Black stem rust is a destructive plant disease caused by a fungus ( Puccinia graminis ) that reduces the quality and yield of infected wheat, oat, barley, and rye crops. In addition to infecting small grains, the fungus lives on a variety of alternate host plants that are species of the genera Berberis, Mahoberberis, and Mahonia, known as barberry plants.

The regulations in “Subpart D—Black Stem Rust” (7 CFR 301.38 through 301.38-8, referred to below as the regulations), quarantine the conterminous 48 States and the District of Columbia for black stem rust, and govern the interstate movement of plants of the genera Berberis, Mahoberberis, and Mahonia, known as barberry plants.

Species and varieties of these plants are categorized as either rust-resistant or rust-susceptible. Rust-susceptible plants pose a risk of spreading black stem rust or of contributing to the development of new races of the rust, and therefore are prohibited from moving interstate into or through any protected area listed in accordance with § 301.38-3. Rust-resistant plants do not pose such risks, and therefore may be moved into or through protected areas subject to the requirements in the regulations.

In accordance with § 301.38-2(a), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains a list of Berberis species and varieties it has found to be rust-resistant at www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/barberry/ct_barberry.

Paragraph (c)(1) of § 301.38-2 provides that if the Administrator determines that an article not already listed is resistant to black stem rust, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register proposing to add the article to the list of rust-resistant articles for black stem rust and request public comment. Following the close of the comment period, APHIS will review all comments received and will make a final determination regarding the designation that will be published in a second notice in the Federal Register .

In accordance with that process, on March 20, 2024, we published in the Federal Register (89 FR 19796-19797, Docket No. APHIS-2023-0050), a notice  1 proposing to add 32 varieties of Berberis thunbergii (Japanese barberry) to the list of black stem rust-resistant barberry species and varieties. The proposed additions were found, through testing by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, to be resistant to the fungus ( Puccinia graminis ) that causes black stem rust.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending May 20, 2024. We received two comments, both from members of the industry involved in breeding the varieties addressed in this action.

One commenter asked us to remove from the cultivar names all language after the nomenclatures that begin with `NCBT' and `SMNBT'.

We will remove this nomenclature from our list of Berberis species and varieties we have found to be rust-resistant.

The other commenter stated that Berberis thunbergii x B. calliantha `NCBX5', which was confirmed resistant in 2017, was missing from the listing in the notice.

The commenter is correct that we mistakenly excluded Berberis thunbergii x B. calliantha `NCBX5' from the notice. This article was found to be resistant to the fungus ( Puccinia graminis ) that causes black stem rust through testing by ARS in 2017 and should have been included in the notice. We will include Berberis thunbergii x B. calliantha `NCBX5' in our list of Berberis species and varieties we have found to be rust-resistant. This article will bring the number of additions to 33, rather than 32.

The commenter also stated that, in our current list of rust-resistant Berberis species and varieties on the APHIS web page, the parentage listed for `NCBX3' was incorrect. The variety is listed as B. thunbergiix calliantha “NCBX3', but should be listed as Berberis thunbergii x media `NCBX3'.

The commenter is correct. We will fix this error by correctly listing Berberis thunbergii x media `NCBX3' when we update our list of rust-resistant Berberis species and varieties.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 301.38-2(c)(1), we are announcing our decision to designate the following articles as rust-resistant:

These articles will be added to the list of rust-resistant regulated articles for black stem rust at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant-pests-dieseases/black-stem-rust-barberry.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section 301.75-15 issued under section 204, title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under section 203, title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).

Under the regulations in “Subpart L-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of fruits and vegetables that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS proposes to authorize the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that the measures can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS will issue a subsequent Federal Register notice announcing whether or not we will authorize the importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the phytosanitary measures specified in the notice.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice  1 in the Federal Register on April 4, 2024 (89 FR 23537, Docket No. APHIS-2023-0040) in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of pest risk analyses that evaluated the risks associated with the importation of fresh leaves and stems of rosemary ( Rosmarinus officinalis ) and fresh leaves and stems of tarragon ( Artemesia dracunculus ) from Ethiopia into the continental United States. The pest risk analyses consisted of risk assessments identifying pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of the importation of fresh leaves and stems of rosemary and tarragon into the continental United States from Ethiopia and risk management documents (RMDs) identifying phytosanitary measures to be applied to these commodities to mitigate the pest risk.

We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days, ending on June 3, 2024. We received no comments by that date.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the continental United States of fresh leaves and stems of rosemary and fresh leaves and stems of tarragon from Ethiopia subject to the phytosanitary measures identified in the RMDs that accompanied the initial notice.

These conditions will be listed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database ( https://acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/ ). 2 In addition to these specific measures, each shipment must be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the recordkeeping and burden requirements associated with this action are included under the Office of Management and Budget control number 0579-0049.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2533.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

USDA is soliciting nominations for membership to the NACMCF. USDA seeks to appoint 30 members.

To obtain a scientific perspective that considers all stakeholders, USDA is seeking NACMCF nominees with scientific expertise in microbiology, risk assessment, public health, food science, and other relevant disciplines. USDA is seeking nominations for NACMCF from persons in academia, industry, and State governments, as well as all other interested persons with the required expertise.

All nominees will undergo a USDA background check. Advisory committee members who are not Federal government employees will be appointed to serve as non-compensated special government employees (SGE). SGEs will be subject to appropriate conflict of interest statutes and standards of ethical conduct. Members can serve on only one USDA Advisory Committee at a time. Applicants that are federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for USDA's NACMCF.

Committee members serve 2-year terms that can be reappointed for one additional term. Former members are eligible for repeat service after one term of non-service.

Nominations for membership on the NACMCF must be addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture and a complete nomination package must include: a cover letter addressing the nomination, a resume or curriculum vitae, and a completed USDA Advisory Committee Membership Background Information form AD-755 (available online at: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-755.pdf ).

The resume or curriculum vitae must be limited to five one-sided pages and should include educational background, expertise, and a list of select publications, if available. Any submissions with more than the prescribed five one-sided pages in length will have only the first five pages reviewed. A person may self-nominate, or a nomination can be made on behalf of someone else.

The NACMCF provides impartial scientific advice and recommendations to the USDA and other government agencies on microbiological and public health issues relative to the safety of the U.S. food supply.

The NACMCF is a discretionary advisory committee that was established in 1988, by the Secretary of Agriculture, and after consulting with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in response to the recommendations of two external organizations. The National Academy of Sciences recommended an interagency approach to microbiological criteria, since various federal, State, and local agencies are responsible for food safety. Also, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations made a similar recommendation in the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988. The charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/advisory-committees/national-advisory-committee-microbiological-criteria-foods-nacmcf. The food safety programs of the USDA FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are strengthened through NACMCF recommendations. The programs of other Federal agencies concerned with food safety, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Department of Defense, Veterinary Services also benefit from NACMCF work. FSIS anticipates that the 2025-2027 term Committee will work on charges related to one or more of the following topics: Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products from FSIS, and food safety strategies for aged raw milk cheeses, from FDA.

The Committee reports to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee's Chair, and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Assistant Secretary for Health or their representative, the Committee's Vice-Chair. Currently, Dr. José Emilio Esteban, Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA, is the Committee Chair; Dr. Donald Prater, Principal Associate Commissioner for Human Foods, FDA, is the Vice-Chair; and Dr. Kristal Southern, FSIS, is the Director of the NACMCF Secretariat and Designated Federal Officer.

Appointments to the Committee will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture and take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA.

The full Committee expects to meet at least once a year, virtually or in person, and the meetings will be announced in advance in the Federal Register . NACMCF holds subcommittee meetings in order to accomplish the work of the Committee; all subcommittee work is reviewed and approved during a public meeting of the full Committee, as announced in the Federal Register . Subcommittees may invite technical experts to present information for consideration by the subcommittee. All data and records available to the full Committee are expected to be available to the public after the full Committee has reviewed and approved the work of the subcommittee.

Advisory committee members are expected to attend all scheduled meetings during their 2-year term to ensure the smooth functioning of the advisory committee. Members must be prepared to work outside of scheduled Committee and subcommittee meetings and may be required to assist in document preparation. Committee members serve on a voluntary basis; however, travel expenses and per diem reimbursements are available when in person meetings occur.

All SGE and Federal government employee nominees who are selected must complete the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 450 Confidential Financial Disclosure Report before rendering any advice or before their first meeting. All Committee members will be reviewed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208 for conflicts of interest relating to specific NACMCF work charges, and financial disclosure updates will be required annually. Members subject to financial disclosure must report any changes in financial holdings requiring additional disclosure. OGE 450 forms are available online at: https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/ethicsofficials_financial-disc.

NACMCF documents and comments posted on the FSIS website are electronic conversions from a variety of source formats. In some cases, document conversion may result in character translation or formatting errors. The original document is the official, legal copy. To meet the electronic and information technology accessibility standards in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, NACMCF may add alternate text descriptors for non-text elements (graphs, charts, tables, multimedia, etc.). These modifications only affect the internet copies of the documents. Copyrighted documents will not be posted on FSIS' website but will be available for inspection in the FSIS Docket Room.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important.Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS will also announce and provide a link to it through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all member appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee consider the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities.

