (Le Boeuf et al., 2000). Adults return to land between March and August to molt, with males returning later than females. Adults return to their feeding areas again between their spring/summer molting and their winter breeding seasons (Carretta et al., 2015).

During all 377 construction days for the Washington State Ferries Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle from 2017 through 2021, only one northern elephant seal was observed. Elephant seals are generally considered rare in Puget Sound. However, a female elephant seal has been reported hauled-out in Mutiny Bay on Whidbey Island periodically since 2010. She was observed alone for her first three visits to the area, but in March 2015, she was seen with a pup. Since then, she has produced two more pups, born in 2018 and 2020. Northern elephant seals generally give birth in January but this individual has repeatedly given birth in March. She typically returns to Mutiny Bay in April and May to molt. Her pups have also repeatedly returned to haul-out on nearby beaches (Orca Network 2020)

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, 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. ). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3.

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

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activities can occur from impact pile driving and vibratory driving and removal. The effects of underwater noise from WSDOT's proposed activities are expected to result in only Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action areas.

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

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

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

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

Potential or likely impacts on marine mammals from WSDOT's proposed construction include both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Non-acoustic stressors include the physical presence of equipment, vessels, and personal. However, impacts from WSDOT's proposed construction is expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Expected stressors from WSDOT's proposed activities are expected to be a result of heavy equipment operation for impact driving and vibratory driving and removal.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from WSDOT's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and behavioral effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al. , 2007, 2021). Generally, exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (TS) and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (TSs) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat. No physiological effects other than TTS are anticipated or proposed to be authorized, and therefore are not discussed further. Discussion of physical auditory effects (TSs), behavioral effects, and potential impacts on habitat are described below.

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

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) —NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, because there are limited empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals ( e.g., Kastak et al., 2008), largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) —A temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

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

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis ) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and table 5 in NMFS (2018).

Pile installation for this project includes impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and removal. Vibratory and impact pile driving would not occur simultaneously but both methods could be used on the same day. There would be pauses in the activities producing impulsive and non-impulsive sounds each day. Given these pauses and the fact that many marine mammals are likely moving through the project areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

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

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within exposures of an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012, Southall et al., 2021), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. For a review of the studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound, see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez et al., 2016; and Southall et al., 2021 reviews.

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

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

WSDOTs proposed construction activities could have localized temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels associated with this project are of short duration but may adversely affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey within the vicinity of the project (see discussion below). Elevated noise levels from impact and vibratory pile driving or removal would ensonify the project area where fish and marine mammals occur, which could affect foraging success.

In-water pile driving and removal would also cause short term effects on water quality, which includes increase in turbidity. WSDOT would employ standard construction best management practices and comply with state water quality standards during all planned activities, thus reducing any impacts to water quality. Due to the nature and duration of proposed effects, combined with both measure described above, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable.

Pile driving and removal may temporarily increase turbidity due to increases in suspended sediment. However, possible increases in turbidity would temporary, restricted to the localized construction area, and minimal. WSDOT must also comply with state water quality standards, which would limit the extent of increased turbidity to the immediate project area. Generally, changes in turbidity is restricted to a localized radius of 25-feet around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). Cetaceans and pinnipeds are not expected to be within a radius that would have localized increases in turbidity, but if they did occur, they would likely be transiting through the area and could avoid the affected area. Therefore, the effects of turbidity to on marine mammal habitat is expected to be discountable. Lastly, pile driving and removal would not obstruct the migration or movement of marine mammals.

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small and provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes compared to the available habitat in Puget Sound. The area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities. The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is a small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the area. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct long-term movements or migration of marine mammals.

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

Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton, other marine mammals). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey other than other marine mammals (which have been discussed earlier).

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

Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation ( e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish; several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs ( e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Popper et al., 2016).

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

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

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

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

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

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 behavioral reactions and TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise from impact and vibratory pile driving and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures ( i.e., shutdown zones at the Level A harassment area) discussed in detail below in the Proposed Mitigation section, Level A harassment is neither anticipated 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, 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 root-mean-squared 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. For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals exposed above received levels of 90 dB re 20 μPa (rms) will be behaviorally harassed, and other pinnipeds will be harassed when exposed above 100 dB re 20 μPa (rms). 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 (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

WSDOTs proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa, respectively, are applicable.

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

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

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.

The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected by sound generated from the impact and vibratory pile driving components of this project.

In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles used in the proposed project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from previous pile driving at WSDOTs Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Project (vibratory removal of 12-inch H-piles), Port Townsend Ferry Terminal Project (vibratory installation and/or removal of 24 and 30-inch steel piles), Phase 2 of Colman Dock construction for the Seattle Multimodal Project (impact installation of 24-inch steel piles), and the Ebey Slough Bridge Replacement Project (Vibratory installation of 72-inch steel piles). Each of the projects listed above occurred within the Puget Sound and provided the most suitable source levels due to similar physical habitat characteristics, pile sizes, and pile driving or removal methods (Table 5).

Source levels from the Bainbridge Terminal Ferry Project and the Ebey Slough Bridge Replacement Project were used as proxies for the vibratory installation of 78-inch steel pipe piles and the vibratory removal of 14-inch steel H-piles for the proposed project because source levels for identical pile sizes were unavailable. Results from the vibratory installation of 72-inch piles at the Ebey Slough Bridge Replacement Project showed that the unweighted RMS SPL source levels was 170 dB re 1 µPa at 15 m, therefore it was assumed that source levels for 78-inch piles would be 174 dB re 1 µPa at 10 m. The source levels for 14-inch H-piles was assumed to be equivalent to the vibratory removal of 12-inch H-piles at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal where the unweighted RMS SPL source level was 153 dB re 1 µPa at 10 m (WSDOT 2023). Bubble curtains would be employed for impact installation of 24-inch steel piles but zero dB of effective attenuation is assumed because a bubble curtain was used at Phase 2 of Colman Dock construction for the Seattle Multimodal Project, thus source levels would be the same.

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

The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the WSDOTs proposed activities in the absence of specific modelling. The estimated Level B harassment zones for the WSDOTs proposed activities are shown in Tables 6 and 7.

The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional user spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile installation and removal, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool ( e.g., number of piles per day, during and/or strikes per pile) are presented in table 1, and the resulting estimated isopleths and ensonified areas are reported in tables 6 and 7.

Background

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

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 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 such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, 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 Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the DATES section of the notice of issuance of the initial IHA, provided all of the following conditions are met:

1. 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 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).

2. The request for renewal must include the following:

• 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., reduced effort) 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).

• 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.

An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals.

On July 27, 2022, NMFS issued an IHA (hereafter, referred to as the 2022 IHA) to Vineyard Northeast to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore from Massachusetts to New Jersey, in the Lease Areas and potential OECC routes to landfall locations, effective from July 27, 2022, through July 26, 2023 (87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022). On April 23, 2023, NMFS received a request from Vineyard Northeast to issue an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to continued marine site characterization surveys offshore from Massachusetts to New Jersey, in the BOEM Lease Areas and potential OECC routes. Although the IHA renewal requirements were otherwise satisfied, NMFS determined that the availability of updated marine mammal density data (Roberts et al., 2023), upon which the take estimates were based, for all species in the Project Area warranted updated analysis and, therefore, the issuance of a new IHA (hereafter, referred to as the 2023 IHA) instead of a renewal IHA, as described in the Federal Register notice for the proposed 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023). The 2023 IHA, i.e., the initial IHA was issued to Vineyard Northeast with effective dates of July 27, 2023 through July 26, 2024 (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023).

On April 29, 2024, NMFS received a request from Vineyard Northeast for the renewal of the 2023 IHA. Due to unanticipated delays, Vineyard Northeast will not be able to complete the surveys before the expiration date of the 2023 IHA. The activities for which incidental take was requested consisted of a subset of the identical activities associated with the 2023 IHA. As required, Vineyard Northeast also provided a preliminary monitoring report, which demonstrated that they implemented the required marine mammal mitigation and monitoring and did not exceed the levels of take authorized under the 2023 IHA. These monitoring results are available to the public on our website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. The notice of the proposed renewal IHA was published for public comment on June 18, 2024 (89 FR 51501).

Vineyard Northeast's 2023 IHA authorized take of marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys, including high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys, offshore from Massachusetts to southern New Jersey, specifically within the Lease Areas and along potential submarine OECCs. The purpose of these surveys are to obtain an assessment of seabed (geophysical, geotechnical, and geohazard), ecological, and archeological conditions within the footprint of the planned offshore wind facility development area. Surveys are also conducted to inform and support engineering design and to map unexploded ordnance. While actively surveying, the vessel operates at a maximum speed of 4 knots (4.6 miles per hour (mph) or 7.4 kilometers per hour (km/h)). Vineyard Northeast's 2023 survey plan included 37,360 km of track line over 467 planned survey days. However Vineyard Northeast actually completed only 860 km of track line over 11 survey days prior to the request for renewal, representing approximately 2 percent of the total planned survey effort.

Under the renewal IHA, Vineyard Northeast plans to continue to conduct survey activities over the remaining approximately 36,500 km of track line that was not completed in 2023. These surveys will be conducted over up to approximately 456 survey days using a maximum of four vessels operating concurrently within the Lease Areas and OECCs. A “survey day” is defined as a 24-hour (hr) activity period in which active HRG acoustic sources are used. This schedule is inclusive of any inclement weather downtime and crew transfers. The number of survey days is calculated as the number of days needed to reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives assuming any single vessel covers, on average, 80 km (49.7 miles) of survey track line per 24 hours of operations.

The potential impacts of Vineyard Northeast's planned activities on marine mammals involve potential acoustic stressors and are unchanged from the impacts described in the Federal Register notice for the proposed 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023), which relies upon information in the notice of the proposed 2022 IHA (87 FR 30872, May 20, 2022). Underwater sound, resulting from particular components of Vineyard Northeast's HRG survey activities, has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals, in the form of Level B harassment only, in the specified geographic region.

This renewal IHA is for the remainder of work that will not be completed by the expiration date of the 2023 IHA. The renewal IHA authorizes incidental take, by Level B harassment, only of 19 species (comprising 20 stocks) of marine mammals for a subset of marine site characterization survey activities to be completed in 1 year, in the same area, using survey methods identical to those conducted under the 2023 IHA. Neither Vineyard Northeast nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. Take by Level A harassment (injury) is unlikely, even absent mitigation, based on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned for use. Therefore, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and the affected stocks also remain the same. All mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures would remain exactly as described in the Federal Register notice for the issued 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023) and the notice of the proposed 2022 IHA (87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022).

A detailed description of the marine site characterization survey activities for which incidental take is authorized here may be found in the Federal Register notice of the proposed 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023), which relies upon information in the notice of the proposed 2022 IHA (87 FR 30872, May 20, 2022). The specific geographic region and specified activities, including the types of survey equipment and number of survey vessels planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices, with the exception of the reduction in the size of the survey area since a small subset of the survey work planned under the 2022 IHA was completed. The renewal would be effective for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of expiration of the initial IHA.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to Vineyard Northeast was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2024 (89 FR 51501). That notice either described, or referenced descriptions of, Vineyard Northeast's survey activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, estimated amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures.

During the 15-day public comment period, NMFS received 4 public comment letters from three individuals and one from a non-governmental organization (NGO), Clean Ocean Action (COA). NMFS has reviewed all public comments received on the Vineyard Northeast HRG renewal IHA. All relevant, substantive comments, and NMFS' responses, are provided below. Comments indicating general support for or opposition to offshore wind construction or impacts to other non-marine mammal species, except inasmuch as they may be relevant to impacts to marine mammal prey, are not relevant to the proposed action and therefore were not considered and are not addressed here. The comments and recommendations are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. Please see the comment submissions for full details regarding the recommendations and supporting rationale.

Comment 1: A commenter recommended that NMFS increase the size of all pre-start clearance, separation, and shutdown zones to 500 meters (m) for all ESA-listed baleen whales.

Response: NMFS does not concur with this recommendation, and does not adopt it. The NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) 2021 Offshore Wind Site Assessment Survey Programmatic ESA consultation (see 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 ) determined that a 500-m shutdown zone for North Atlantic right whales or unidentified large whales and a 100-m shutdown zone for all other ESA-listed whales is sufficient to minimize exposure to noise from HRG acoustic sources that could be disturbing. Accordingly, NMFS has adopted this shutdown zone size for all baleen whale species, other than the North Atlantic right whale. The commenter does not provide additional scientific information for NMFS to consider to support the recommendation to expand the shutdown zone for baleen whales. Given that these surveys are relatively low impact, NMFS has determined that an increase in the size of the shutdown zone for ESA-listed baleen whales (excluding North Atlantic right whales) during HRG surveys is not warranted, and the commenter provides no evidence to the contrary.