The purpose of the meeting is to make funding recommendations on Title II projects.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email svillanueva@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to each meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at svillanueva@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-202-618-4158.

Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after each meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, https://bit.ly/4g3IB4K. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at svillanueva@usccr.gov.

On August 16, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2022-2023 administrative review  1 of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan. 2 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 3 On September 16, 2024, domestic interested parties  4 submitted a case brief. 5 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled the deadline to issue the final results in this administrative review by 90 days. 6 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now March 14, 2025.

Seven producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise remain subject to this review. Commerce selected two companies, Tung Mung Development Co Ltd. (Tung Mung) and Yieh Trading Corporation (Yieh Corporation) for individual examination. 7 Two companies reported having no shipments during the POR, see “Determination of No Shipments” section below. 8 The remaining producers and/or exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

The domestic interested parties did not argue for any changes from the Preliminary Results. Because Commerce received no comments requiring changes to the Preliminary Results, we have not modified our analysis and no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. Accordingly, the final results are unchanged from the Preliminary Results, and we are adopting the Preliminary Results as the final results of this review. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise subject to the Order is certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. For a complete description of the scope, see the appendix to this notice.

As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no-shipment claims from YUSCO and Tung Mung. In the Preliminary Results, we preliminary determined that YUSCO and Tung Mung made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We received no comments from interested parties with respect to this claim. Therefore, because the record indicates that these companies did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we continue to find that that they had no reviewable transactions during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with Commerce's practice, we intend to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced or exported by YUSCO and Tung Mung at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate. 9

The Act 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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin 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 rates that are zero, de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), or determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

For the final results, Commerce based the weighted-average dumping margin for Yieh Corporation, a mandatory respondent in this review, entirely on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences (AFA). Further, we found that the mandatory respondent's total AFA dumping margin of 21.10 percent is reasonably reflective of the non-selected companies' potential dumping margins during the POR. 10 Therefore, we are assigning the margin of 21.10 percent to the four companies not individually examined.

We assigned the following weighted-average dumping margins for the companies listed below for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of the final results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we have made no changes from the Preliminary Results, there are no new calculations to disclose in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b) for these final results.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

For the final results, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate equal to the dumping margins shown above to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by Yieh Corporation. For the companies that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the assessment rate assigned to the companies, based on the methodology described in the “Rate for Non-Selected Companies” section, above.

As indicated above, for YUSCO and Tung Mung, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by these companies, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.

Commerce intends to issue appropriate 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). 11

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 12 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final 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.

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), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of 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 sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5)

This preliminary determination is issued in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 13, 2024. 1 On September 26, 2024, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until December 16, 2024. 2

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by this investigation is tungsten shot from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 6 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 7 For further information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.”

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final countervailing duty (CVD) determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of tungsten shot from China based on a request made by the petitioner. 8 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than April 28, 2025, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Zhuzhou KJ Super Materials Co., Ltd. (KJ Super), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for KJ Super is the rate assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

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

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. 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. 9 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. 10

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 investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 11 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 determination in this investigation. 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). 12

On August 7, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register its Preliminary Determinations that imports of AWC completed in Cambodia using certain AWC inputs manufactured in China are not covered by the scope of the AD and CVD orders on AWC from China and that imports of AWC completed in Cambodia using certain AWC inputs are not circumventing Orders. 1 Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on August 13, 2024, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary negative determination of circumvention with respect to Cambodia. 2 The ITC did not request consultations with Commerce.

Between September 20 and September 27, 2024, Commerce conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Cambodian respondents, Ruito Wire and Cable Co., Ltd. (Ruito Wire) and Xiantong Wire and Cable Co., Ltd. (Xiantong Wire). 3

On November 18, 2024, Ruito Wire and Xiantong Wire each submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief for Commerce to consider for these final determinations. 4 In their letters, Ruito Wire and Xiantong Wire each stated that the facts underlying Commerce's negative preliminary scope and circumvention determinations have been verified as accurate and, as a result, that Commerce should issue final negative scope and circumvention determinations with respect to Cambodia. 5 No other party submitted comments for Commerce to consider for these final determinations.

The product covered by the scope of the Orders is AWC from China. For a full description of the scope of the Orders, see Appendix I of this notice.

These inquiries cover AWC assembled or completed in Cambodia using Chinese-origin AWC inputs ( e.g., stranded wire and cables or unfinished AWC) that is subsequently exported from Cambodia to the United States (inquiry merchandise). These inquiries cover exports of AWC from Cambodia that are assembled or completed using inputs of Chinese origin which undergo further processing in Cambodia. For a full description of the merchandise subject to these scope and circumvention inquiries, see Appendix II of this notice.

Commerce received no comments objecting to its findings in the Preliminary Determinations with regard to its scope analysis conducted under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), nor did Commerce receive any comments objecting to its findings in the Preliminary Determinations regarding its analysis under the circumvention factors of section 781(b) of the Act. Accordingly, Commerce made no changes to its Preliminary Determinations, and no decision memoranda accompany this Federal Register notice. For a complete description of the Commerce's analysis, see the Preliminary Determinations.

Commerce conducted this scope inquiry in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), and it made no changes to its methodology for this final scope ruling. Specifically, as discussed in the Preliminary Determinations, Commerce finds that AWC produced in Cambodia using Chinese-origin inputs that do not satisfy the physical description of the scope of the Orders is not subject to the Orders. 6

Commerce conducted this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226. Commerce made no changes to its methodology for this final circumvention determination. Specifically, as discussed in the Preliminary Determinations, Commerce determines that U.S. imports of inquiry merchandise from Cambodia are not circumventing the Orders. 7 As a result, in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that the inquiry merchandise exported from Cambodia should not be included within the scope of the Orders. Commerce is making this negative determination of circumvention of the Orders on a country-wide basis.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(l)(1) and 19 CFR 351.226(l)(1), Commerce notified U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the initiation of these scope and circumvention inquiries and directed CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries of products subject to these scope and circumvention inquiries that were already subject to the suspension of liquidation under the Orders and to apply the cash deposit rate that would be applicable if the products were determined to be covered by the scope of the Orders. 8

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(4) and 19 CFR 351.226(l)(4), Commerce will order CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and refund cash deposits for any entries of inquiry merchandise that are suspended under the case numbers applicable to this inquiry ( i.e., A-570-095 and C-570-096).

This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

Commerce is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 781(b) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.225(h), and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).

Commerce regulations provide that it will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. 1 Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on November 15, 2024. 2 This current notice covers all scope rulings made by Enforcement and Compliance between July 1, 2024, and September 30, 2024.

Requestor: Amsted Rail Company, Inc. and its affiliated company ASF-K de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. Certain steel freight rail couplers ( i.e., E type yokes and F type yokes) as defined in the AAR specification of M-211 “Foundry and Product Approval Requirements for the Manufacture of Couplers, Coupler Yokes, Knuckles, Follower Blocks, and Coupler Parts” are not covered by the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain freight rail couplers from Mexico because of the plain language of the scope of the order. July 2, 2024.

Requestor: GameChange Solar Corp. The off-grid solar charging module with part numbers GC4291F, GC4291FE, GC3291F, or GC3291FE is covered by the scope of the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China because the solar cells in the charging module do not differ physically from the crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells covered by the scope of the orders and the charging module does not meet any of the exclusions in the scope of the orders. August 13, 2024.

Requestor: Allied Wheel Components, Inc. (Allied Wheel). Certain models of passenger vehicle and light truck discs and rims imported by Allied Wheel are outside the scope of the AD and CVD orders on certain steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China because the requested products are distinguishable from in-scope trailer wheels on the basis of hub bore size, offset, load rating, and/or bolt pattern that make them unsuitable for use on trailer or towable equipment. August 21, 2024.

Requestor: Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. (Chen Shin Rubber) Certain light-truck spare tires models, identified under part code TP10657100, produced by Cheng Shin Rubber and imported by its U.S. affiliate, Cheng Shin Rubber USA Inc., are not covered by the scope of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan because the product's technical specs and prefix designations meet the exclusionary language of the order as they are not at this time included within the TRA Yearbook. However, we acknowledge that a future version of the TRA Yearbook could bring previously excluded tires into the scope. August 5, 2024.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries and scope/circumvention inquiry combinations made during the period July 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to CommerceCLU@trade.gov.

This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).

Section 315(f) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved national estuarine research reserves. The evaluation process includes holding one or more public meetings, considering public comments, and consulting with interested federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the State of New Jersey has met the national objectives and has adhered to the management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the requirements of Section 315(b)(2) of the CZMA, and the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is complete, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the final evaluation findings.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1461

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

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Education is sponsoring data collection efforts on its Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program. The NOAA B-WET program is authorized under 33 U.S.C. 893a(a), the America COMPETES Act. The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is authorized to conduct, develop, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal educational activities at all levels to enhance public awareness and understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship by the general public and other coastal stakeholders, including underrepresented groups in ocean and atmospheric science and policy careers. B-WET advances NOAA's mission by awarding education grants that foster an environmentally literate citizenry who have the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to protect watersheds and related ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. B-WET currently funds projects in seven regions (California, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, New England, and the Pacific Northwest).

To ensure that educational activities funded by B-WET are of the highest quality, and efficiently utilize federal resources, B-WET has created an across-region, internal evaluation system to provide ongoing monitoring of program implementation and to identify opportunities for improved program outcomes. The evaluation system is maintained by B-WET staff with assistance from an outside contractor. The evaluation system collects information from B-WET program-funded project participants, both grant recipients and those they serve.

B-WET awardees of grants or cooperative agreements, and the awardees' teachers who attend professional development programs provided by the awardees, are asked to voluntarily complete online survey forms to provide data for the evaluation system. Information collected from awardees includes program elements such as program duration, format, audience, location, support and/or materials offered, and topics covered. Information collected from teacher professional development participants includes teaching methodologies, program satisfaction, program coverage, suggestions for improvement, and teaching confidence. Information collected from teachers at the end of the school year following their participation in a professional development program includes program elements such as time spent teaching topics covered in the professional development program, types of activities used with their students, teachers' perceptions of student learning, and teaching practices utilized. One individual from each awardee organization is asked to complete a survey once per year of the award, and the teacher participants are asked to complete one survey at the end of their professional development program and another survey at the end of the following school year. Responses to the survey questions are aggregated and analyzed as part of ongoing evaluation efforts.

Based on a review of evaluation system results, B-WET has made program improvements by adjusting its Federal Notice of Funding Opportunities and program guidelines. On-going data collection enables NOAA to monitor program implementation and outcomes on a regular basis and supports adaptive management of the program.

Respondents submit their information electronically using a survey collection platform.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0658.

Form Number(s): None.

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

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal government; individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Given historical funding levels, NOAA B-WET estimates that approximately 165 awardees and 3,374 teachers will be invited to respond each year.

Estimated Time per Response: Awardee-respondents will complete an online survey in 60 minutes and teacher-respondents will complete two online surveys in 30 minutes each.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,539.

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

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 893a(a), the America COMPETES Act.

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 primary purpose of the meeting is to address guidance received from the Pacific Council at their November 2024 meeting. The KRWG may discuss and further develop interim management measures, or a management framework, intended to address the response of Klamath River fall Chinook to the dynamic nature of the Klamath River environment and the available habitat immediately following dam removal, and post-dam removal until the natural environment is stabilized and the salmon population is more predictable. Additional discussions may include, but are not limited to, future meetings, workload planning, and upcoming items on the upcoming Pacific Council meeting agenda.

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

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

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

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 monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

On January 19, 2024, NMFS received a request from the USCG for two IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving (installation and removal) associated with construction of two FRC homeporting docks in Seward and Sitka, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, the USCG submitted revised versions on April 3, 2024, June 6, 2024, and June 11, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on June 11, 2024. The USCG's request is for take of 11 species (18 stocks) of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for a subset of 5 of these species, Level A harassment. Neither the USCG nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, IHAs are appropriate.

The USCG plans to construct shore-side facilities and associated infrastructure at Moorings Seward to homeport one FRC located in the Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) boat basin, and demolishing and constructing shore-side facilities at Moorings Sitka in Sitka Harbor to support a second FRC. The shore-side facilities and associated infrastructure for Moorings Seward will be constructed parallel to the existing SMIC dock. Construction of a new floating dock at Moorings Sitka will be attached to the existing pier. The projects are needed to provide adequate vessel berthing capability to support modern USCG cutters and ultimately, readiness as part of the USCG's overall mission. The USCG plans to use a variety of methods, including impact, down-the-hole (DTH), and vibratory pile driving, to install and remove piles, including concrete, steel, plastic, and timber piles. These methods of pile driving will introduce underwater sounds that may result in take, by Level A and Level B harassment, of marine mammals. Pile removal may occur by vibratory, cutting, or clipping methods. Cutting and clipping are not anticipated to have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals because they are either above water, do not last for sufficient duration to present the reasonable potential for disruption of behavioral patterns, do not produce sound levels with likely potential to result in marine mammal harassment, or some combination of the above.

Each IHA will be effective for 1 year from the date of issuance. Pile extraction and installation activities at Moorings Seward will occur for a total of 22 non-consecutive days, of which pile removal is anticipated to take 2 days and pile installation is anticipated to take a maximum of 20 days (15 days to complete installation plus 5 additional days to account for potential weather-related delays). Pile removal and installation activities at Moorings Sitka will occur for a total of 117 non-consecutive days, of which pile removal is anticipated to take 3 days and pile installation is anticipated to take a maximum of 114 days (89 days to complete installation plus 25 additional days to account for potential weather-related delays).

A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 60359, July 25, 2024). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

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

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue two IHAs to the USCG was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2024 (89 FR 60359). That notice described, in detail, the USCG's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the request for authorizations described therein, our analyses, the proposed authorizations, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHAs, and requested that interested persons submit relevant information, suggestions, and comments.

During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS did not receive any substantive comments on the proposed IHAs.

There were two changes from the proposed IHAs: the dates for planned work at both locations and the estimated take at both locations (four species (four stocks) at Moorings Seward, four species (five stocks) at Moorings Sitka). The former was made upon the applicant's request and resulted in changes to the dates planned for in-water work at Moorings Seward to occur from March 1, 2027, through February 29, 2028, and at Moorings Sitka to occur from September 1, 2026, through August 31, 2027.

Changes to estimated take were made as a result of NMFS' incorporation of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Updated Technical Guidance; NMFS, 2024). On May 3, 2024, NMFS published and solicited public comment on its draft Updated Technical Guidance (89 FR 36762), which included updated thresholds and weighting functions to inform auditory injury (AUD INJ) estimates. The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance was finalized on October 24, 2024 (89 FR 84872) and represents the best available science, replacing the 2018 Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2018). To best ensure we have considered an appropriate estimate of take by Level A harassment, in consideration of the best available science, we conducted basic comparative calculations using the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance for the purposes of understanding the number of takes by Level A harassment (AUD INJ) that would be predicted. The relevant updated thresholds and weighting functions may be found in the executive summary of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, on pages 3 through 6. We also considered whether modifications to mitigation zones would be appropriate in light of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance. Based on the outcome of these comparisons using the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, updated take numbers are presented in tables 11 and 12 of this notice (see Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section). For the purposes of the negligible impact analyses for a given species or stock, the higher of any two Level A harassment estimates is considered. No updates were made to planned mitigation zones in consideration of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance (see Mitigation section).

The use of the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance resulted in an increase in the size of the Level A harassment isopleth(s) for certain species groups, which therefore increased take by Level A harassment for the following species, for which we relied on density data and the estimated ensonified areas: harbor porpoise at Moorings Seward and Dall's porpoise at Moorings Sitka. It also resulted in an increase in the size of the Level A harassment isopleth and resulting take by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions at both locations, for which we relied on occurrence data. Take by Level A harassment of low-frequency cetaceans was not expected under the 2018 Technical Guidance and is not expected under the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance; the Level A harassment isopleth during DTH activities for this group decreased.

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 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for the specified activities at Seward and Sitka, 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 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. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in either NMFS' U.S. Alaska SARs or U.S. Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 1 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 11 species (with 18 managed stocks) in table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activities to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur at either location. All species that could potentially occur in the project areas are included in section 4 and tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the USCG's IHA application.

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the USCG project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (89 FR 60359, July 25, 2024); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ) for generalized species accounts.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. 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 auditory or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups and, in 2024, updated the hearing group terminology (NMFS, 2024). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65-decibel (dB) threshold from the composite audiograms, previous analysis in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019). Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges based on the Updated Technical Guidance are provided in table 2.

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.

The effects of underwater noise from the USCG's construction activities have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project areas. The notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 60359, July 25, 2024) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from the USCG's construction activities on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is referenced in this final IHA determination and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 60359, July 25, 2024).

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHAs, which informed 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 primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources ( i.e., vibratory and impact pile driving, DTH) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high-frequency species and phocids, because predicted AUD INJ zones are large and these species could enter the Level A harassment zones and remain undetected for a sufficient duration to incur AUD INJ due to their small size and inconspicuous nature. Although AUD INJ could occur for low-frequency species due to large predicted AUD INJ zones associated with DTH, due to their large size, conspicuous nature, and planned mitigation ( i.e., large shutdown zones, boat-based protected species observers (PSOs)), it is assumed that all low-frequency species would be visually detected and, therefore, taking by Level A harassment would be eliminated. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the authorized 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 authorized 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 AUD INJ (which includes, but is not limited to, permanent threshold shift (PTS)) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

Level B Harassment —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above 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. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by temporary threshold shift (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.

The USCG's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory and DTH) and impulsive (impact driving and DTH) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) thresholds, respectively, are applicable.

Level A harassment —NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The USCG's planned activity includes the use of impulsive (impact driving and DTH) and non-impulsive (vibratory and DTH) sources.

These criteria are provided in table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools.

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 ( TL ) coefficient.

The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project ( i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and DTH).

In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles planned for this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and methods (tables 4-7).