Comment 2: Several commenters expressed general concern for North Atlantic right whales and impacts from the proposed survey activities, and specifically concern that the proposed renewal IHA and its associated specified activities would lead to mortality (death) of marine mammals.

Response: NMFS appreciates the commenters' general concern for North Atlantic right whales. NMFS emphasizes that there is no credible scientific evidence available suggesting that mortality and/or serious injury or Level A harassment is a potential outcome of the planned survey activity. NMFS notes there have never been reports of any serious injuries or mortalities of any marine mammal associated with site characterization surveys. The best available science indicates that Level B harassment, or disruption of behavioral patterns, may occur as a result of Vineyard Northeast's specified activities. We also refer to the GARFO 2021 Programmatic Consultation, which finds that these survey activities are in general not likely to adversely affect marine mammal species listed under the ESA ( i.e., GARFO's analysis conducted pursuant to the ESA finds that marine mammals are not likely to be taken at all (as that term is defined under the ESA), much less be taken by serious injury or mortality). That document is found at: 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. Additionally, NMFS cannot authorize mortality or serious injury via an IHA, and such taking is prohibited under Condition 3(c) of the IHA and may result in modification, suspension, or revocation of the IHA. The impacts of Level B harassment ( i.e., behavioral disturbance) are expected to have a negligible impact on the North Atlantic right whale population as well as other potentially impacted marine mammal populations. NMFS has made the required findings based on the best scientific information available and has included mitigation measures to effect the least practicable adverse impact on North Atlantic right whales and other potentially impacted marine mammals.

Comment 3: A commenter claims that NMFS should be required to conduct further NEPA analysis for the project, considering the cumulative effects of the proposed IHA relative to other authorized takes in the area and adjust permitted activities accordingly. The commenter further indicated that NMFS does not justify why extraordinary circumstances do not apply and indicates that lack of this justification warrants NEPA analysis further than a Categorical Exclusion.

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

The relevant NOAA CE associated with issuance of incidental take authorizations is CE B4, “Issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for the incidental, but not intentional, take by harassment of marine mammals during specified activities and for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated.” This action falls within CE B4. In determining whether a CE is appropriate for a given incidental take authorization, NMFS considers the applicant's specified activity and the potential extent and magnitude of takes of marine mammals associated with that activity along with the extraordinary circumstances listed in the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A and summarized above.

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

The evaluation of whether extraordinary circumstances (if present) have the potential for significant environmental effects is limited to the decision NMFS is responsible for, which is issuance of the incidental take authorization. While there may be environmental effects associated with the underlying action, potential effects of NMFS' action are limited to those that would occur due to the authorization of incidental take of marine mammals. NMFS prepared numerous EAs analyzing the environmental impacts of the categories of activities encompassed by CE B4 which resulted in Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSIs) and, in particular, numerous EAs prepared in support of issuance of IHAs related to similar survey actions are part of NMFS' administrative record supporting CE B4. These EAs demonstrate the issuance of a given IHA does not affect other aspects of the human environment because the action only affects the marine mammals that are the subject of the IHA. These EAs also addressed factors in 40 CFR 1508.27 regarding the potential for significant impacts and demonstrate the issuance of IHA for the categories of activities encompassed by CE B4 do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

Specifically for this action, NMFS plans to rely upon the previously issued CE for the 2023 IHA. NMFS independently evaluated the use of the CE for issuance of Vineyard Northeast's 2023 IHA, which included consideration of extraordinary circumstances. As part of that analysis, NMFS considered whether the 2023 IHA issuance would result in cumulative impacts that could be significant. The issuance of the 2023 IHA to Vineyard Northeast is expected to result in minor, short-term behavioral effects on marine mammal species due to exposure to underwater sound from site characterization survey activities, and this determination remains relevant for the current IHA. Behavioral disturbance is possible to occur intermittently in the vicinity of Vineyard Northeast's survey area during the 1-year timeframe. Level B harassment will be reduced through use of mitigation measures described herein. Additionally, as discussed elsewhere, NMFS has determined that Vineyard Northeast's activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021), which concluded surveys such as those planned by Vineyard Northeast are not likely to adversely affect endangered listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of this renewal IHA will result in no more than negligible (as that term is defined by the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A) adverse effects on species protected by the ESA and the MMPA.

Comment 4: A commenter suggested that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) would be more appropriate than an IHA for the proposed survey activities as the survey activities have spanned more than one year and “it is not clear how long the proposed activities would span given past delays.”

Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter that an LOA would be more appropriate for the planned survey activities than an IHA. All IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or a renewal, are valid for a period of not more than 1 year. Vineyard Northeast's request for the initial IHA indicated a project duration of 1 year. As delays may be encountered, applicants may apply for a renewal IHA if the work under the initial IHA is not able to be completed within the effective period of the authorization. In order to qualify for a renewal IHA, the proposed renewal must consist of up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as were covered by the initial IHA or a subset of the activities covered by the initial IHA. Vineyard Northeast's request falls under the latter requirements and the necessary preliminary monitoring data collected under the initial IHA were provided. Therefore, Vineyard Northeast's request is appropriate for a renewal IHA.

Regarding clarification on authorizations, as described on our website, IHAs are 1-year authorizations and Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) are 5-year regulations that allow for the issuance of LOA. An ITR must be used if authorization of take by mortality is necessary. However, both options are available for applicants requesting authorization of harassment only. While applicants may request a 5-year regulation for HRG survey activities, NMFS has not received any such requests to date and there is no expectation presented in the MMPA or Congressional record that activities continuing for more than 1 year must seek ITR and authorization under 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Therefore, a determination of which option to take is not dependent on any expectation regarding whether the activity will continue for more than 1 year or not.

Comment 5: Multiple commenters provided general concerns regarding recent marine mammal stranding events on the Atlantic Coast, including speculation that the strandings may be related to wind energy development-related activities. Commenters further urged NMFS to “reject Vineyard Northeast's application to renew its IHA” and postpone issuing IHAs for any wind energy development-related activities until NMFS can “definitively” determine the cause of the recent strandings.

Response: NMFS authorizes take of marine mammals incidental to construction activities and marine site characterization surveys, provided the necessary findings are made, but does not authorize the activities themselves. Therefore, while NMFS has the authority to modify, suspend, or revoke an IHA if the IHA holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed therein ( e.g., failure to comply with monitoring or reporting requirements), or if NMFS determines that (1) the authorized taking is having or is likely to have more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of affected marine mammals, or (2) the prescribed measures are likely not or are not effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, it is not within NMFS' jurisdiction to delay offshore wind development or to require activities to cease.

NMFS reiterates that there is no evidence that acoustic noise resulting from offshore wind development-related activities could potentially cause marine mammal stranding, and there is no evidence linking recent marine mammal mortalities and currently ongoing offshore wind development activities. This point has been well supported by other agencies, including BOEM and the Marine Mammal Commission (Marine Mammal Commission Newsletter, Spring 2023). In addition, a recent study (Thorne and Wiley, 2024) reviewed spatiotemporal patterns of strandings, mortalities, and serious injuries of humpback whales along the US east coast from 2016-2022 and found vessel strikes to be the major driver in the increase of humpback whale strandings, mortalities, and serious injury. Based upon the spatiotemporal analysis, no evidence was found that offshore wind development played a role in the increased number of strandings over time; for example, spatiotemporal patterns between strandings and site assessment surveys did not seem associated. In fact, the potential for vessel strike increased from 2016-2022 in association with increased container vessel traffic that overlapped with whales in new and shallow foraging areas. This potential for vessel strike also seemed to increase with the increased presence of juvenile humpback whales foraging off the Mid-Atlantic States. Under the renewal IHA, NMFS would require Vineyard Northeast to abide by vessel speed restrictions and maintain separation distances between vessels and marine mammals that would minimize the risk of any potential vessel strikes.

There is an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for humpback whales along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida, which includes animals stranded since 2016. Partial or full necropsy examinations were conducted on approximately half of the whales. Necropsies were not conducted on other carcasses because they were too decomposed, not brought to land, or stranded on protected lands ( e.g., national and state parks) where responders had limited or no access to the carcasses. Of the roughly 90 whales examined, about 40 percent had evidence of human interaction ( i.e., vessel strike or entanglement). The remaining 50 necropsied whales either had an undetermined cause of death due to a limited examination or decomposition of the carcass, or had other causes of death ( e.g., parasite-caused organ damage and starvation). Ongoing UMEs are also occurring for North Atlantic right whales and minke whales, both since 2017. NMFS will continue to gather data to help us determine the cause of death for these stranded whales. Vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear continue to be the greatest human threats to large whales.

Comment 6: A commenter claims that issuance of the renewal IHA violates the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as the planned survey activities would result in “impacts on the ecology” of the area.

Response: NMFS disagrees with commenters that the renewal IHA violates the ESA. Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate, to ensure that the actions they fund, permit, authorize, or otherwise carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats. NMFS has determined that Vineyard Northeast's planned survey activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in NMFS GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021). This consultation found that these survey activities are in general not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species listed or critical habitat.

No changes were made from the proposed renewal IHA to the final renewal IHA.

A description of the marine mammals in the proposed survey area may be found in the Federal Register notice for the proposed 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023), which relies upon information in the notice of the proposed 2022 IHA (87 FR 30872, May 20, 2022). After the 2023 IHA was issued, NMFS released its draft 2023 stock assessment reports (SARs). NMFS has reviewed the draft 2023 SARs, which included updates to certain stock abundance estimates, information on relevant unusual mortality events (UME), and other scientific literature. The draft 2023 SAR updated the population estimate (N best ) of North Atlantic right whales from 338 to 340 and annual mortality and serious injury from 31.2 to 27.2. The updated population estimate in the draft 2023 SAR is based upon sighting history through December 2021 (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024). Total annual average observed North Atlantic right whale mortality during the period 2017-2021 was 7.1 animals and annual average observed fishery mortality was 4.6 animals, however, estimates of 27.2 total mortality and 17.6 fishery mortality account for undetected mortality and serious injury (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024). In October 2023, NMFS released a technical report identifying that the North Atlantic right whale population size based on sighting history through 2022 was 356 whales, with a 95 percent credible interval ranging from 346 to 363 (Linden, 2023). NMFS conservatively relies in this circumstance on the lower SAR abundance estimate. NMFS has determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or any other pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the 2023 and 2022 IHAs.

On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations to further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered North Atlantic right whales from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing UME (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2022). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and become effective during the effective period of this renewal 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.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which incidental take is authorized here may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the 2022 IHA (87 FR 30872, May 20, 2022), which is relied upon in the notice for the proposed 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the 2023 IHA, recent draft SARs, information on relevant UMEs, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHA for the 2022 IHA (87 FR 30872, May 20, 2022; 87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022) and summarized in the notices of the proposed and final IHA for the 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023; 88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023). The methods of estimating take are identical to those used in the 2022 IHA and 2023 IHA (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023). Specifically, the source levels, stocks taken, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the 2022 IHA and 2023 IHA. In 2023, Vineyard Northeast updated the marine mammal densities based on new information (Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2023), available online at: https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/. We refer the reader to table 8 in Vineyard Northeast's 2023 IHA request for the specific density values used in the analysis. The IHA request is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-vineyard-northeast-llcs-marine-site-characterization-survey. The marine mammal density/occurrence data applicable to this renewal authorization remains unchanged from the 2023 IHA. The number of takes authorized are a subset of the initial authorized takes that better represent the amount of the remaining activity Vineyard Northeast has left to complete. These estimated takes, which reflect the remaining survey days, are indicated below in table 1.

These required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are identical to those included in the Federal Register notices announcing the issuance of the 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023) and the 2022 IHA (87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022). In addition, the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in those documents as well as the notice of the proposed IHAs for 2022 (87 FR 30872, May 20, 2022) and 2023 (88 FR 40212, August 1, 2023) remains accurate. NMFS will require the following measures for this renewal IHA:

Establishment of Shutdown Zones —Marine mammal shutdown zones must be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by NMFS-approved PSOs during HRG surveys as follows:

• 500-m shutdown zone for North Atlantic right whales during use of specified acoustic sources (impulsive: sparkers and boomers; non-impulsive: non-parametric sub-bottom profilers); and

• 100-m shutdown zone for all other marine mammals (excluding North Atlantic right whales) during operation of the sparker and boomer. The only exception for this is for pinnipeds (seals) and small delphinids ( i.e., those from the genera Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella or Tursiops ).

If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the shutdown zones during the HRG survey, the vessel operator will adhere to the shutdown procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals. During use of acoustic sources with the potential to result in marine mammal harassment (sparkers, boomers, and non-parametric sub-bottom profilers; i.e., anytime the acoustic source is active, including ramp-up), occurrences of marine mammals outside the shutdown zones must be communicated to the vessel operator to prepare for potential shutdown of the acoustic source.

Visual Monitoring —Monitoring must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs with minimum qualifications described in the Federal Register notices for the 2023 Proposed and Final IHAs (88 FR 40212, June 21, 2023; 88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023). Vineyard Northeast must have one PSO on duty during the day and a minimum of two PSOs must be on duty and conducting visual observations when HRG equipment is in use at night. Visual monitoring must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG equipment and continue until 30 minutes after use of the acoustic source. PSOs must establish and monitor the applicable clearance zones, shutdown zones, and vessel separation distances as described in the 2022 IHA (87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022). PSOs must coordinate to ensure 360-degree visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts, and must conduct observations while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs are required to estimate distances to observed marine mammals. It is the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate.

Pre-Start Clearance —Marine mammal clearance zones must be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by NMFS-approved PSOs prior to use of boomers, sparkers, and non-parametric sub-bottom profilers as follows:

• 500-m clearance zone for all ESA-listed species; and

• 100-m clearance zone for all other marine mammals.

Prior to initiating HRG survey activities, Vineyard Northeast must implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period. The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up where the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up to allow the PSOs to monitor the clearance zones for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up. Prior to ramp-up beginning, Vineyard Northeast must receive confirmation from the PSO that the clearance zones are clear prior to preceding. 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 zones.

During this 30-minute period, the entire clearance zone must be visible. The exception to this would be in situations where ramp-up must occur during periods of poor visibility (inclusive of nighttime) as long as appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in 30 minutes prior to the beginning of ramp-up.

If a marine mammal is observed within the relevant clearance zones during the pre-start clearance period, initiation of HRG survey equipment must not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the respective clearance zone, or, until an additional period has elapsed with no further sighting ( i.e., minimum 15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals; 30 minutes for all other species). The pre-start clearance requirement includes small delphinids. PSOs must also continue to monitor the zone for 30 minutes after survey equipment is shut down or survey activity has concluded.

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment —When technically feasible, a ramp-up procedure must be used for geophysical survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start of survey activities. The ramp-up procedure must be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing them to detect the presence of the survey and vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment operation at full power. Ramp-up of the survey equipment must not begin until the relevant shutdown zones have been cleared by the PSOs, as described above. HRG equipment operators must ramp up acoustic sources to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power. If any marine mammals are detected within the shutdown zones prior to or during ramp-up, the HRG equipment must be shut down (as described below).

Shutdown Procedures— If an HRG source is active and a marine mammal is observed within or entering a relevant shutdown zone (as described above), an immediate shutdown of the HRG survey equipment is required. When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute resolved only following deactivation. Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable shutdown zone. The vessel operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the HRG source(s) to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. Subsequent restart of the HRG equipment may only occur after the marine mammal has been observed exiting the relevant shutdown zone, or, until an additional period has elapsed with no further sighting of the animal within the relevant shutdown zone.

Upon implementation of shutdown, the HRG source may be reactivated after the marine mammal that triggered the shutdown has been observed exiting the applicable shutdown zone or, following a clearance period of 15 minutes for small odontocetes ( i.e., harbor porpoise) and 30 minutes for all other species with no further observation of the marine mammal(s) within the relevant shutdown zone. If the HRG equipment is shut down for brief periods ( i.e., less than 30 minutes) for reasons other than mitigation ( e.g., mechanical or electronic failure) the equipment may be reactivated as soon as is practicable at full operational level, without 30 minutes of pre-clearance, only if PSOs have maintained constant visual observation during the shutdown and no visual detections of marine mammals occurred within the applicable shutdown zones during that time. For a shutdown of 30 minutes or longer, or if visual observation was not continued diligently during the pause, pre-clearance observation is required, as described above.

The shutdown requirement is waived for pinnipeds (seals) and certain genera of small delphinids ( i.e., Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or Tursiops ) under certain circumstances. If a delphinid(s) from these genera is visually detected within the shutdown zone, shutdown would not be 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), PSOs must use best professional judgment in making the decision to call for a shutdown.

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 area encompassing the Level B harassment isopleth (178 m), shutdown must occur.

Vessel Strike Avoidance —Vineyard Northeast must comply with vessel strike avoidance measures as summarized in the Federal Register notice for the 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023). For a detailed description of vessel strike avoidance measures, please see the Federal Register notice for the 2022 IHA (87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022). This includes speed restrictions (10 knots or less) when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are spotted near a vessel; species-specific vessel separation distances; appropriate vessel actions when a marine mammal is sighted ( e.g., avoid excessive speed, remain parallel to animal's course, etc. ); and monitoring of the NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale reporting system and WhaleAlert daily.

Throughout all phases of the survey activities, Vineyard Northeast must monitor NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the establishment of a dynamic management area (DMA). If NMFS establishes a DMA in the surrounding area, including the project area or export cable routes being surveyed, Vineyard Northeast is required to abide by the 10-knot speed restriction.

Training —Project-specific training is required for all vessel crew prior to the start of survey activities.

Reporting —PSOs must record specific information as described in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023). Within 90 days after completion of survey activities, Vineyard Northeast must provide NMFS with a monitoring report, which must include summaries of recorded takes and estimates of the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.

In the event of a ship strike or discovery of an injured or dead marine mammal, Vineyard Northeast must report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov ) and to the NMFS Greater Atlantic Stranding Hotline (866-755-6622) as soon as feasible. The incident must also be reported to the NMFS GARFO ( nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov ). The report must include the information listed in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2022 IHA (87 FR 52913, August 30, 2022).

Vineyard Northeast's HRG survey activities are a subset but otherwise unchanged from those analyzed in support of the 2023 IHA. The effects of the activity, taking into consideration the required mitigation and related monitoring measures, remain unchanged from those evaluated in support of the 2023 IHA. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be short-term Level B harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging, reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007). In addition to being temporary, the maximum harassment zone around a survey vessel is 178 m from use of the Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer. Although this distance is assumed for all survey activity evaluated here and in estimating authorized take numbers, in reality, much of the survey activity would involve use of acoustic sources with a reduced acoustic harassment zone (4 m for the Edge Tech Chirp 216 or 141 m for the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000), producing expected effects of particularly low severity. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of the animals in the area and the available habitat.

The survey area overlaps or is in close proximity to feeding biologically important areas (BIA) for North Atlantic right whales (Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay BIA, February-April/Great South Channel and Georges Bank Shelf Break BIA, April-June), humpback whales (March-December), fin whales (year-round/March-October), sei whales (May-November), and minke whales (March-November), as well as overlaps the migratory BIA for North Atlantic right whales (November 1-April 30) (LaBrecque et al., 2015). Most of these feeding BIAs are extensive and sufficiently large ( e.g., 3,149 km 2 and 12,247 km 2 for North Atlantic right whales; 47,701 km 2 for humpback whales; 18,015 km 2 and 2,933 km 2 for fin whales; 56,609 km 2 for sei whales; 54,341 for minke whales), and the acoustic footprint of the proposed survey is sufficiently small that feeding opportunities for these species would not be reduced appreciably. In addition, the survey area also overlaps with the area south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, primarily along the western side of Nantucket Shoals, which has been identified as year-round core North Atlantic right whale foraging habitat (Leiter et al., 2017; O'Brien et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; Van Parijs et al., 2023). As prey species are mobile and broadly distributed throughout the survey area, marine mammals that are 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, thus we do not expect biologically significant impacts to feeding behavior. Due to the temporary nature of the disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, and required mitigation measures, 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. The impacts of these lower severity exposures are not expected to accrue to a degree that the fitness of any individuals would be impacted and, therefore, no impacts on the annual rates of recruitment or survival would result.

As previously discussed in the 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023), impacts from the survey are expected to be localized to the specific area of activity and only during periods when Vineyard Northeast's acoustic sources are active. There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area.

As noted for the 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023), the survey area overlaps a migratory corridor BIA and migratory route seasonal management areas (SMAs) (Port of New Jersey/New York and Block Island) for North Atlantic right whales. As the survey activities would be temporary and the spatial acoustic footprint produced by the survey would be very small relative to the spatial extent of the available migratory habitat in the BIA (269,448 km 2 ), NMFS does not expect North Atlantic right whale migration to be impacted by the survey. Required vessel strike avoidance measures would also decrease risk of ship strike during migration; no ship strike is expected to occur during Vineyard Northeast's activities. Vineyard Northeast would be required to comply with seasonal speed restrictions of these SMAs, and in any DMA, should NMFS establish one (or more) in the proposed survey area. The 2022 IHA included the Cape Cod Bay SMA in the survey area, however, in 2023 the survey area was reduced and no longer overlapped with this SMA. The survey area for this renewal IHA also does not include the Cape Cod Bay SMA.

Although take by Level B harassment of North Atlantic right whales has been authorized by NMFS, we anticipate a very low level of harassment, should it occur, because Vineyard Northeast is required to maintain a shutdown zone of 500 m if a North Atlantic right whale is observed. The authorized takes account for any missed animals wherein the survey equipment is not shut down immediately. As shutdown would be called for immediately upon detection (if the whale is within 500 m), it is likely the exposure time would be very limited and received levels would not be much above the harassment threshold. Further, the 500-m shutdown zone for right whales is conservative, considering the distance to the Level B harassment isopleth for the most impactful acoustic source ( i.e., Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer—which may not be used on all survey days) is estimated to be 178 m, and thereby minimizes the potential for behavioral harassment of this species. As noted previously, Level A harassment is not expected due to the small permanent threshold shift zones associated with HRG equipment types planned for use. NMFS does not anticipate North Atlantic right whale takes that would result from Vineyard Northeast's activities would impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes that occur would not result in population level impacts.

We also note that our findings for other species with active UMEs that were previously described for the 2023 IHA (88 FR 50117, August 1, 2023) remain applicable to this project. In addition, our analysis of survey effects on species with BIAs that overlap with the survey area remains unchanged. Therefore, in conclusion, there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.

NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the 2023 IHA. This includes consideration of the slight increase in estimated abundance of six stocks and slight decrease in estimated abundance of three stocks. Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures would effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes would have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Vineyard Northeast's activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action; and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

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

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 Office of Protected Resources consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

NMFS has authorized the incidental take of five species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, including the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, blue, and sperm whale, and has determined that this activity falls within the scope of activities analyzed in NMFS GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021).

NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to Vineyard Northeast for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting marine site characterization surveys offshore from Massachusetts to New Jersey in the BOEM Lease Areas OCS-A 0522 and OCS-A 0544 and associated OECC routes, from July 27, 2024, through July 26, 2025.

This is a request for extension and revision of an existing information collection.

The National Weather Service (NWS) established the StormReady program in 1999 and the TsunamiReady program in 2002 to help communities, counties, Indian nations, universities and colleges, military bases, government sites, commercial enterprises and other groups reduce the potential for weather-related and tsunami hazards through advanced planning, education and awareness. The program encourages communities to take a new, proactive approach to improving local hazardous weather operations by providing emergency managers with clear-cut guidelines on how to improve their hazardous weather operations. By participating in this program, local agencies earn recognition for their jurisdiction by meeting guidelines established by the NWS in partnership with federal, state, and local emergency management professionals. Information and details on the StormReady and TsunamiReady programs are located at https://www.weather.gov/stormready/ and https://www.weather.gov/tsunamiready/.

A Supporter is an organization, business, facility, or local government entity actively engaged in weather safety and preparedness that is unable to meet all the requirements of the full StormReady or TsunamiReady program. Sites may be eligible based on the bylaws of the local NWS StormReady Advisory Board and endorsement of local emergency management. A local StormReady Advisory Board has final approval for Supporter designation.

StormReady/TsunamiReady are voluntary programs that provide guidance and incentive to officials interested in improving their hazardous weather operations. The government will use the information collected by the StormReady/TsunamiReady application to determine whether a community has met all of the guidelines to receive StormReady/TsunamiReady recognition.

NOAA requests revision to the title of the collection to include The Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador TM program which is being added as a new information collection to this control number. The Weather-Ready Nation (WRN) Ambassador TM is a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), designed to strengthen partnerships with external organizations toward building community resilience in the face of increasing vulnerability to extreme weather, climate, and water events. Organizations can apply for Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador TM recognition. This program recognizes NOAA partners who are improving the nation's readiness, responsiveness, and overall resilience against extreme weather, water, and climate events. As a Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador, partners commit to working with NOAA and other Ambassadors to strengthen national resilience against extreme weather.

The information is collected via a digital or paper form. The forms are accessible on the internet in PDF. Requirements are verified by NWS staff via an in person or virtual site visit.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0419.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular [Revision and extension of a current information collection].

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 700 per year.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour: StormReady and TsunamiReady Application, StormReady Supporter Application Form, and TsunamiReady Supporter Application Form. 15 minutes: Weather-Ready Ambassador Application Form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,275 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: None.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: None.