NMFS recommends treating DTH systems as both impulsive and continuous, non-impulsive sound source types simultaneously. Thus, impulsive thresholds are used to evaluate Level A harassment, and continuous thresholds are used to evaluate Level B harassment. With regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS recommends proxy levels for Level A harassment based on available data regarding DTH systems of similar sized piles and holes (Denes et al., 2019; Guan and Miner, 2020; Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021; Reyff, 2020; Reyff and Heyvaert, 2019).

Level B Harassment Zones — 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 (-4.5 dB per doubling of distance). 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 USCG's planned activities. This analysis uses practical spreading loss, a standard assumption regarding sound propagation for similar environments, to estimate transmission of sound through water. The Level B harassment zones and approximate amount of area ensonified for the planned underwater activities are shown in tables 8 and 9.

Level A Harassment Zones —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 Updated 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. A weighting adjustment factor of 2.5 or 2, a standard default value for vibratory pile driving and removal or impact driving and DTH respectively, was used to calculate Level A harassment areas. 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 driving and DTH, the optional Updated 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 AUD INJ. Inputs used in the optional Updated User Spreadsheet tool ( e.g., number of piles per day, duration and/or strikes per pile) are presented in tables 4-7, and the resulting estimated isopleths and total ensonified areas are reported below in tables 8 and 9.

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which informed the take calculations. Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence and density in the project areas includes monitoring data, prior incidental take authorizations, and ESA consultations on previous projects. When local density information was not available, data aggregated in the Navy's Marine Mammal Species Density Database (Navy, 2019; Navy, 2020) for the Northwest or Gulf of Alaska Testing and Training areas or nearby proxies from the monitoring data were used. Daily occurrence probability of each marine mammal species is based on consultation with previous monitoring reports, local researchers and marine professionals. Occurrence probability estimates at Moorings Sitka are based on conservative density approximations for each species and factor in historic data of occurrence, seasonality, and group size in Sitka Sound and Sitka Channel. A summary of occurrence is shown in table 10. Group size is based on the best available published research for these species and their presence in the project areas.

Gray whale —Members of the ENP stock have a small chance to occur at the northern end of Resurrection Bay near Moorings Seward, with an estimated density of 0.0155 individuals/km 2 .

During 190 hours of observation from 1994 to 2002 from Sitka's Whale Park, only three gray whales were observed (Straley et al., 2017). However, Straley and Wild (unpublished data) note that since 2014, the number of gray whale sightings in Sitka Sound has increased to an estimated 150-200 individuals in 2021 and 2022. Based on this and recent monitoring data collected near Sitka, the estimated occurrence of gray whales at Moorings Sitka is one group of 3.5 individuals every 2 weeks.

Fin whale —Fin whales have the potential to occur at both Moorings Seward and Moorings Sitka. Based on survey data, fin whales in the vicinity of Moorings Seward are anticipated to occur at a density of 0.068/km 2 and fin whales in the vicinity of Moorings Sitka are anticipated to occur at a density of 0.0001/km 2 .

Humpback whale —Humpback whales found in the project areas are predominantly members of the Hawai'i DPS (89 percent at Moorings Seward, 98 percent probability at Moorings Sitka), which is not listed under the ESA. However, based on a comprehensive photo-identification study, members of the Mexico DPS, which is listed as threatened, have a small potential to occur in all project locations (11 percent at Moorings Seward, 2 percent at Moorings Sitka) (Wade, 2016), and it is estimated that one individual per day of either stock may occur at Moorings Seward while one group of 3.5 individuals per 2 weeks of either stock may occur at Moorings Sitka.

Minke whale —Minke whales are generally found in shallow, coastal waters within 200 m (656 ft) of shore (Zerbini et al., 2006). Dedicated surveys for cetaceans in southeast Alaska found that minke whales were scattered throughout inland waters from Glacier Bay and Icy Strait to Clarence Strait, with small concentrations near the entrance of Glacier Bay. Surveys took place in spring, summer, and fall, and minke whales were present in low numbers in all seasons and years (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Additionally, minke whales were observed during the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project at the mouth of Sitka Sound (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2018). Minke whale density at Moorings Seward is estimated as 0.006 individuals/km 2 while estimated occurrence at Moorings Sitka is one group of 3.5 individuals every 2 weeks.

Killer whale —Killer whales occur along the entire coast of Alaska (Braham and Dahlheim, 1982) and four stocks may be present in the project areas as follows: (1) Alaska Resident stock—both locations; (2) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock—both locations; (3) Northern Resident—Sitka only; and (4) West Coast Transient stock—Sitka only.

The Alaska Resident stock occurs from southeast Alaska to the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock occurs from the northern British Columbia coast to the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The Northern Resident stock occurs from Washington north through part of southeast Alaska. The West Coast Transient stock occurs from California north through southeast Alaska (Muto et al., 2020). One group of seven individuals per week from either the Alaska Resident stock or the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock are estimated to occur at Moorings Seward. One group of 6.6 individuals per week from any of the four stocks are estimated to occur at Moorings Sitka.

Pacific white-sided dolphin —Pacific white-sided dolphins are anticipated to occur in the vicinity of Moorings Seward only. Previous construction monitoring reported by NOAA as an appropriate proxy for Moorings Seward is three individuals per day. During 8 years of surveys near Sitka, Straley et al. (2017) only documented seven Pacific white-sided dolphins, therefore, we do not reasonably expect the species to occur in the vicinity of Moorings Sitka.

Dall's porpoise —Dall's porpoise are anticipated to occur in the vicinity of both locations. At Moorings Seward, the expected occurrence rate is approximately 0.25 animals per day, and the average group size throughout Alaskan waters is estimated to be between 2 and 12 individuals. We therefore estimate that approximately one group of up to six individuals could occur over 22 non-consecutive days of in-water work. At Moorings Sitka, the estimated density of Dall's porpoise is 0.121 individuals/km 2 .

Harbor porpoise —Only the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock and the Gulf of Alaska stock are expected to be encountered in the project areas. The Gulf of Alaska stock range includes Moorings Seward while the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock's range includes Moorings Sitka. The estimated density of harbor porpoises at Moorings Seward is 0.4547/km 2 and the estimated occurrence at Moorings Sitka is one group of five individuals every week.

Northern fur seal —Northern fur seals are not expected near Moorings Seward and one individual per month is estimated to occur at Moorings Sitka.

Steller sea lion —Only the Western stock of Steller sea lion is expected to occur at Moorings Seward with an estimated occurrence of two individuals per day. Both the Western and Eastern stocks may occur at Moorings Sitka, which is located in the Central Outer Coast population mixing zone delineated by Hastings et al. (2020). Based on these data, 2.2 percent of Steller sea lions near Sitka are expected to be from the Western stock while 97.8 percent are expected to be from the Eastern stock (Hastings et al., 2020), and it is estimated that two groups of two individuals per day may occur at Moorings Sitka in the Level A harassment zone.

Harbor seal —There are 12 stocks of harbor seals in Alaska, 2 of which occur in the project areas: (1) the Prince William Sound stock ranges from Elizabeth Island off the southwest tip of the Kenai Peninsula to Cape Fairweather, including Moorings Seward; and (2) the Sitka/Chatham Strait stock ranges from Cape Bingham south to Cape Ommaney, extending inland to Table Bay on the west side of Kuiu Island and north through Chatham Strait to Cube Point off the west coast of Admiralty Island, and as far east as Cape Bendel on the northeast tip of Kupreanof Island, which includes Moorings Sitka. Daily occurrence of harbor seals at Moorings Sitka is estimated as 48.95 individuals/day and at Moorings Sitka 2 groups of 2.1 individuals/day are estimated based on previous monitoring in the vicinity, with a likelihood of 2 groups per day in the Level A harassment zone.

Here we describe how the information provided above was synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and is authorized.

Neither the applicant nor NMFS have fine-scale data to quantitatively assess the number of animals in the relatively small predicted Level A harassment zones at either location. Therefore, we assumed that, for cryptic species ( e.g., Steller sea lion, Pacific white-sided dolphin (Moorings Seward only), harbor seal, harbor porpoise), up to 25 percent of the animals that entered the Level B harassment zone could enter the Level A harassment zone undetected, potentially accumulating sound exposure that rises to the level of Level A harassment.

For species with observational data, the following equation was used to estimate take by Level B harassment, where daily occurrence is measured as individuals per day:

For species with observational data, the following equation was used to estimate take by Level A harassment, where daily occurrence is multiplied by the number of days of work, which is then multiplied by 25 percent:

For species with density data, the following equation was used to estimate take by Level B harassment, where ensonified area is measured as km 2 :

For species with density data, the following equation was used to estimate take by Level A harassment, where species density is multiplied by the daily ensonified Level A harassment area multiplied by the number of days of work:

Table 11 summarizes the amount of take authorized by both Level A and Level B harassment, as well as the percentage of each stock expected to be taken, at Moorings Seward.