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

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

This is a request for revision and extension of an approved information collection.

As specified in the Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (and reauthorized in 2007), NMFS is required to enumerate the economic impacts of the policies it implements on fishing participants and coastal communities. The objective of the survey is to collect information on marine (saltwater) recreational fishing trip expenditures and durable good expenditures made by marine recreational anglers. The survey has two parts which may be conducted either jointly during the same calendar year or in separate years. The trip expenditure portion will ask anglers about the expenses incurred on their most recent marine recreational fishing trip. The durable goods portion will ask anglers about their purchases of durable goods such as fishing gear, boats, vehicles, and second homes over a 12 month period. The expenditure data collected in this regular survey is widely used by both federal, state, and non-governmental organizations for research and analysis regarding the economic importance and contributions of marine recreational fishing to each coastal state and nationwide. The program office would like to make minor changes to a few of the questions on the survey. These changes will not affect the integrity or overall purpose of said survey. The NMFS Office of Science and Technology conducts the survey and publishes the results in both technical reports and the annual `Fisheries Economics of the U.S.' report series.

The trip expenditure portion of the survey may be conducted using in-person interviews at fishing sites or using email or mail invitations to an online web survey (with a paper version of the survey for anglers without internet access). The durable goods expenditure portion will use email or mail invitations to an online web survey (with a paper version of the survey for anglers without internet access).

OMB Control Number: 0648-0693.

Form Number(s): None.

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

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 86,650: 13,350 for durable goods expenditure survey; 73,300 for trip expenditure survey.

Estimated Time per Response: Durable goods expenditure survey, 15 minutes; trip expenditure survey 5 minutes (intercept); 8 minutes (web); 15 minutes (Hawaii trip/durable combination).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,289

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in record keeping and reporting costs.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (and reauthorized in 2007).

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

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

The endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ).

Approximately 16-kilometers (km) upstream of the confluence with the Pacific Ocean, the applicant operates the Freeman Diversion on the lower Santa Clara River to redirect a maximum of 10.62 m 3 per second of water from the river to spreading basins for groundwater recharge or directly to the neighboring farming community on the Oxnard Plain. Spanning the entire 366-m river channel, the 7.6-m tall diversion dam presents an obstacle to endangered steelhead that must migrate to and from their historical spawning and rearing habitats in the upper watershed and the estuary and ocean to complete their life cycle. To improve passage of endangered steelhead and renovate and expand the existing headworks of the Freeman Diversion, the applicant's April 9, 2024 application proposes: (1) renovating the existing Denil fish ladder and diversion headworks; (2) resurfacing the diversion's grade-control structure; (3) operating the fish-passage, water diversion, and sediment-management systems; (4) capturing and relocating steelhead; (5) expanding the off-channel water-conveyance infrastructure and diversion capacity to 21.24 m 3 per second; (6) maintaining facilities and property; (7) developing conservation and monitoring programs; (8) restoring and enhancing habitat; and (9) implementing adaptive-management measures. The applicant seeks a 50-year permit term to exempt incidental take of endangered steelhead associated with the foregoing activities, which are described further in the applicant's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Additionally, the HCP specifies the steps that the applicant will undertake to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of the proposed activities and related incidental take on endangered steelhead.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation prohibit the take of the Endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of Steelhead (endangered steelhead). The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. However, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA requires an applicant for an incidental take permit to submit an HCP that specifies the steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the species. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found at 50 CFR 222.307.

We are withdrawing the NOI published in the Federal Register on November 11, 2013 (78 FR 67336) to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to analyze the impacts on the human environment resulting from the potential for issuing a HCP on a previous permit application from the applicant. We are taking this action because the proposed action for the previous permit application used as the basis for preparing the NOI has changed, and the original analysis is outdated. Additional details about the range of alternatives considered in this action are included in the November 11, 2013 NOI and are not repeated here. We solicited public input on the scope of the analysis through a public comment on the NOI from November 11, 2013 until January 13, 2014.

We will revisit and fulfill all necessary NEPA obligations once the revised permit application has been determined to meet issuance criteria.

We will evaluate the applicant's April 9, 2024 permit application, including the HCP, related documents, and public comments received, to determine whether the application meets the criteria for issuing a permit under 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B). In addition, we will evaluate whether issuing a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to the applicant would comply with section 7 of the ESA through the conduct of an intra-agency section 7 consultation. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be made until after the end of the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the Federal Register .

The Record of Decision reflects the Air Force decision to beddown 12 KC-46A Primary Aerospace Vehicles Aurthorized (PAA) at March Air Reserve Base in Riverside County, California.

The decision was based on matters discussed in the KC-46A Fifth Main Operating Base Beddown Final Environmental Impact Statement, contributions from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on April 19, 2024 through a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register (Volume 89, Number 77, page 28771) with a 30-day wait period that ended on May 19, 2024.

Authority: This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.10) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).

Statutory Authority and Function: NACIQI is established under section 114 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1011c). NACIQI advises the Secretary of Education with respect to:

• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part H, Title IV of the HEA, as amended;

• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations;

• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations;

• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvement in such process;

• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions; and

• Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.

The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a review of the following applications for renewals of recognition.

1. WASC Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of community and other colleges which have as a primary mission the granting of associate degrees, but which may also award certificates and other credentials, not to exceed the bachelor degree level, where the provision of such credentials is within the institution's mission and, if applicable, is authorized by their governmental authorities, and the accreditation of such programs offered via distance education and correspondence education at these colleges. This recognition also extends to the Committee on Substantive Change of the Commission, for decisions on substantive changes, and the Appeals Panel. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

2. American Veterinary Medical Association, Council on Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Provisional Accreditation”) in the United States of programs leading to professional degrees (D.V.M. or V.M.D.) in veterinary medicine. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

3. Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation throughout the United States of institutions of higher education that offer continuing education and vocational programs that confer certificates or occupational associate degrees, including those programs offered via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

4. Council on Education for Public Health. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of schools of public health and public health programs outside schools of public health, at the baccalaureate and graduate degree levels, including those offered via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

5. National Association of Schools of Dance, Commission on Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions that offer dance and dance-related programs (both degree and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

6. National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions that offer music and music related programs (both degree and non-degree-granting) including those offered via distance. This recognition also extends to the Commission on Community College Accreditation. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

7. National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions that offer theatre and theatre-related programs (both degree and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.

8. Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs. Scope of Recognition: State agency for the approval of vocational education.

9. Maryland State Board of Nursing. Scope of Recognition: State agency for the approval of nursing education.

10. New York State Board of Regents (nursing education). Scope of Recognition: State approval agency for nursing education.

To ensure sufficient time for all agency reviews, including NACIQI questions and discussion, the Department requests that the agencies limit their opening statements to 10 minutes (total for one or more statements), and that the agencies avoid extended discussions about agency representatives and their backgrounds. Following the brief opening statement, the agency's presentation should focus on the regulatory criteria, and in particular, responses to areas where the staff has recommended a finding of noncompliance or substantial compliance, or where other concerns have been raised that the agency would like to address. However, the agency should expect that questions from NACIQI members may focus on other areas.

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Dr. Nasser Paydar, will provide an update on the Administration's postsecondary education policy priorities.

The Committee will refer to the Accreditor Dashboards for accrediting agencies up for review. These dashboards will include information about post-completion earnings and cumulative loan debt.

In addition to its review of accrediting agencies and State approval agencies for Secretarial recognition, there will be time for Committee discussions regarding any of the categories within NACIQI's statutory authority in its capacity as an advisory committee.

You may register for the meeting on your computer using the link below. After you register, you will receive a confirmation email containing personalized participation links for each day of the three-day meeting no later than 8:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on August 6, 2024.

https://cvent.me/N7blbg.

Submission of requests to make an oral comment regarding a specific accrediting agency under review, or to make an oral comment or written statement regarding other issues within the scope of NACIQI's authority:

Opportunity to submit a written statement regarding a specific accrediting agency under review was solicited by a previous Federal Register notice published on May 3, 2023 ( 88 FR 27876; Document Number 2023-09362). The period for submission of such statements is now closed. Additional written statements regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review will not be accepted at this time. However, members of the public may submit written statements regarding other issues within the scope of NACIQI's authority for consideration by NACIQI in the manner described below.

Members of the public may make oral comments regarding a specific accrediting agency under review and/or other agenda topics. Oral comments may not exceed three minutes. Oral comments about an agency's recognition when a compliance report has been required by the Senior Department Official or the Secretary must relate to the criteria for recognition cited in the Senior Department Official's letter that requested the report, or in the Secretary's appeal decision, if any. Oral comments about an agency seeking expansion of scope must be directed to the agency's ability to serve as a recognized accrediting agency with respect to the kinds of institutions or programs requested to be added. Oral comments about the renewal of an agency's recognition must relate to its compliance with the criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, which are available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.

Written statements and oral comments concerning NACIQI's work outside of a specific accrediting agency under review must be limited to matters within the scope of NACIQI's authority, as outlined under Section 114 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1011c), and written comments of any kind submitted after the deadline will not be considered by the Department or provided to NACIQI for purposes of the current cycle review.

To request to make oral comments of three minutes or less during the August 6-8, 2024, meeting, please follow either Method One or Method Two below. To submit a written statement to NACIQI concerning its work outside a specific accrediting agency under review, please follow Method One.

Method One: Submit a request by email to the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox. Please do not send material directly to NACIQI members. Written statements to NACIQI concerning its work outside of a specific accrediting agency under review and requests to make oral comment must be received by July 30, 2024, and include the subject line “Oral Comment Request: (agency name),” “Oral Comment Request: (subject)” or “Written Statement: (subject).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number, of the person(s) submitting a written statement or requesting to speak. All individuals submitting an advance request in accordance with this notice will be afforded an opportunity to speak. Written statements of any kind submitted after the deadline will not be considered by the Department or provided to NACIQI for purposes of the current cycle review.

Method Two (Only available to those seeking to make oral comments): Submit a request by email on August 6, 2024, between 7:45 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. Eastern Standard Time to the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox. The email must include the subject on which the requestor wishes to comment, in addition to his or her name, title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. If you intend to make your comments by dialing into the meeting rather than using a computer, please be sure to include that information in your email request. A total of up to fifteen minutes for each agenda item will be allotted for oral commenters who register on August 6, 2024, between 7:45 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Individuals will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. If selected, each commenter may not exceed three minutes.

Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the NACIQI website https://sites.ed.gov/naciqi/archive-of-meetings/ within 90 days after the meeting. In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(b), the public may request to inspect records of the meeting at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, by emailing aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov or by calling (202) 453-7415 to schedule an appointment. Senior Department Official's (as defined in 34 CFR 602.3) decisions, pursuant to 34 CFR 602.36, associated with all NACIQI meetings can be found at the following website: https://surveys.ope.ed.gov/erecognition/#/public-documents.

Reasonable Accommodations: The dial-in information and weblink access to the meeting are accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting ( e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You also may access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Authority: Section 114 of the HEA of 1964, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1011c).

Under section 428(b) and (c) of the HEA, guaranty agencies perform certain roles in the FFEL Program pursuant to agreements with the Secretary. Section 428A of the HEA authorizes the Secretary to enter into VFAs with guaranty agencies in lieu of the agreements entered into under section 428(b) and (c) of the HEA. This authority allows the Secretary to work with guaranty agencies to develop, utilize, and evaluate alternate ways of ensuring that the responsibilities of the guaranty agencies are fulfilled in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. A VFA may provide that the guaranty agency will earn revenues and fees in a manner different than that provided under the regular guaranty agency agreements under section 428(b) and (c) of the HEA.

As part of a VFA with a guaranty agency, the Secretary may waive or modify statutory and regulatory requirements as necessary, except that the Secretary may not waive any statutory requirements related to the terms and conditions attached to student loans or to default claim amounts paid to FFEL Program lenders.

A VFA will also specify the circumstances under which it may be terminated by the Secretary in advance of any established termination date and any other provisions the Secretary believes are necessary to protect the United States from unreasonable risk of loss.

It has been 14 years since the last new FFEL Program loan was made. As the number of outstanding FFEL loans continues to steadily decline, the revenues available to guaranty agencies to fund operational budgets are also decreasing. The Secretary expects that over the next several years many guaranty agencies may struggle to continue providing stable services for borrowers, lenders, and the Department under the existing compensation structure. The continued decline of the number of outstanding FFEL loans and the loss of associated revenue means it will likely be harder for guaranty agencies to maintain the systems and staff needed to provide quality services for vulnerable borrowers, which creates an unacceptable risk of loss to the Department and Federal taxpayers.

The Secretary believes that a structured and predictable compensation model for guaranty agencies will help protect the integrity of the outstanding FFEL Program loan portfolio as the number of loans and guaranty agencies continues to decline. This model presents an opportunity for the Department and guaranty agencies to better serve borrowers by aligning financial incentives with helping borrowers avoid or exit student loan default. The model will also leverage operational procedures established during the Fresh Start period that provide borrowers efficient and direct access to more affordable IDR plans, which feature enhanced borrower benefits and will best support their long-term repayment success. Additionally, transferring more defaulted FFEL loans to the Department that are not otherwise resolved will assist borrowers and provide long-term benefits to the Department by improving the opportunities for resolution of the loan.

The Department expects that VFAs entered into will address the compensation structures, outreach activities, loan transfer schedules, and future planning for guaranty agencies.

A VFA may provide that a guaranty agency will earn revenues and fees differently than it would under agreements pursuant to section 428(b) and (c) of the HEA. The Department expects that the revised schedule of revenues and fees will be common to all VFA-participating guaranty agencies.

The Department expects that the VFAs will include a replacement for all compensation paid to guaranty agencies, with the exception of the account maintenance fee and reimbursement into the Federal fund for claims paid to lenders. The replaced compensation includes the default aversion fee, refunds of the default aversion fee, and revenues from collections on defaulted loans usually charged to borrowers in the form of fees. Instead of this revenue, guaranty agencies would receive two forms of compensation:

(1) A special account maintenance fee (SAMF). The SAMF would be calculated based on the guaranty agency's outstanding net guarantees using the same formula as the Account Maintenance Fee (AMF) as defined in section 428(h) of the HEA and 34 CFR 682.404(h). It would be paid in equal quarterly installments.

(2) A successful resolution fee (SRF). This fee would be paid when a borrower with at least one loan in default at a guaranty agency successfully consolidates all their defaulted loans at that guaranty agency into the Direct Loan program. This fee would be the lesser of a set dollar amount or a percentage of the amount of the outstanding loans being resolved. This fee would be paid quarterly.

The Secretary expects that increasing the number of defaulted loans that are quickly returned to good standing or otherwise transferred to the Department will result in financial savings for the Department and better long-term performance for borrowers. Guaranty agencies will have guarantees of minimum quarterly income through the SAMF to ensure stability in the program and strong incentives to assist defaulted borrowers quickly to earn an SRF payment.

The Department expects that, in addition to continuing their current default aversion assistance work, under a VFA, guaranty agencies will focus their efforts on borrower outreach and counseling, with a focus on options that will help borrowers return to good standing and access repayment programs and benefits that will promote successful long-term repayment on their loans. This will also include targeted outreach campaigns mutually agreed upon with the Department.

To ensure that the guaranty agency can focus its efforts on loan counseling and consolidation, under the VFA guaranty agencies will adopt a schedule for transferring defaulted loans to the Department. The oldest loans will be transferred to the Department immediately after the effective date of the VFA, while newer defaults will be transferred after a set period if they are not otherwise successfully resolved, such as through consolidation, discharge, or pay off.

To ensure long-term success and stability for the FFEL Program, all guaranty agencies that enter into a VFA with the Department will map their loan data and systems to at least one other guaranty agency acceptable to the Department. The goal is to ensure that a successor agency is ready to perform the agency's functions if the agency participating in the VFA becomes unable to meet its responsibilities. Each guaranty agency will also agree to keep the Department apprised of any significant changes in personnel or finances so that if a guaranty agency chooses to exit the program there is minimal disruption for borrowers and long-term loan servicing activities.

The terms of any VFA will be subject to applicable Federal, State, Local, and U.S. Territory laws and regulations, including any changes in the HEA (or other applicable laws) and the Department's regulations, unless waived or modified by the Secretary, and to any applicable administrative actions of the Secretary.

The Secretary expects that the VFAs will have a term of two years, subject to year-to-year renewals if the parties agree. The VFA will also provide that either party may terminate the agreement at any time by providing written notice to the other party, with provisions for sufficient notice before the effective date of termination.

The Secretary will select the agencies with which to enter into a VFA by identifying agencies that d have the managerial and operational capacity to assume the responsibilities of the VFA. The Department expects to enter into VFAs with all or the vast majority of guaranty agencies.

A guaranty agency that ultimately enters into a VFA with the Secretary must have the capability to:

• Conduct meaningful high-touch borrower outreach.

• Successfully transfer defaulted loans to the Secretary within set periods.

• Map systems to a potential successor guaranty agency.

The Secretary will conduct oversight and monitoring of the activities of guaranty agencies participating in the FFEL Program under a VFA to assess each agency's continuing financial viability and operational capacity to properly perform all FFEL Program guaranty agency responsibilities in accordance with the VFA. The Secretary will also conduct oversight and monitoring of the borrower outreach work and the transfer of defaulted loans. This oversight will include, at a minimum, requirements that the guaranty agency submit operational status reports, financial reports, and performance metrics on its loan portfolio.

Guaranty agencies with agreements with the Secretary under section 428(b) and (c) of the HEA that wish to enter into a VFA under the terms outlined in this notice must submit an email indicating interest to VFATeam@ed.gov by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice.

The expression of interest notice must be submitted by the chief executive officer of the guaranty agency. The Secretary may request that the agency provide supporting or other documentation to assist the Secretary in making a decision regarding the agency's possible participation in a VFA.

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

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

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

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1078-1.

The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. 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: Federal Student Aid (FSA) Partner Connect System and User Access Management.

OMB Control Number: 1845-NEW.

Type of Review: A new ICR.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 48,600.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,196.

Abstract: This is a request for a new information collection. Federal Student Aid (FSA) Partner Connect will be replacing Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment via fsawebenroll.ed.gov. SAIG Mailboxes will remain as the access point for electronically transmitting and receiving data. FSA Partner Connect System and User Access Management allows authorized entities, including postsecondary educational institutions, institutional third-party servicers, guaranty agencies and guaranty agency (GA) servicers, Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) lenders and lender servicers, federal loan servicers, and State Higher Education Agencies, to exchange data electronically with the U.S. Department of Education (Department). In order to participate, each entity must enroll for system and service access through FSA Partner Connect ( fsapartners.ed.gov ). The enrollment process enables the organization enrolling to create new users and select services to receive, submit, view, and/or update student financial aid data online and by batch using Department provided software EDconnect (PC-based software) or TDClient (client software for multiple environments). As authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., and in order to manage the Title IV, HEA assistance programs, the entities listed above may electronically transmit and receive data from the following FSA systems through SAIG Mailboxes by enrolling through FSA Partner Connect:

Additionally, entities may request access to eZ-Audit and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Systemic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) Program through FSA Partner Connect to manage Title IV, HEA assistance programs.

Background

NNSA is responsible for meeting the national security requirements established by the President and the Congress to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSS supports the NNSA nuclear Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) mission as well as other DOE and NNSA programs, national security programs, and other Federal agency work. NNSA published a SWEIS in 2013 that analyzed the potential environmental impacts of continued management and operation of the NNSS. A ROD for the SWEIS was announced in the Federal Register (FR) on December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78421). Since publication of the 2014 ROD, NNSA has been conducting operations in accordance with the ROD, with no notable changes.

The 2024 Final Supplement Analysis of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE/EIS-0426-SA-01) SA evaluation included the same four locations evaluated in the SWEIS: the NNSS, located approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and three off-site locations in Nevada; the Tonopah Test Range (TTR), located north of the NNSS within the Nevada Test and Training Range; the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), located in North Las Vegas; and the Remote Sensing Laboratory-Nellis (RSL-Nellis), located at the Nellis Air Force Base north of Las Vegas.

The actions analyzed in the SA are consistent with the 2014 ROD. The actions and operations evaluated at the NNSS include modernization of site facilities and infrastructure, expansion of existing facility operations and experimentation at the Device Assembly Facility and the U1a Complex, expanded uncrewed aerial system operations, and construction and operation of a new waste disposal cell at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. NNSA also proposed and evaluated actions to increase energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the NNSS by constructing solar projects, installing electric vehicle charging stations across the site, and transitioning to 100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by approximately 2035.

For the TTR, the SA evaluated operational changes and increased maintenance activities, but operations remain consistent with past operations. For the NLVF, the SA evaluated the potential construction and relocation of personnel and light laboratory spaces to a new campus in a planned industrial park that has not yet been built, referred to as the Northwest Las Vegas (NWLV) Campus. The NWLV Campus would replace some facilities at the NLVF, which are inefficiently designed, oversized, and outdated. The NWLV Campus would be located at a site that is approximately 12 to 15 miles northwest of the existing NLVF. NNSA did not identify any actions or notable changes in operations at RSL-Nellis; therefore, the SA did not analyze any changes at RSL-Nellis. A complete listing of the actions and operations evaluated for the NNSS and the off-site locations in the State of Nevada is found in Table 2-2 of the SA.

NNSA prepared the SA in accordance with the DOE NEPA implementing procedures at 10 CFR part 1021, to assess the potential environmental impacts of continued operations at the NNSS and off-site locations in the State of Nevada. The purpose of the SA is to determine if the actions evaluated in the SA constitute a substantial change to the actions evaluated in the 2013 SWEIS, if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, and whether a new or supplemental SWEIS or whether no further NEPA documentation is required. The SA focuses on the projects/changes that have occurred at the NNSS and the off-site locations in the State of Nevada since publication of the 2013 SWEIS and 2014 ROD or are expected to occur within approximately the next five years. The SA evaluates the impacts of these projects/changes against the impacts presented in the 2013 SWEIS.

Although publication of a Draft SA is not required, NNSA provided the Draft SA to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Nye and Clark County representatives, the American Indian Writers Subgroup, and the 16 tribes culturally affiliated with the NNSS. NNSA provided a 30-day review period for the Draft SA. During that review period, NNSA received one comment document from NDEP. The NDEP comments and NNSA's corresponding responses are provided in Appendix B of the Final SA.

The SA analyzed the potential impacts of the actions and operations described in Table 2-2 of the SA on the following areas: land use; infrastructure and energy; transportation and traffic; socioeconomics; geology and soils; hydrology; biological resources; air quality, climate, and noise; visual resources; cultural resources; waste management; human health and safety; environmental justice; and accidents and intentional destructive acts. Impacts are presented for the NNSS (see Section 3.1 of the SA), TTR (see Section 3.2 of the SA), and the NLVF/NWLV Campus (see Section 3.3 of the SA). Section 4 of the SA presents the cumulative impacts.

Based on the analyses in the SA, NNSA determined that the potential impacts associated with the actions evaluated in the SA are not significantly different than impacts presented in the SWEIS. Consequently, NNSA determined that: (1) the actions evaluated in the SA do not constitute a substantial change to the actions evaluated in the 2013 SWEIS; (2) there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns; and therefore (3) no further NEPA analysis or documentation is required at this time.

In the 2014 ROD, NNSA identified the Reduced Operations Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative because fewer adverse impacts would result compared to the other alternatives. NNSA still believes the Reduced Operations Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative.

The continued operation of NNSS is critical to NNSA's SSMP, to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide, and to other areas that impact national security and global stability. The primary mission supported by NNSS is ensuring the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons remains safe and reliable. Other activities conducted on the NNSS include experiments aimed at improving national nonproliferation objectives, arms control and treaty verification; weapons of mass destruction first responder training; experiments involving the controlled release and monitoring of hazardous material; remediation of legacy contamination sites; preparing waste for compliant disposition at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, including waste that will be processed at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria; and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed LLW. NNSA will implement the actions and operations described in Table 2-2 of the SA. Implementing these actions and operations will enable NNSA to fulfill its responsibilities by properly considering economic, environmental, technical, and other factors.

In making this decision, NNSA considered the SA, the 2013 SWEIS, the 2014 ROD, and its statutory responsibilities to safeguard the nuclear weapons stockpile. Federal law and national security policies require NNSA to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile and maintain a responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure that is cost-effective and has adequate capacity to meet foreseeable national security requirements. The NNSS and off-site locations in the State of Nevada support the NNSA nuclear stockpile stewardship and management mission as well as other DOE and NNSA programs, national security programs, and other Federal agency work. The SA provided the NNSA decision-maker with valuable information regarding the potential environmental impacts of the actions required to accomplish the national security mission and related programs. In addition to environmental information, NNSA also considered statutory responsibilities, strategic objectives, technical needs, safeguards and security, costs, and schedule in its decision-making.

This AROD documents NNSA's decision to continue operations at the NNSS and off-site locations in the State of Nevada and provides public notification of this decision. This decision enables NNSA to continue to meet its statutory obligations to safeguard the nuclear weapons stockpile and support the national security mission.