Table 12 summarizes amount of take authorized by both Level A and Level B harassment, as well as the percentage of each stock expected to be taken, at Moorings Sitka.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

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

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

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

For each IHA, the USCG must:

• Ensure that construction supervisors and crews, the monitoring team, and relevant USCG staff are trained prior to the start of all pile driving and DTH activity, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood. New personnel joining during the project must be trained prior to commencing work;

• Employ one to five PSOs and establish monitoring locations as described in the application and the IHA. The USCG must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions. For all pile driving and removal at least one PSO must be used. The PSO will be stationed as close to the activity as possible;

• The placement of the PSOs during all pile driving and removal and DTH activities will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible during pile installation;

• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving or DTH activity ( i.e., pre-activity monitoring) through 30 minutes post-activity of pile driving or DTH activity;

• Pre-activity monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown zones indicated in table 13 are clear of marine mammals. Pile driving and DTH may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals;

• The USCG must use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. A soft start must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer; and

• If a marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown zones indicated in table 13, pile driving and DTH must be delayed or halted. If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone (table 13) or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.

As proposed by the applicant, in-water activities will take place only between civil dawn and civil dusk (generally 30 minutes after sunrise and up to 45 minutes before sunset), and work may not begin without sufficient daylight to conduct pre-activity monitoring, and may extend up to 3 hours past sunset, as needed to either completely remove an in-process pile or to embed a new pile far enough to safely leave piles in place until work can resume the next day; during conditions with a Beaufort Sea State of four or less; and when the entire shutdown zones are visible.

The placement of PSOs during all pile driving activities (described in Monitoring and Reporting) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entire shutdown zone will not be visible ( e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving will be delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown zone could be detected.

PSOs will monitor the full shutdown zones and the Level B harassment zones to the extent practicable. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown zones and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone.

Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activities ( i.e., pre-clearance monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving. Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for a 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zones listed in table 9, pile driving activity will be delayed or halted. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will commence. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility ( i.e., the entire shutdown zone and surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye).

Soft-start procedures provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. If impact pile driving is necessary to achieve required tip elevation, the USCG is required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. Soft-start must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer.

The USCG must establish shutdown zones for all pile driving activities. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones are based upon the Level A harassment thresholds for each pile size/type and driving method where applicable, as shown in table 13. During all in-water piling activities, the USCG plans to implement a minimum 30-m shutdown zone, larger than NMFS' typical requirement of a minimum 10-m shutdown zone, with the addition of larger zones during DTH. These distances exceed the estimated Level A harassment isopleths described in tables 8 and 9. Adherence to this expanded shutdown zone will reduce the potential for the take of marine mammals by Level A harassment but, due to the large zone sizes and small, inconspicuous nature of five species (Steller sea lion, Pacific white-sided dolphin (Moorings Seward only), harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise), the potential for Level A harassment cannot be completely avoided. If a marine mammal is observed entering, or detected within, a shutdown zone during pile driving activity, the activity must be stopped until there is visual confirmation that the animal has left the zone or the animal is not sighted for a period of 15 minutes. Shutdown zones for each activity type are shown in table 13.

All marine mammals would be monitored in the Level B harassment zones and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can take place. If a marine mammal enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water activities will continue and PSOs will document the animal's presence within the estimated harassment zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the conditions in this section and this IHA. Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities would be conducted by up to five PSOs meeting NMFS' standards and in a manner consistent with the following:

• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;

• At least one PSO would have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;

• Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field), or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;

• A team of three PSOs (up to five PSOs) at up to three locations (including two PSOs on a captained vessel in the case of a five-member team) will conduct the marine protected species monitoring depending on the activity and size of the relevant shutdown and monitoring zones;

• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;

• For activities with monitoring zones beyond the visual range of a single PSO ( i.e., DTH), additional monitoring locations or the use of a vessel with captain and up to three other PSOs (depending on size of the monitoring zones) will conduct monitoring; and

• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to the IHA.

PSOs should have the following additional qualifications:

• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

For all pile driving activities, at least one PSO must be stationed at the best possible vantage point to monitor the shutdown zones and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. A team of three or five PSOs at up to three locations (including two PSOs on a captained vessel in the case of a five-member team) would conduct marine mammal monitoring depending on the activity and size of monitoring zones. PSOs would be equipped with high quality binoculars for monitoring and radios or cells phones for maintaining contact with work crews. Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in-water construction activities. In addition, PSOs would record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and would document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.

A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities for each IHA, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance from any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. The USCG must submit all PSO data electronically in a format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database ( i.e., digital images of data sheets are not sufficient). Specifically, the report must include:

• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method ( i.e., impact, vibratory, DTH) and the total equipment duration for vibratory removal for each pile or total number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);

• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;

• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort Sea State and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;

• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information:

○ Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at the time of sighting;

○ Time of sighting;

○ Identification of the animal(s) ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentifiable), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;

○ Distance and bearing of each marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting);

○ Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);

○ Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, sex class, etc. );

○ Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone; and

○ Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations ( e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity ( e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);

• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones and shutdown zones; by species; and

• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered ( e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensured, and resulting changes in behavior of the animal(s), if any.

If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports will constitute the final reports. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the USCG must immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and ITP.clevenstine@noaa.gov ), NMFS, and to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the USCG must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:

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

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

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

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

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

• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

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

To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 1 at both project locations, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar in Seward and Sitka. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.

Pile driving and DTH activities associated with the specified activities, as described previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take in the form of Level B harassment only for all species other than the Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and DTH. Potential takes could occur if individual marine mammals are present in the ensonified areas when pile driving or DTH is occurring.

No serious injury or mortality would be expected, even in the absence of required mitigation measures, given the nature of the activities. For all species other than Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, no Level A harassment is anticipated due to the confined nature of the facilities, ability to position PSOs at stations from which they can observe the entire shutdown zones, and the high visibility of the species expected to be present at each site. The potential for injury is small for mid- and low-frequency cetaceans and sea lions, and is expected to be essentially eliminated through implementation of the planned mitigation measures—soft start (for impact driving), and shutdown zones. Further, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated for killer whales, humpback whales, gray whales, fin whales, or minke whales due to the application of planned mitigation measures and the small Level A harassment zones (for killer whales only). The potential for harassment will be minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).

Take by Level A harassment is authorized for Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise. Due to their inconspicuous nature, it is possible individuals of these species could enter the Level A harassment zone undetected and remain within that zone for a duration long enough to incur AUD INJ. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ ( i.e., minor degradation of hearing capabilities within regions of hearing that align most completely with the energy produced by impact pile driving such as the low-frequency region below 2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment or impairment within the ranges of greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small degree of AUD INJ.

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

• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;

• Level A harassment would be very small amounts and of low degree;

• Level B harassment would be primarily in the form of behavioral disturbance, resulting in avoidance of the project areas around where piling is occurring, with some low-level TTS that may limit the detection of acoustic cues for relatively brief amounts of time in relatively confined footprints of the activities;

• The ensonified areas are very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks, and would not adversely affect ESA-designated critical habitat for any species or any areas of known biological importance;

• The amount of take authorized accounts for no more than, at most, 3 percent of any stock that may occur in the project areas;

• The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat; and

• The implementation of mitigation measures to minimize the number of marine mammals exposed to injurious levels of sound and ensure take by Level A harassment is, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ.

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

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

The amount of take NMFS has authorized is below one-third of the estimated stock abundance of all species and stocks (take of individuals is less than 3 percent of the abundance of the affected stocks at Moorings Seward and Moorings Sitka; see tables 11 and 12). This is likely a conservative estimate because it assumes all takes are of different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.

There are no valid abundance estimates available for humpback whales (Mexico-North Pacific stock), fin whales (Northeast Pacific stock), minke whales (Alaska stock), Dall's porpoises (Alaska stock), and harbor porpoises (Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock). There is no recent stock abundance estimate for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale and the minimum population is considered unknown (Young et al., 2023). There are 2 minimum population estimates for this stock that are over 15 years old: 2,241 (Martínez-Aguilar, 2011) and 766 (Wade, 2021). Using either of these estimates, the three takes by Level B harassment authorized (two at Moorings Seward, one at Moorings Sitka) represent small numbers of the stock. Muto et al. (2021) estimate the minimum stock size for the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale for the areas surveyed is 2,554 individuals. Therefore, the three takes by Level B harassment of this stock at Moorings Seward represent small numbers of this stock. There is also no current abundance estimate of the Alaska stock of minke whale but over 2,000 individuals were documented in areas recently surveyed (Muto et al., 2021). Therefore, the 22 takes by Level B harassment at Moorings Sitka represent small numbers of this stock, even if each take occurred to a new individual.

The most recent stock abundance estimate of the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise was 83,400 animals and, although the estimate is more than 8 years old, it is unlikely this stock has drastically declined since that time. Therefore, the 72 takes authorized, 15 by Level A and 57 by Level B harassment (6 total at Moorings Seward, 66 total at Moorings Sitka), represent small numbers of this stock. A current stock-wide abundance estimate for the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock of harbor porpoises in offshore waters (which includes Moorings Sitka) is not available (Young et al., 2023). However, Muto et al. (2021) estimate the minimum stock size for the areas surveyed is 1,057 individuals. Therefore, the 35 takes authorized at Moorings Sitka (3 by Level A harassment, 32 by Level B harassment) represent small numbers of this stock.

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

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.

There are two species of marine mammals analyzed herein that have been taken as part of subsistence harvests in Resurrection Bay and southeast Alaska: Steller sea lion and harbor seal. The most recent data on subsistence-harvested marine mammals near Seward is of harbor seals in 2002, and the most recent data near Sitka is of both harbor seals and Steller sea lions in 2013 (ADFG, 2013). The most recent subsistence hunt survey data available indicated approximately 11 percent of Sitka households used subsistence-caught marine mammals (Sill and Koster, 2013) and no data is available since that time.

The project is not likely to adversely impact the availability of any marine mammal species or stocks that are commonly used for subsistence purposes or impact subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the region. Although the activities are located in regions where subsistence harvests have occurred historically, subsistence harvest of marine mammals is rare in the project areas and local subsistence users have not expressed concern about this project. Both locations are adjacent to heavily traveled industrialized waterways and all project activities will take place within closed and secured waterfronts where subsistence activities do not generally occur. The project also will not have an adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use at locations farther away, where the construction activities are not expected to take place. Some minor, short-term harassment of Steller sea lions and harbor seals could occur, but any effects on subsistence harvest activities in the project areas will be minimal, and not have an adverse impact.

Based on the description of the specified activity and the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the planned mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from the USCG's activities.

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

There are three marine mammal species (Western DPS Steller sea lion, Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale, and the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale) with confirmed occurrence in the project areas that are listed as endangered under the ESA. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on December 3, 2024, under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to the USCG under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Western DPS Steller sea lion, Mexico DPS of humpback whale, the Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whale, or the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for Western DPS Steller sea lion, Mexico DPS of humpback whale, the Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whale, or the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale.

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 determined that the issuance of these IHAs qualify to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

NMFS has issued 2 IHAs to the USCG for the potential harassment of small numbers of 11 marine mammal species incidental to construction of FRC homeporting docks in Seward and Sitka, Alaska, that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

Dominion is requesting modification of their Incidental Take Permit (ITP) (No. 21516-01) to include the annual incidental capture of up to 18,363 Atlantic sturgeon eggs for the duration of the permit ( i.e., through December 30, 2025). All of the eggs would belong to the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon that is listed as endangered.

Atlantic sturgeon spawn in well-oxygenated, flowing freshwater over hard substrate with interstitial spaces ( e.g., gravel, cobble) of tidally-affected rivers. Male and female Atlantic sturgeon must spawn ( i.e., release milt and eggs, respectively) in close proximity to each other and at the same time for fertilization of some eggs to occur. The eggs become sticky within minutes of being fertilized and adhere to the substrate for the relatively short and temperature-dependent period of development prior to hatching (Ryder 1888; Dees 1961; Murawski and Pacheco 1977; Hilton et al. 2016; Siddique et al. 2016).

Unfertilized eggs that float away from the spawning site are not expected to be fertilized at a later time because milt released elsewhere by a male sturgeon would be quickly dispersed and diluted by the flowing river water making a chance encounter between an unfertilized egg and an Atlantic sturgeon sperm cell highly unlikely. Male Atlantic sturgeon move to the spawning grounds before females and then search for or follow females as each female moves onto the spawning grounds (Hilton et al. 2016; NOAA 2017; Breece et al. 2021). The scrapes and abrasions observed on male Atlantic sturgeon captured during the spawning season support that, similar to Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ) and other sturgeon species, male Atlantic sturgeon rub against the female during spawning which induces the female to release her eggs at the same time as the male is releasing milt (Ryder 1888; Bruch and Binkowski 2002; Sulak and Randall 2009; Sulak 2014; Balazik and Musick 2015). The simultaneous release of eggs and milt in the same location maximizes the number of eggs that are fertilized before river currents disperse the eggs and dilute the milt.

Fertilized eggs that do not adhere to the substrate or that become dislodged from the substrate before hatching are not expected to survive because the environmental conditions at the spawning site are necessary for egg and early life stage survival. The hatched-out embryos and the subsequent larvae need well-oxygenated freshwater, and the substrate used for spawning provides interstitial spaces where the early life stages shelter from predators (Bain et al. 2000; Kynard and Horgan 2002; Niklitschek and Secor 2009). A number of fish species have been identified as likely feeding on the early Atlantic sturgeon life stages in the James River and in the other Chesapeake Bay tributaries (Hilton et al. 2016; Bunch et al. 2021; Secor et al. 2022).

As described above, the best available information supports that free-floating sturgeon eggs are non-viable. However, the take of eggs from Atlantic sturgeon listed under the ESA is prohibited unless authorized in a permit in accordance with 50 CFR 222.307 or 222.308 or exempted in accordance with 50 CFR 402.

NMFS published notice in the Federal Register on January 11, 2021 (86 FR 1945), that we had issued an ITP (No. 21516) to Dominion pursuant to the ESA of 1973, as amended, for the incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon larvae ( Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus ) associated with the otherwise lawful operation of the Dominion Chesterfield Power Station (CPS) in Chesterfield, VA. All of the larvae would belong to the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon based on where CPS is located. The permit was issued for a duration of five years.

In September 2021, Dominion captured three Atlantic sturgeon eggs belonging to the Chesapeake Bay DPS while it was carrying out required entrainment monitoring at CPS during a high river flow event. Take of Atlantic sturgeon eggs was not anticipated or authorized in the 2021 permit. Dominion presumed that the eggs were in the vicinity of CPS because of the high river flow event. Therefore, Dominion requested modification of their permit to authorize the incidental take of up to 36,985 Atlantic sturgeon eggs belonging to the Chesapeake Bay DPS during anticipated high river flow events that could occur during the duration of the permit ( i.e., through December 30, 2025). Dominion also requested several changes to the permit conditions based on anticipated operational changes at CPS (87 FR 47190; August 2, 2022).

NMFS re-issued Permit No. 21516 with the modified permit conditions for operational changes only, because Atlantic sturgeon eggs were taken at CPS under normal river flow conditions after the close of the public comment period (88 FR 82324; November 24, 2023). Therefore, Dominion needed to reconsider its presumption that the entrainment of sturgeon eggs could only occur during high river flow conditions and revisit its estimated take of sturgeon eggs at CPS before NMFS could proceed with Dominion's permit modification request to include take of eggs.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Chesapeake Bay DPS. 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. Regulations governing ITPs for threatened and endangered species are found at 50 CFR 222.307.

Dominion is requesting authorization to allow for the incidental take of up to 36,726 Atlantic sturgeon eggs for the duration of the permit ( i.e., through December 30, 2025), based on an average annual take of up to 18,363 Atlantic sturgeon eggs (95 percent CI = 4,567−47,617). All eggs are expected to belong to the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon, fall spawning population, based on the fidelity of adults to the spawning river and the spawning season.

Dominion is proposing to mitigate for the take of Atlantic sturgeon eggs with the same studies that serve as the mitigation for the take of Atlantic sturgeon larvae, “Sturgeon Research Movement” and “Digital Holography,” with revisions to the studies as needed.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we analyzed the impacts of the proposed modifications of the ITP and the habitat conservation permit. We prepared a draft Supplemental Information Report (SIR) that describes why there is no need to supplement the 2020 environmental assessment and finding of no significant impacts. We have made the draft SIR available for public inspection online (see ADDRESSES ).

We will also evaluate whether modification of the permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis. If the requirements are met, we will issue the modified permit to the applicant.

We will publish a record of our final action in the Federal Register .

Authority: This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

NOAA established the OEAB under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and legislation that gives the agency statutory authority to operate an ocean exploration program and to coordinate a national program of ocean exploration. The OEAB advises NOAA leadership on strategic planning, exploration priorities, competitive ocean exploration grant programs, and other matters as the NOAA Administrator requests.

OEAB members represent government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and not-for-profit institutions involved in all facets of ocean exploration—from advanced technology to public engagement.

In addition to advising NOAA leadership, NOAA expects the OEAB to help to define and develop a national program of ocean exploration—a network of stakeholders and partnerships advancing national priorities for ocean exploration.

Matters To Be Considered: NOAA laboratory and program science reviews are conducted every five years to evaluate the quality, relevance, and performance of research conducted in NOAA OAR laboratories and programs. On October 9-10, 2024, the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board conducted a five-year program review of the NOAA Ocean Exploration program. Three focus areas were identified for the review: Ensuring a National Program of Ocean Exploration; Technological Innovation and Application; and, Public Engagement and Education. The Board will formally convene on January 10, 2025 to validate and vote on their findings, and upon approval, their Report of Findings and Recommendations will be transmitted to the NOAA Administrator and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

The agenda and other meeting materials will be made available on the OEAB website at https://oeab.noaa.gov/.

Status: The meeting will be held virtually and be open to the public via remote access. Information on how to access the meeting, the agenda, and the public comment period schedule will be viewable on the OEAB website.

The OEAB expects that public statements at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to three minutes. The Designated Federal Officer must receive written comments by Jan. 3, 2025, to provide sufficient time for OEAB review. Written comments received after Jan. 3, 2025, will be distributed to the OEAB but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Comments should be submitted to Designated Federal Officer David.Turner@NOAA.gov.

Special Accommodations: Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Designated Federal Officer by Jan. 3, 2025.

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

The applicant is proposing to import up to five adult male bottlenose dolphins from the Attica Zoological Park in Athina, Greece, to the Clearwater Marine Aquarium for public display purposes. The subject dolphins are between the ages of 11 and 24 years and were all captive-born to individuals with multiple origins, including the southeastern United States, Cuba, the Russian Federation, and the Black Sea. The applicant has identified three of the animals as common bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) and two as Black Sea bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ponticus ). The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.

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

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

On November 15, 2024 (89 FR 90270), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

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

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

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

The DAF has decided to replace all T-38C aircraft at Laughlin AFB with up to 79 T-7A aircraft, and continue flying training programs at Laughlin AFB, TX. Initial delivery will be limited to 51 aircraft per the Secretary of the Air Force Strategic Basing Decision.

The DAF decision documented in the ROD was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on June 21, 2024, through a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (Volume 89, Number 120, Page 52040) with a waiting period that ended on July 22, 2024.

Authority: This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (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)).

The U.S. Department of Defense 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission made recommendations for realignment and closure of military installations in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-510, as amended). The recommendations included closure of SVADA, located in northwestern Illinois along the Mississippi River in Jo Daviess and Carroll Counties. The Army officially closed SVADA in 2000. Following closure, the Army proposed disposal of SVADA's 13,061 acres because the property was excess to the Army's needs. Approximately 5,343.9 acres have been transferred as of the date of this notice. The proposed action is the transfer of LRA Parcel 20's 132 acres. The need for this action is to carry out the BRAC recommendation for the closure of SVADA, which became law, and to make the parcel available for reuse.

Through the BRAC process, as SVADA property parcels were certified as clean from environmental contaminants, the Army transferred the property to federal, state, or local agencies. The agencies that have taken ownership of SVADA parcels are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and the LRA.

In the original reuse plan, Parcel 20 was to go to the USFWS. In 2016, USFWS withdrew its interest in the parcel. The Army officially identified the parcel as surplus in January 2018. In 2023, the LRA submitted to the Army a Reuse Plan for Parcel 20. The EIS will analyze the proposed action of disposal and transfer of Parcel 20, a no-action alternative, three LRA reuse alternatives, an alternative under which Parcel 20 would be available for recreation but would otherwise remain undeveloped, and an alternative under which Parcel 20 would be available for recreation and solar development. The no-action alternative is required by 40 CFR 1502.14(c) and serves as the baseline against which the proposed action and other alternatives are compared. The LRA presents in its 2023 Reuse Plan three conceptual reuse alternatives for developing LRA Parcel 20. The three alternatives focus on creating an inland commodity shipping facility, including commercial, industrial, recreational, and potentially solar development under each alternative. To facilitate implementation, the LRA designed the reuse alternatives as sequential phases. The initial phase would be implemented within a five-year target completion window, while the second and third phases would follow, with both having five-year-plus completion windows. The LRA's proposed reuse includes activities outside the boundary of LRA Parcel 20 in the Apple River, the Brickhouse Slough, the Mississippi River, and along Apple Island. All three of the LRA's reuse alternatives would require dredging. The recreation-only use alternative would implement recreational elements on Parcel 20 such as a walking trail, a canoe and kayak ramp on Commander's Pond, and a recreational area. The recreation and solar alternative would include a walking trail and canoe and kayak ramp on the pond, with solar photovoltaic arrays instead of a recreation area.

The EIS will analyze a wide range of environmental resource areas and effects, including—but not limited to—land use, aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, hazardous and toxic materials, and cumulative environmental effects. Effects on water, biological resources, and cultural resources could be significant, and a Clean Water Act wetlands permit may be required. Additional resources and conditions may be identified as a result of the scoping process initiated by this NOI.

Interested local, state, and federal officials and agencies, federally recognized Tribes, and the public will be invited to participate in the 30-day scoping process, which includes a scoping meeting. The Army is seeking comments on alternatives and effects, as well as relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed action. Opportunities for public participation will be announced in the local news media and on the project website at www.lrd.usace.army.mil/Submit-ArticleCS/Programs/Article/3901394/. Comments from the public will be considered before completion of a Draft EIS. Following completion of a Draft EIS, the public will have an additional opportunity for review and comment. The Final EIS will make appropriate changes based on public comments and its release will start a 30-day waiting period. After that time, the Army will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) announcing the chosen alternative.

Scoping and Agency Coordination: Consultation will include, but not necessarily be limited to, consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This includes consultation with federally recognized Tribes. The Army will determine the scope of the analysis by soliciting comments from interested local, state, and federal officials and agencies, federally recognized Tribes, and members of the public.

CEQ Unique Identifier: EISX-007-21-000-1729699335.

MOTSU is the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command's East Coast strategic ammunition port and is DoD's primary ammunition seaport supporting the European, African, and Middle Eastern areas of operation. The proposed action includes barricade safety, waterfront maintenance, Pleasure Island Explosive Safety Clear Zone security, linear infrastructure ( e.g., roads, rail, utilities, firebreaks), stormwater mitigation, and cantonment area infill. The proposed action also includes modernizing operation areas and general repair and maintenance of infrastructure, to include facilities, wharves, roads, rail, utilities, and perimeter security. The proposed projects address critical mission requirements and are planned for fiscal years 2025 through 2031.

The DEIS evaluates the potential impacts associated with implementing the proposed RPMP activities, to include analyzing Full-Plan Implementation, a Partial Implementation Alternative, and a No-Action Alternative. The DEIS assesses the impacts of the alternatives on resources and identifies mitigation measures. Resource areas and potential impacts addressed include coastal zone management, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. The DEIS has not identified any significant impacts, but consultation is ongoing with regulatory agencies.

Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires that if an agency finds that the only practicable alternative for an action requires siting in a floodplain, the agency shall design or modify its action in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain. Under E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, an agency must avoid undertaking new construction in wetlands unless the agency finds that there is no practicable alternative to such construction. The Army determined that elements of the proposed action must be located within portions of the floodplain and wetlands at MOTSU. Accordingly, a Draft FONPA— i.e., a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in floodplains and wetlands—is also being circulated for public review and comment.

Native American Tribes, federal, state, and local agencies/officials, and other interested entities/individuals are encouraged to comment on the DEIS and Draft FONPA during the 45- day public comment period. The DEIS and Draft FONPA are available on the project website at: https://www.sddc.army.mil/SitePages/Environmental%20Programs.aspx. All comments postmarked or received by 4 February 2025 will be considered in the development of the Final EIS. Following the conclusion of the comment period, the Army will consider all comments and prepare responses that will appear in an appendix of the Final EIS. The Final EIS will be made available to the public, which will start a 30-day waiting period. No sooner than the conclusion of that waiting period, the Army will publish a Record of Decision.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 232, Contract Financing, and the Clause at 252.232-7002 Progress Payments for Foreign Military Sales Acquisition; OMB Control Number 0704-0321.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Frequency: On occasion.

Number of Respondents: 107.

Responses per Respondent: 19.2.

Annual Responses: 2,056.

Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 3,084.

Needs and Uses: Section 22 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2762) requires the U.S. Government to use foreign funds, rather than U.S. appropriated funds, to purchase military equipment for foreign governments. To comply with this requirement, the Government needs to know how much of each progress payment to charge each country. DFARS 232.502-4-70(a) prescribes use of the contract clause at DFARS 252.232-7002, Progress Payments for Foreign Military Sales Acquisitions, in any contract that provides for progress payments and contains FMS requirements. The clause at 252.232-7002 requires each contractor whose contract includes foreign military sales (FMS) requirements to submit a separate progress payment request for each progress payment rate and to submit a supporting schedule that clearly distinguishes the contract's FMS requirements from U.S. requirements. The Government uses this information to determine how much of each country's funds to disburse to the contractor.

The Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) system of records is used to collect and maintain information regarding sexual assaults, and any associated retaliation allegations, involving a member of the Armed Forces. Section 563 of the Duncan Hunter NDAA for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417) requires the DSAID for the purpose of collecting and maintaining information regarding sexual assaults involving a member of the Armed Forces. Additional laws and policy changes require DSAID to include information on the claims of retaliation connected with Unrestricted Reports of sexual assault made by or against a member of the Armed Forces and Unrestricted Reports of adult sexual assault cases under the FAP. As mandated, this Department-wide database includes sexual assault-related data about the victim, the (alleged) offender, and the outcome of any investigation and legal proceedings connected with the assault, or associated retaliation allegation. This SORN is being updated to comply with section 538 of the FY18 NDAA (Pub. L. 115-191) and provide the ability to collect sexual assault cases for the USSF. This SORN is also being updated to add three additional standard DoD routine uses, and various other sections of the SORN.

Subject to public comment, the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to update this system of records to add DoD standard routine uses B, I, and J. Modifications are also being made to the following sections of the SORN: (1) to the System Location to add information about cloud storage; (2) to the Authority for Maintenance of the System section to add additional authorities; (3) to the Purpose of the System section to expand on the uses of the information; (4) to the Categories of Records in the System section to clarify the different record types; (5) to the Record Source Categories to add additional source information; (6) to the Policies and Practices for Storage of Records to update the records storage medium in which the records are maintained; (7) to the Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records to expand on how records are retrieved; (8) to the Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards to update the individual safeguards protecting the personal information; and (9) to the Record Access and Notification Procedures sections to reflect the need for individuals to identify the appropriate DoD office or component to which their request should be directed.