No potential adverse impacts were identified that will require additional mitigation measures beyond those contained in the SWEIS, required by environmental laws, regulations, permits, and agreements, or achieved through design features or best management practices. Because no new potential adverse impacts were identified that will require additional mitigation measures, NNSA does not expect to prepare a Mitigation Action Plan.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 12, 2024, by Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, NNSA, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. The document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the DOE. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Members of the public wishing to gain access to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written statement to the NEEAC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, at araujo.javier@epa.gov or 202-441-8981 by 10 business days prior to each regularly scheduled meeting. Oral comments at this meeting will be limited to three minutes and will be accommodated as time permits.

Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations, please contact Javier Araujo at araujo.javier@epa.gov or 202-441-8981, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

This is a proposed renewal of the original ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR renewal. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets .

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

Abstract: Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that once every five years, beginning in 1999, the EPA issue a new list of not more than 30 priority unregulated contaminants in drinking water to be monitored by public water systems (PWSs). Information collected under the program informs the EPA's decision making regarding whether or not to regulate particular contaminants in drinking water. UCMR 5 requires sample collection for 30 chemical contaminants and was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73131). This information collection does not require respondents to disclose confidential information.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this ICR renewal will be collected and maintained by PWSs subject to the rule. UCMR is a federally implemented program; however, States, territories, and Tribes (herein after referred to as “States” for simplicity) can choose to participate in UCMR 5 implementation through a voluntary Partnership Agreement with the EPA to help administer this regulatory program. Partnering States will sometimes collect samples and maintain records.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. The information collection is carried out per Section 1445(a) of SDWA.

Estimated number of respondents: Approximately 3,493 respondents (total among PWSs and States) participate in UCMR 5 during the ICR renewal years 2025-2027. There are approximately 10,367 respondents to UCMR 5 during the full five-year program period.

Frequency of response: The frequency and number of responses varies across respondents. PWSs that rely on surface water and ground water under the direct influence of surface water will sample quarterly (four sampling events), and PWSs that rely on ground water will sample twice (at 6-month intervals). All sample collection will take place during a continuous 12-month period during the sampling timeframe. Sample collection for the UCMR 5 contaminants takes place at the entry point to the distribution system. The number of samples collected by PWSs also differs based on the size of the PWS and the number of entry points within each PWS. Over the three ICR renewal years of 2025 through 2027, the total number of responses per respondent averages 3.0, or an average of 1.0 responses per respondent per year.

Total estimated burden: The EPA estimates the labor burden at 21,275.2 hours (per year) during the ICR renewal years of 2025 through 2027 for States and PWSs. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: During the ICR renewal years of 2025 through 2027, the EPA estimates the total cost for States and PWSs at $5,633,415 (per year), which includes $4,702,003 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs. The total costs include labor costs and laboratory analysis (non-labor) costs. The EPA pays for the analytical and sample shipping costs for small PWSs ( i.e., serving 10,000 or fewer people).

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 81,579 hours in the total estimated respondent burden for PWSs and States during the ICR renewal years of 2025 through 2027 compared with the original (2022-2024) ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to:

• Fewer PWSs participate during the ICR renewal period of 2025-2027 than in 2022-2024. Only one-third of PWSs collect samples for UCMR 5 contaminants during the ICR renewal period (in 2025); two-thirds of PWS monitored for UCMR 5 contaminants in 2023 and 2024 ( i.e., during the 2022-2024 original ICR period).

• Some initial, pre-monitoring activities were conducted by all systems in 2022 ( i.e., during the original ICR period). These activities will not take place during 2025-2027.

• States are expected to incur less burden during 2025-2027, since their support is associated with monitoring and less monitoring is occuring during the renewal period.

The Advisory Committee has been established as directed by Section 3(d) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (the “Act”), 12 U.S.C. 635a(d)(1)(A). This Advisory Committee is chartered in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), 5 U.S.C. App.

The meetings are closed to the public. The reason for the closure is that matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) will be discussed. Any such discussions will involve matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the sponsor agencies and the disclosure of information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), portions of advisory committee meetings may be closed to the public where the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. The determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for the determination. A determination has been made in writing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, as required by section 10(d) of FACA, that such portions of the meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3511(d); Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014)

OMB Control Number: 3060-1086.

Title: Section 74.787, Digital Licensing; Section 74.790, Permissible Service of Digital TV Translator and LPTV Stations; Section 74.794, Digital Emissions, Section 74.796, Modification of Digital Transmission Systems and Analog Transmission Systems for Digital Operation.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 8,445 respondents; 19,586 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.50 hours-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; One-time reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 27,711 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $61,728,000.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements approved under this collection are as follows:

a. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(3) provides that mutually exclusive applicants applying for construction permits for new digital stations and for major changes to existing stations in the LPTV service will similarly be allowed to submit in writing to the Commission, settlements and engineering solutions to rectify the problem.

b. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(4) provides that mutually exclusive displacement relief applicants filing applications for digital LPTV and TV translator stations may be resolved by submitting settlements and engineering solutions in writing to the Commission.

c. 47 CFR 74.787(a)(5)(v) states that a license for a digital-to-digital replacement television translator will be issued only to a full-power television broadcast station licensee that demonstrates in its application a loss in the station's pre-auction digital service area as a result of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, including the repacking process, conducted under section 6403 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96). “Pre-auction digital service area” is defined as the geographic area within the full power station's noise-limited contour (as set forth in Public Notice, DA 15-1296, released November 12, 2015). The service area of the digital-to-digital replacement translator shall be limited to only the demonstrated loss area within the full power station's pre-auction digital service area, provided that an applicant for a digital-to-digital replacement television translator may propose a de minimis expansion of its full power pre-auction digital service area upon demonstrating that the expansion is necessary to replace a loss in its pre-auction digital service area.

d. 47 CFR 74.790(f) permits digital TV translator stations to originate emergency warnings over the air deemed necessary to protect and safeguard life and property, and to originate local public service announcements (PSAs) or messages seeking or acknowledging financial support necessary for its continued operation. These announcements or messages shall not exceed 30 seconds each, and be broadcast no more than once per hour.

e. 47 CFR 74.790(e) requires that a digital TV translator station shall not retransmit the programs and signal of any TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station(s) without prior written consent of such station(s). A digital TV translator operator electing to multiplex signals must negotiate arrangements and obtain written consent of involved DTV station licensee(s).

f. 47 CFR 74.790(g) requires a digital LPTV station who transmits the programming of a TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station received prior written consent of the station whose signal is being transmitted.

g. 47 CFR 74.794 mandates that digital LPTV and TV translator stations operating on TV channels 22-24, 32-36 and 38 with a digital transmitter not specifically FCC-certificated for the channel purchase and utilize a low pass filter or equivalent device rated by its manufacturer to have an attenuation of at least 85 dB in the GPS band. The licensees must retain with their station license a description of the low pass filter or equivalent device with the manufacturer's rating or a report of measurements by a qualified individual.

h. 47 CFR 74.796(b)(5) requires digital LPTV or TV translator station licensees that modify their existing transmitter by use of a manufacturer-provided modification kit would need to purchase the kit and must notify the Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications. In addition, a digital LPTV or TV translator station licensees that modify their existing transmitter and do not use a manufacturer-provided modification kit, but instead perform custom modification (those not related to installation of manufacturer-supplied and FCC-certified equipment) must notify the Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications and shall certify compliance with all applicable transmission system requirements.

i. 47 CFR 74.796(b)(6) provides that operators who modify their existing transmitter by use of a manufacturer-provided modification kit must maintain with the station's records for a period of not less than two years, and will make available to the Commission upon request, a description of the nature of the modifications, installation and test instructions, and other material provided by the manufacturer, the results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified transmitter, and copies of related correspondence with the Commission. In addition, digital LPTV and TV translator operators who custom modify their transmitter must maintain with the station's records for a period of not less than two years, and will make available to the Commission upon request, a description of the modifications performed and performance tests, the results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified transmitter, and copies of related correspondence with the Commission.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR 2064.

Collection title: Recordkeeping Guidance Associated with Changes in Foreign Investments. Made Pursuant to Regulation K.

Collection identifier: FR 2064.

OMB control number: 7100-0109.

General description of collection: Internationally active U.S. banking organizations are expected to maintain adequate internal records to allow examiners to review compliance with the investment provisions of Regulation K. This recordkeeping guidance is what makes up the FR 2064. For each investment made under Subpart A of Regulation K, a banking organization investor should maintain internal records regarding the type of investment; the amount of the investment; the percentage ownership; activities conducted by the company and the legal authority for such activities; and whether the investment was made under general consent, prior notice, or specific consent authority. With respect to investments made under general consent authority, information also should be maintained that demonstrates compliance with the various limits set out in section 211.9 of Regulation K. These records are reviewed by examiners during examinations, allowing the examiners to determine a banking organization's compliance with the Federal Reserve Act and Subpart A of Regulation K. Monitoring banking organizations' international investments also permits the Federal Reserve to ensure that banking organizations do not expose themselves to undue risk.

Frequency: On-going.

Respondents: U.S. banking organizations (member banks, Edge Act and agreement corporations, and bank holding companies) that have made a foreign investment.

Total estimated number of respondents: 20.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 160.

Current actions: On March 29, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 22147) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 2064. The comment period for this notice expired on May 28, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR K-2.

Collection title: International Applications and Prior Notifications under Subpart B of Regulation K.

Collection identifier: FR K-2.

OMB control number: 7100-0284.

General description of collection: Subpart B of Regulation K implements the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA). Under the IBA foreign banks are required to obtain the prior approval of the Board to establish a branch, agency, or representative office in the United States; to establish or acquire ownership or control of a commercial lending company in the United States; or to change the status of an agency or limited branch to a branch in the United States. The Board's FR K-2 information collection consists of attachments submitted in connection with these prior approval applications and helps in supervising foreign banks with offices in the United States.

Frequency: Event-generated.

Respondents: Foreign banks.

Total estimated number of respondents: 13.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 372.

Current actions: On March 29, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 22149) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR K-2. The comment period for this notice expired on May 28, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than this notice), and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR 3066. Final versions of these documents will be made available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, if approved.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.

Collection title: Federal Reserve Payments Study.

Collection identifier: FR 3066.

OMB control number: 7100-0351.

General description of collection: The Federal Reserve Payments Study (FRPS) is supported by the following surveys: Depository and Financial Institutions Payments Survey (FR 3066a), and Networks, Processors, and Issuers Payments Surveys (FR 3066b).

The information on these surveys is used by the Federal Reserve to estimate the aggregate number and value of all cash and noncash payments, as well as cash withdrawals and deposits, made by U.S. consumers and businesses, including for-profit and not-for-profit enterprises, and federal, state, and local government agencies. The aggregate estimates produced from the survey data are widely cited in academic working papers, journal articles, and industry publications; reported in the media; and used by the public, industry, and policy makers as a quantitative aggregate benchmark of noncash payments and cash withdrawal and deposit activity in the United States.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondents: Organizations with a significant role in processing payments, including depository and financial institutions, general-purpose payment networks, third-party payment processors, issuers of private-label payment instruments, and providers of various alternative payment methods and systems.

Total estimated number of respondents: FR 3066a, 513, FR 3066b, 170.

Estimated average hours per response: FR 3066a, 22; FR 3066b, 8.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 12,646.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR M.

Collection title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the CFPB's Regulation M.

Collection identifier: FR M.

OMB control number: 7100-0202.

General description of collection: The Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) and Regulation M require lessors uniformly to disclose to consumers the costs, liabilities, and terms of consumer lease transactions. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act transferred rulemaking authority for the CLA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) except for certain motor vehicle dealers that are excluded from the CFPB's authority, which remain subject to the Board's Regulation M. The FR M is the Board's information collection associated with Regulation M. These disclosures are provided to consumers before they enter into lease transactions and in advertisements that state the availability of consumer leases on particular terms. The disclosures are intended to provide consumers with meaningful disclosures about the costs and terms of leases for personal property and enable consumers to compare the terms for a particular lease with those for other leases and, when appropriate, to compare lease terms with those for credit transactions.

Frequency: Event generated.

Respondents: The FR M panel comprises state member banks with assets of $10 billion or less that are not affiliated with an insured depository institution with assets over $10 billion (irrespective of the consolidated assets of any holding company); non depository affiliates of such state member banks; and non depository affiliates of bank holding companies that are not affiliated with an insured depository institution with assets over $10 billion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CFPB, and not the Board, has supervisory authority for Regulation M with respect to automobile leasing over non-banks defined as “larger participants” in the automobile finance market pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514 (implemented by 12 CFR 1090.108).

Total estimated number of respondents: 3.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 17.

Current actions: On March 7, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 16567) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR M. The comment period for this notice expired on May 6, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR GG.

Collection title: Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Regulation GG.

Collection identifier: FR GG.

OMB control number: 7100-0317.

General description of collection: Regulation GG—Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful internet Gambling (12 CFR part 233) is related to the Unlawful internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The FR GG is the Board's information collection associated with Regulation GG and requires participants in designated payment systems to establish written policies and procedures related to unlawful internet gambling. These recordkeeping requirements are contained in section 5 of Regulation GG. Policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block, or otherwise prevent or prohibit, restricted transactions are necessary because Congress found that internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.

Frequency: Event-generated.

Respondents: Depository institutions, card system operators, credit unions, and money transmitting business operators.

Total estimated number of respondents: 4,635.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 46,410.

Current actions: On March 7, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 16572) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR GG. The comment period for this notice expired on May 6, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

The Board is proposing to extend for three years, without revision, the FFIEC 019.

Report Title: Country Exposure Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks.

Form Number: FFIEC 019.

OMB control number: 7100-0213.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Respondents: All branches and agencies of foreign banks domiciled in the United States with total direct claims on foreign residents in excess of $30 million.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 147.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,880 hours.

This information collection is required pursuant to sections 7 and 13 of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3105 and 3108) for the Board, sections 7 and 10 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1817 and 1820) for the FDIC, and the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 161) as applied through section 4 of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3102) for the OCC. The FFIEC 019 is given confidential treatment consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(8).

The FFIEC 019 report must be filed by each U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank that has total direct claims on foreign residents in excess of $30 million. The branch or agency reports its total exposure (1) to residents of its home country, and (2) to the other five foreign nations to which its exposure is largest and is at least $20 million. The home country exposure must be reported regardless of the size of the total claims for that nation.

Each respondent must report by country, as appropriate, the information on its direct claims (assets such as deposit balances with banks, loans, or securities), indirect claims (which include guarantees), and total adjusted claims on foreign residents, as well as information on commitments. The respondent also must report information on claims on related non-U.S. offices that are included in total adjusted claims on the home country, as well as a breakdown for the home country and each other reported country of adjusted claims on unrelated foreign residents by the sector of borrower or guarantor, and by maturity (in two categories: one year or less, and over one year). The Board collects and processes this report on behalf of all three agencies.

On March 4, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 15575) requesting comment for 60 days on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the FFIEC 019. The comment period for the proposal ended on May 3, 2024, and no comments were received.

Public comment is requested on all aspects of this notice. Comment is also specifically invited on:

a. Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Comments submitted to the Board in response to this notice will be shared with the other agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Section 436(h) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires GSA to evaluate green building certification systems and provide a recommendation to the Secretary of Energy who, in consultation with the Department of Defense and GSA, formally identifies system(s) to be used across the Federal Government. GSA's Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings has just completed and published its 2024 Green Building Certification System Review Findings Report (Findings Report), which can be accessed at https://www.gsa.gov/gbcertificationreview. This report summarizes GSA's formal review of six green building certification systems (BOMA BEST, BREEAM, Green Globes, LEED, Living Building Challenge, and Passive House US, Inc). These systems were assessed against a set of review criteria contained in statute that evaluate how they were developed and how the systems align with current Federal green building performance requirements.

Request for Public Comment: GSA is seeking public comment on its draft recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on those green building certification systems that “will most likely encourage a comprehensive and environmentally sound approach” to the certification of high-performance green Federal buildings. GSA's draft recommendations can be found on its website: https://www.gsa.gov/gbcertificationreview.

Based on the information contained in its Findings Report, GSA recommends that agencies consider using LEED or Green Globes for new construction or major renovation projects. Both of these systems meet the basic requirements established under DOE Rule: “Green Building Certification Systems Requirement for New Federal Buildings and Major Renovations of Federal Buildings” by:

• Allowing assessors and auditors to independently verify the criteria and measurement metrics of the system

• Being developed by a certification organization that provides an opportunity for public comment on the system and provides an opportunity for development and revision of the system through a consensus-based process

• Being nationally recognized within the building industry

• Being subject to periodic evaluation and assessment of the environmental and energy benefits that result under the certification system, and

• Including a verification system for post-occupancy assessment of the rated buildings to demonstrate continued energy and water savings at least every four years after initial occupancy

For existing buildings, GSA recommends that agencies consider the use of BOMA Best, BREEAM In-Use, Green Globes, LEED, Living Building Challenge, Living Building Challenge CORE, or PHIUS CORE Revive. Each of these systems contains requirements and options that align to varying degrees with green building performance criteria and provides a sound approach to certification of high-performance green Federal buildings. It is important for agencies to ensure that the options selected within a certification system are those that align with Federal criteria in order to realize the benefits of using such a system. GSA recommends agencies use the certification system that best meets their mission, building type, and portfolio needs and certify to a level that promotes the high performance sustainable building goals referenced in Executive Orders 14008 and 14057.

It should be noted that on October 14, 2014, the U.S. DOE published its final rule that formally identifies criteria that green building certification systems must meet in order to be used by the Federal Government. This GSA request for public comment is not for the purposes of that final rulemaking, but to inform GSA on its related responsibilities to study green building certification systems and recommend ones to the DOE that may fit within the framework of the final rule. DOE's final rule can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-EERE-OT-2010-0007-0084.

Because of system limitations, we are submitting this generic collection of information request on an interim basis under CMS-10434 (OMB 0938-1188). At the appropriate time we will move this request under its proper place (CMS-10398, OMB 0938-1148) and subsequently remove it from CMS-10434 to prevent duplication. The public can monitor the status of such activities at reginfo.gov.

Following is a summary of the use and burden associated with the subject information collection(s). More detailed information can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

1. Title of Information Collection: Quality Improvement Affinity Group Expression of Interest Form; Type of Information Collection Request: New information collection request information request; Use: The new CMCS Quality Improvement Affinity Group Expression of Interest (EOI) Form will replace the following topic-specific EOI forms: CMS-10398 #72 for Infant Well-Care and CMS-10398 #76 for Maternal Health. Both will be discontinued sometime after the new form is approved by OMB. We host multiple affinity groups with overlapping time frames, with health topics changing to meet state interest and needs as well as to address emerging health disparities as new health data becomes available. In this iteration, we intend for a more general EOI form that will not change with new affinity groups; it will remain the same no matter the subject matter therefore burden will not change. The general form will allow state participants to list multiple Affinity Groups they may be interested in, as well as provide state participants with a more reliable, streamlined, and consistent process for participation going forward. Form Number: CMS-10434 #82 (OMB control number: 0938-1188); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 20; Total Annual Responses: 20; Total Annual Hours: 60. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact: Sarah Leetham at 720-853-2612.)

Contents

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: National Provider Identifier (NPI) Application and Update Form and Supporting Regs in 45 CFR 142.408, 45 CFR 162.408, 45 CFR 162.406; Use: The adoption by the Secretary of HHS of the standard unique health identifier for health care providers is a requirement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The unique identifier is to be used on standard transactions and may be used for other lawful purposes in the health care system. The CMS Final Rule published on January 23, 2004, adopts the National Provider Identifier (NPI) as the standard unique health identifier for health care providers. Health care providers that are covered entities under HIPAA must apply for and use NPIs in standard transactions. Other health care providers are eligible for NPIs but are not required by regulation to apply for them or use them. Health care providers began applying for NPIs on May 23, 2005.

The National Provider Identifier Application and Update Form is used by health care providers to apply for NPIs and furnish updates to the information they supplied on their initial applications. The form is also used to deactivate their NPIs if necessary. The original application form was approved in February 2005 and has been in use since May 23, 2005. The form is available on paper or can be completed via a web-based process. Health care providers can mail a paper application, complete the application via the web-based process via the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES), or have a trusted organization submit the application on their behalf via the Electronic File Interchange (EFI) process. The Enumerator uses the NPPES to process the application and generate the NPI. NPPES is the Medicare contractor tasked with issuing NPIs, and maintaining and storing NPI data. Form Number: CMS-10114 (OMB control number: 0938-0931); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits, Not for-profits and Federal Government; Number of Respondents: 1,275,912; Number of Responses: 1,275,912; Total Annual Hours: 298,777. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Da'Vona Boyd at 410-786-7483).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of an approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Improper Payment Pre-Testing and Assessment (IPPTA) Data Request Form; Use: To comply with the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA), HHS finalized the IPPTA to prepare State Exchanges for the measurement of improper payments of advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC), to test processes and procedures that support HHS's review of determinations of APTC made by State Exchanges, and to provide a mechanism for HHS and State Exchanges to share information that would aid in developing an efficient measurement process. The PIIA requires executive agencies to report on Federal programs susceptible to significant improper payments. The APTC program was identified as a Federal program susceptible to significant improper payments. Currently in operation are 19 State Exchanges, which do not use the Federal platform to perform eligibility and enrollment determinations. Each State Exchange was selected to participate in the IPPTA data collection for a period of 2 calendar years, which began in 2024 or will begin in 2025 depending on which group the State Exchange is assigned. HHS has revised the approved data request form to include new instructions and a data mapping tool to aid State Exchanges in their understanding and collecting of necessary data. This collection of data and data documentation is intended to allow HHS to test the data elements as specified in the scenarios provided to each State Exchange in the pre-testing and assessment data request form to enable HHS to comply with the requirements of the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) and implementing guidance. Form Number: CMS-10829 (OMB control number: 0938-1439); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: State, Local, and Federal Government; Number of Respondents: 11; Number of Responses: 11; Total Annual Hours: 265. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Halina DeSantis at 410-786-1000).

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

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Generic Social Marketing & Consumer Testing Research; Use: The purpose of this submission is to extend the approval of the generic clearance for a program of consumer research aimed at a broad audience of those affected by CMS programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and health insurance exchanges. This program extends strategic efforts to reach and tailor communications to beneficiaries, caregivers, providers, stakeholders, and any other audiences that would support the Agency in improving the functioning of the health care system, improve patient care and outcomes, and reduce costs without sacrificing quality of care. The information collected will be used to create a streamlined and proactive process for collection of data and utilizing the feedback on service delivery for continuous improvement of communication activities aimed at diverse CMS audiences. The generic clearance will allow rapid response to inform CMS initiatives using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative consumer research strategies (including formative research studies and methodological tests) to improve communication with key CMS audiences. As new information resources and persuasive technologies are developed, they can be tested and evaluated for beneficiary response to the materials and delivery channels. Results will inform communication development and information architecture as well as allow for continuous quality improvement. The overall goal is to maximize the extent to which consumers have access to useful sources of CMS program information in a form that can help them make the most of their benefits and options. The activities under this clearance involve social marketing and consumer research using samples of self-selected customers, as well as convenience samples, and quota samples, with respondents selected either to cover a broad range of customers or to include specific characteristics related to certain products or services. All collection of information under this clearance will utilize a subset of items drawn from a core collection of customizable items referred to as the Social Marketing and Consumer Testing Item Bank. This item bank is designed to establish a set of pre-approved generic question that can be drawn upon to allow for the rapid turn-around consumer testing required for us to communicate more effectively with our audiences. The questions in the item bank are divided into two major categories. One set focuses on characteristics of individuals and is intended primarily for participant screening and for use in structured quantitative on-line or telephone surveys. The other set is less structured and is designed for use in qualitative one-on-one and small group discussions or collecting information related to subjective impressions of test materials. Results will be compiled and disseminated so that future communication can be informed by the testing results. We will use the findings to create the greatest possible public benefit. Form Number: CMS-10437 (OMB control number: 0938-1247); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Individuals; Number of Respondents: 7,732; Number of Responses: 61,992; Total Annual Hours: 26,688. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Hemalgiri Gosai at 410-786-0000.)

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to compounding drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.

The Committee shall provide advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding under sections 503A and 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353a and 353b), and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility and make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.

Pursuant to its charter, the Committee shall consist of a core of 12 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of pharmaceutical compounding, pharmaceutical manufacturing, pharmacy, medicine, and related specialties. These members will include representatives from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, the United States Pharmacopeia, pharmacists with current experience and expertise in compounding, physicians with background and knowledge in compounding, and patient and public health advocacy organizations. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years.

Non-Federal members of this committee will serve as Special Government Employees, representatives, or Ex-Officio members. Federal members will serve as Regular Government Employees or Ex-Officios members. The core of voting members may include one or more technically qualified members, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who are identified with consumer interests and are recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one or more non-voting representative members who are identified with industry interests. There may also be an alternate industry representative.

The Commissioner or designee shall have the authority to select members of other scientific and technical FDA advisory committees (normally not to exceed 10 members) to serve temporarily as voting members and to designate consultants to serve temporarily as voting members when: (1) expertise is required that is not available among current voting standing members of the Committee (when additional voting members are added to the Committee to provide needed expertise, a quorum will be based on the combined total of regular and added members), or (2) to comprise a quorum when, because of unforeseen circumstances, a quorum is or will be lacking. Because of the size of the Committee and the variety in the types of issues that it will consider, FDA may, in connection with a particular committee meeting, specify a quorum that is less than a majority of the current voting members. The Agency's regulations (21 CFR 14.22(d)) authorize a committee charter to specify quorum requirements.