DoD SORNs have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Directorate website at https://dpcld.defense.gov.

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or another identifier assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

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: Income Based Repayment—Notifications.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0114.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 958,240.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 76,665.

Abstract: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), established the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program under title IV, part B. Section 493C [20 U.S.C. 1098e] of the HEA authorizes income-based repayment for Part B borrowers who have a partial financial hardship. The regulations in 34 CFR 682.215(e)(2) require notifications to borrowers from the loan holders once a borrower establishes a partial financial hardship and is placed in an income-based repayment (IBR) plan by the loan holder. The regulations identify information the loan holder must provide to the borrower to continue to participate in an IBR plan. This is a request for extension without change of the current information collection 1845-0114.

Purpose of Program: Through the Education Research and Development Center Program, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) funds Research and Development (R&D) centers to conduct a focused program of research that will contribute to solving a specific education problem and generate new knowledge in their topic area; provide national leadership, research training, capacity building, and outreach within their topic area; and conduct relatively rapid research and scholarship on supplemental questions that emerge within their topic area.

Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.305C.

OMB Control Number: 4040-0001.

Competition: The IES National Center for Education Research (NCER) is announcing one competition:

Education Research and Development Center Program (ALN 84.305C). Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

• Improving Gifted Education.

• Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education.

Application Submission: You may submit one or more than one application to the IES FY 2025 Education Research and Development Center Program.

If you submit the same or similar application to IES and to another funding entity within or external to the Department and receive funding for the non-IES application prior to IES scientific peer review of applications, you must withdraw the same or similar application submitted to IES, or IES may otherwise determine you are ineligible to receive an award. If reviews are happening concurrently, IES staff will consult with the other potential funder to determine the degree of overlap and which entity will provide funding if both applications are being considered for funding.

Exemption from Proposed Rulemaking: Under section 191 of the Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581, IES is not subject to section 437(d) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d), and is therefore not required to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on matters relating to grants.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7294 for the Improving Gifted Education R&D Center; and 20 U.S.C. 9501, et seq., for the Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education R&D Center.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. In addition, the regulations in 34 CFR part 75 are applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a)-(c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, and 75.230. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

Note: The open licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20 does not apply to this competition.

Note: As of October 1, 2024, grant applicants must follow the provisions in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (89 FR 30046, April 22, 2024) when preparing an application. For more information about these regulations please visit: https://www.cfo.gov/resources-coffa/uniform-guidance/.

Types of Awards: Cooperative agreements.

Fiscal Information: Although Congress has not yet enacted an appropriation for FY 2025, IES is inviting applications for this competition now so that applicants can have adequate time to prepare their applications. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. IES may announce additional competitions later in FY 2025.

The Improving Gifted Education R&D Center would be supported with funding authorized under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education program. Although Congress has not yet enacted an appropriation for FY 2025, IES is inviting applications for this competition now so that applicants can have adequate time to prepare their applications should Congress appropriate funds for this program.

The Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education R&D Center will be supported as part of the Accelerate, Transform, and Scale Initiative established by IES to invest in quick-turnaround high-reward, scalable solutions intended to improve education outcomes for all learners ( https://ies.ed.gov/ats-initiative/ ).

Estimated Range of Awards: The size of the awards will depend on the scope of the projects proposed. The estimated range of awards varies by topic:

• $5,000,000 (total) for Improving Gifted Education.

• $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 (total) for Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education.

Maximum Award: The maximum award amount for each topic is set out in the NCER Request for Applications (RFA). On December 20, 2024, the Education R&D Center RFA will be posted at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/25rfas.asp .

For all IES competitions, applications must include budgets no higher than the relevant maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA. IES will not make an award exceeding the maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA.

Estimated Number of Awards: IES intends to fund one award under the Improving Gifted Education topic and one award under the Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education topic. IES may consider making additional awards to high-quality applications under the Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education topic that remain unfunded after one award is made should resources permit. However, the number of awards made under each topic will depend on the quality of the applications received for that topic and the availability of funds.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: The maximum project period is as follows:

• 5 years for Improving Gifted Education.

• 5 years for Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education.

1. Eligible Applicants: For Improving Gifted Education, partnerships involving at least one institution of higher education and at least two State educational agencies with the ability and capacity to conduct rigorous research are eligible to apply. Partnerships may also include additional institutions of higher education, additional State educational agencies, local educational agencies, other public agencies, other private agencies and organizations, other research institutions, and non-profit and for-profit organizations.

For Using Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve Instruction in Postsecondary Education, entities that have the ability and capacity to conduct rigorous research are eligible to apply. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, non-profit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions, such as colleges and universities.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: These programs use an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html .

3. Subgrantees: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: nonprofit and for-profit organizations, public and private agencies and organizations, and institutions of higher education. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Other Information: Information regarding program and application requirements for the competition can be found in the currently available IES Application Submission Guide ( https://ies.ed.gov/funding/submission_guide.asp ) and in the RFA, which will be available on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ], on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/. The application packages for this competition will also be available on December 20, 2024.

3. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application are contained in the RFA for the specific competition. The forms that must be submitted are in the application package for the specific competition.

4. Submission Dates and Times: The deadline date for transmittal of applications is March 14, 2025.

We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

5. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

1. Selection Criteria: For all of its grant competitions, IES uses selection criteria based on a peer review process that has been approved by the National Board for Education Sciences. The Peer Review Procedures for Grant Applications can be found on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/application_review.asp.

For this competition (ALN 84.305C), peer reviewers will evaluate the significance of the focused program of research, the quality of the research plan for the focused program of research, the quality of the training plan, the quality of the plans for national leadership, capacity building, and outreach activities, the quality of the management and institutional resources, and the qualifications and experience of the personnel. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, IES may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, compliance with the IES policy regarding public access to research, and compliance with grant conditions. IES may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, IES requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). Also, IES requires all key personnel on a grant award to have a persistent identifier, such as ORCID iD (Open Researcher and Contributor Identification; https://orcid.org/ ), in place before an award will be made.

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, IES may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you informally.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for an annual meeting of up to three days for project directors to be held in Washington, DC.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under a competition announced in this notice, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by IES. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by IES under 34 CFR 75.118. IES may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of its education research grant programs, IES annually assesses the percentage of projects that result in peer-reviewed publications and the number of IES-supported interventions with evidence of efficacy in improving learner education outcomes. School readiness outcomes include pre-reading, reading, pre-writing, early mathematics, early science, and social-emotional skills that prepare young children for school. Student academic outcomes include learning and achievement in academic content areas, such as reading, writing, math, and science, as well as outcomes that reflect students' successful progression through the education system, such as course and grade completion; high school graduation; and postsecondary enrollment, progress, and completion. Social and behavioral competencies include social and emotional skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are important to academic and post-academic success. Employment and earnings outcomes include hours of employment, job stability, and wages and benefits, and may be measured in addition to student academic outcomes.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, IES considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; whether a grantee is in compliance with the IES policy regarding public access to research; and if IES has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, IES also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , as well as in the relevant RFA and application package, individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the RFA 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also 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.

On January 9, 2009, DOE published a Compilation of its Privacy Act Systems of Records, which included System of Records DOE-14 Report of Compensation. This notice proposes the following amendments. The following addresses have been updated: John A. Gordon Albuquerque Complex, both Office of Science addresses, Golden Field Office, all three National Energy Technology Laboratory locations, the Office of River Protection, and the Richland Operations Office. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters address has been added. The NNSA Naval Reactors Field Office has been removed. The system manager's office has been updated to reflect the current system manager, which is the Contractor Human Resources Policy Division. The “Categories of Individuals Covered by the System” section has been revised to include contractor employees of management and operating (M&O) contractors, non-M&O major site and facility contractors, and contractors that require DOE approval of contractor compensation and benefits for reasonableness. Magnetic tape and paper records have been removed from “Policies and Practices for Storage of Records.” Employee name, job title, and contractor name have been added to “Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records.” The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and DOE Order 350.1, Contractor Human Resource Management Programs, have been added to the “Authorities” section. Per the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and DOE Order 350.1, both authorize and limit the amount of reimbursement of compensation costs for all contractor employees. In the “Routine Uses” section, this modified notice deletes a previous routine use concerning efforts responding to a suspected or confirmed loss of confidentiality of information as it appears in DOE's compilation of its Privacy Act Systems of Records (January 9, 2009) and replaces it with one to assist DOE with responding to a suspected or confirmed breach of its records of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), modeled with language from OMB's Memorandum M-17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” (January 3, 2017). Further, this notice adds one new routine use to ensure that DOE may assist another agency or entity in responding to the other agency's or entity's confirmed or suspected breach of PII, as appropriate, as aligned with OMB's Memorandum M-17-12. An administrative change required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 extends the length of time a requestor is permitted to file an appeal under the Privacy Act from 30 to 90 days. Both the “System Locations” and “Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards” sections have been modified to reflect the Department's usage of cloud-based services for records storage. Language throughout the SORN has been updated to align with applicable Federal privacy laws, policies, procedures, and best practices.