If functioning as a medical device panel, an additional non-voting representative member of consumer interests and an additional non-voting representative member of industry interests will be included in addition to the voting members.

Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/pharmacy-compounding-advisory-committee/pharmacy-compounding-advisory-committee-charter or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

Information Collection Request Title: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Performance Measurement Information System, OMB No. 0906-0017—Revision.

Abstract: This request is for continued approval of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program Performance Measurement Information System. The MIECHV Program is administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau within HRSA in partnership with the Administration for Children and Families, and provides support to all 56 states and jurisdictions, as well as tribes and tribal organizations. Through a needs assessment, states, jurisdictions, tribes, and tribal organizations identify target populations and select the home visiting service delivery model(s) that best meet their needs. There is no proposed change to the previously approved information collection instruments. Over the next 3 years, as part of efforts to implement new statutory provisions enacted as part of the reauthorization of the MIECHV program, HRSA intends to engage with MIECHV awardees, home visiting model developers, and federal partners to identify opportunities to reduce administrative burden related to performance reporting, to enhance performance measures to measure disparities, and to align performance measures with other programs administered by HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau.

A 60-day notice published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2024, 89 FR 23028-29. HRSA received one comment from a local MIECHV-funded program administrator. The comment discussed obtaining additional qualitative information for program benchmark data, improving response categories for race and ethnicity, and changing breastfeeding performance measure. HRSA has considered this comment; however, per congressional direction, HRSA's current primary focus is minimizing burden for local MIECHV-funded programs. The changes sought by the comment would impose additional burden. As a result, no change to the proposed information collection tools is proposed at this time. As previously stated, HRSA intends to re-assess the current performance measurement system over the next 3 years, including considering and addressing the issues raised by the commenter.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: HRSA uses performance information to demonstrate program accountability and continuously monitor and provide oversight to MIECHV program awardees. The information is also used to provide quality improvement guidance and technical assistance to awardees and help inform the development of early childhood systems at the national, state, and local level. HRSA is seeking to continue to collect information on demographic, service utilization, and select clinical indicators for participants enrolled in home visiting services and a set of standardized performance and outcome indicators that correspond with the statutorily identified benchmark areas. This information will be used to demonstrate awardees' compliance with statutory and programmatic requirements. It will also be used to monitor and provide continued oversight for awardee performance and to target technical assistance resources to awardees.

Likely Respondents: MIECHV Program awardees that are states, jurisdictions, and, where applicable, nonprofit organizations providing home visiting services within states.

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.

Great Plains Area—GFA Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Minot District—GFAAC11 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Mobridge Field Office—GFAAC111 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Belcourt Field Office—GFAAC112 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Pierre District—GFAAC12 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Eagle Butte Field Office—GFAAC121 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Martin Field Office—GFAAC122 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Sioux City District—GFAAC13 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Sisseton Field Office—GFAAC131 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Rosebud Field Office—GFAAC132 Albuquerque Area—GFC Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Albuquerque District—GFC421 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Mescalero Field Office—GFC4211 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Santa Fe District—GFC422 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Durango Field Office—GFC4221 Bemidji Area—GFE Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Bemidji Area—GFE2AA Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Minnesota District—GFE2AA1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Duluth Field Office—GFE2AA11 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Rhinelander District—GFE2AA2 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Sault Ste Marie Field Office—GFE2AA21 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Traverse City Field Office—GFE2AA22 Billings Area—GFF Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Browning Field Office—GFF931 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Crow Agency Field Office—GFF932 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Lame Deer Field Office—GFF933 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Wolf Point Field Office—GFF934 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Fort Washakie Field Office—GFF935 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Fort Belknap Field Office—GFF936 Nashville Area—GFH Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Nashville Area—GFH2A Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Manlius District—GFH2A1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Lockport Field Office—GFH2A11 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Atmore Field Office—GFH2A2 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Bangor Field Office—GFH2A3 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Catawba Field Office—GFH2A4 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Charles City Field Office—GFH2A5 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Mashpee Field Office—GFH2A6 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Opelousas Field Office—GFH2A7 Navajo Area—GFJ Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Fort Defiance District—GFJ4B1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Many Farms Field Office—GFJ4B11 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Gallup District—GFJ4B2 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Crownpoint Field Office—GFJ4B21 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Shiprock District—GFJ4B3 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Farmington Field Office—GFJ4B31 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Tuba City District—GFJ4B4 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Kayenta Field Office—GFJ4B41 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Tuba City Field Office—GFJ4B42 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Winslow Field Office—GFJ4B43 Oklahoma City Area—GFK Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Oklahoma City Area—GFK34 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Clinton Field Office—GFK34B Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Holton Field Office—GFK34C Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Lawton Field Office—GFK34D Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Pawnee Field Office—GFK34E Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Shawnee Field Office—GFK34G Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Miami Field Office—GFK34H Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Okmulgee Field Office—GFK34J Phoenix Area—GFL Div of ENV Health Services—IEH—GFL52IE Div of ENV Health Services—IP—GFL52IP Div of ENV Health Services—Eastern Arizona District—GFL52E Div of ENV Health Services—Keams Canyon Service Unit—GFL52E1 Div of ENV Health Services—San Carlos Service Unit—GFL52E2 Div of ENV Health Services—White River Service Unit—GFL52E3 Div of ENV Health Services—Reno District—GFL52R Div of ENV Health Services—Elko Service Unit—GFL52R1 Div of ENV Health Services—Uintah-Ouray Service Unit—GFL52R2 Div of ENV Health Services—Western Arizona District—GFL52W Div of ENV Health Services—Colorado River Service Unit—GFL52W1 Div of ENV Health Services—Fort Yuma Service Unit—GFL52W2 Div of Facilities Management—Design and Construction Branch—GFL53DC Div of Facilities Management—Operations Branch—GFL53FM Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Eastern Arizona District—GFL54E Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Keams Canyon Service Unit—GFL54E1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—San Carlos Service Unit—GFL54E2 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—White River Service Unit—GFL54E3 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Reno District—GFL54R Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Elko Service Unit—GFL54R1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Uintah-Ouray Service Unit—GFL54R2 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Western Arizona District—GFL54W Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Colorado River Service Unit—GFL54W1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Fort Yuma Service Unit—GFL54W2 Portland Area—GFM Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Portland Area—GFM52 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Western Oregon District—GFM52A Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Warm Springs Field Office—GFM52A1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Yakama Field Office—GFM52A2 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Olympic District—GFM52B Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Port Angeles Field Office—GFM52B1 Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Spokane District—GFM52C Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Fort Hall Field Office—GFM52C1 Tucson Area—GFN Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Tucson Area/District—GFNADA Div of Sanitation FAC Construction—Casa Grande Field Office—GFNADA1 Roselyn Tso, [FR Doc. 2024-16620 Filed 7-29-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4166-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

NIH/HHS is rescinding the 14 systems of records based on the following reasons:

Four of the systems of records are obsolete; the records were disposed of in accordance with the applicable disposition schedule approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), cited below:

1. 09-25-0078, Administration: Consultant File, HHS/NIH/NHLBI. These records were maintained on computer disks and paper file folders. They were used to identify and select experts and consultants for program reviews and evaluations and to evaluate National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) special grants and contracts. Records included the individuals' curriculums vitae, resumes, and names. The data on the disks and in the folders had not been updated in years and was no longer used. At the end of 2023, the records were deleted in compliance with NIH Records Retention Schedule 12-014, Electronic Information Systems/Administration (Disposition Authority DAA-0443-2013-0004-0004).

2. 09-25-0121, International Activities: Senior International Fellowships Program, HHS/NIH/FIC. These records were maintained by the Fogarty International Center (FIC) on computer disks and paper file folders. The records were used by FIC for award and administration of fellowships to outstanding faculty members in mid-career from U.S. biomedical research and educational institutions for study abroad, to distinguished scientists, and to scholars invited to accept NIH scholarships. The records were comprised of the individuals' applications and associated records, reports, employment and education histories, and references. The programs no longer exist, and the records were deleted in compliance with NIH Records Retention Schedule 12-019, Electronic Information Systems/Activities: International Fellowship Program (Disposition Authority DAA-0443-2019-0008-0001).

3. 09-25-0034, International Activities: Scholars-in-Residence Program, HHS/NIH/FIC. Same explanation and same disposition schedule as for 09-25-0121.

4. 09-25-0041, Research Resources: Scientists Requesting Hormone Distribution. These records consisted of applications from scientists requesting hormones and antibodies from the National Institute of Diabetes, and Digestive Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) for research purposes. They were stored in paper file folders and were used to review the applications to determine if the scientists were qualified to receive the materials. The programs no longer exist, and the records were deleted in compliance with NIH Records Retention Schedule 12-011, Electronic Information Systems/Research Resources (Disposition Authority DAA-0443-2012-0007-0003).

The records in one system of records still exist but are no longer retrieved by personal identifier so no longer constitute Privacy Act records:

5. 09-25-0033, International Activities: Fellowships Awarded by Foreign Organizations, HHS/NIH/FIC. These records were about U.S. citizens qualified in health-related sciences who submitted applications through NIH for fellowships for study abroad. They were stored in paper file folders and were used by NIH to perform scientific reviews and evaluations of the applicants' qualifications to determine which applicants were suitable for referral to the fellowship-awarding organizations. The paper file system that was used was terminated. Existing records have been moved to electronic form and are stored on a network shared drive. The files are no longer kept in a system from which they can be retrieved by a unique identifier. The files are now kept as general program correspondence in compliance with NIH Records Retention Schedule 12-006, International Activities: Fellowships Awarded by Foreign Organizations (Disposition Authority DAA-0443-2018-0004-0001).

The records in the remaining nine systems of records still exist but are now covered by another NIH SORN.

• The seven systems of records listed below are being rescinded as duplicative of system of records 09-25-0200, Clinical, Basic, and Population-based Research Studies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), HHS/NIH/OD. All seven cover records used for clinical, basic, and population-based NIH research studies, mirroring the categories of individuals and categories of records covered in system of records 09-25-0200. The legal authorities cited for system of records 09-25-0200 overlap those cited for the systems of records being rescinded. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 241—Research and Investigations Generally (Sec. 301 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act) is cited for six of the seven systems of records, and 42 U.S.C. 284—Directors of National Research Institutes (Sec. 405 of the PHS Act) is cited for four of the seven systems of records, and system of records 09-25-0200 cites Secs. 301 and 405 of the PHS Act in addition to several other sections of the PHS Act which cover research and investigations, in general, while giving authority to the Directors of NIH Institutes and Centers to carry out the mission of NIH.

6. 09-25-0202, Patient Records on PHS Beneficiaries (1935-1974) and Civilly Committed Drug Abusers (1967-1976) Treated at the PHS Hospitals in Fort Worth, Texas, or Lexington, Kentucky .

7. 09-25-0203, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, Federal Prisoner and Non-Prisoner Research Files.

8. 09-25-0207, Subject-Participants in Pharmacokinetic Studies on Drugs of Abuse and on Treatment Medications.

9. 09-25-0208, Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study.

10. 09-25-0209, Subject-Participants in Drug Abuse Research Studies on Drug Dependence and in Research Supporting Investigational New Drug and New Drug Applications.

11. 09-25-0210, Shipment Records of Drugs of Abuse to Authorized Researchers.

12. 9-25-0211, Intramural Research Program Records of In-and-Out-Patients with Various Types of Alcohol Abuse and Dependence, Relatives of Patients with Alcoholism, and Healthy Volunteers.

• The below system of records is being rescinded as duplicative of system of records 09-25-0166, Administration: Radiation and Occupational Safety and Health Management Information Systems, HHS/NIH/Office of Research Services (ORS), which covers the same records (records used to administer safety glasses to individuals) used by the same office (the Division of Occupational Health and Safety) under the same authority (5 U.S.C. 7902) under its second listed purpose: to monitor, track, and assess the use of personal protective equipment in the workplace to ensure availability, effectiveness, and proper maintenance.

13. 09-25-0007, Administration: NIH Safety Glasses Issuance Program, HHS/NIH/ORS.

• The below system of records is being rescinded as duplicative of system of records 09-25-0036, Extramural Awards and Chartered Advisory Committees (IMPAC 2), Contract Information (DCIS), and Cooperative Agreement Information, which covers the same application information ( e.g., award processing information, historical information pertaining to awarded contracts, and general contact information for former fellows and applicants used for contractual business with NIH) and cites more appropriate authorities ( i.e., 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 217a, 241, 282(b)(6), 284a, and 288; and 48 CFR Subparts 15.3 and 42.15) than the authority cited in the below system of records ( i.e., 42 U.S.C. 209):

14. 09-25-0124, Administration: Pharmacology Research Associates.

For the foregoing reasons, the below 14 systems of records are rescinded: