On April 26, 2024, HUD and USDA published the Final Determination (89 FR 33112) which adopted the 2021 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the 2019 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE 90.1) as the minimum energy standards for new construction of buildings in programs covered by section 109 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12709), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (Pub. L. 110-140) (89 FR 33112).

In Section VI of the Final Determination, the Departments provided Table 32, which lists compliance dates for the updated energy efficiency standards, also available with further guidance for programs at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/minimum-energy-standards/ .

USDA is delaying by six months the compliance dates for the Final Determination that have not yet passed. The compliance dates for the following programs are extended: Section 502 (Guaranteed Loans, Direct Loans) and Section 523 (Self Help Loans).

The delay will provide additional time for program participants to conform with the requirements of the Final Notice and for USDA to develop further technical assistance. See https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/minimum-energy-standards/ for more information.

The updated compliance dates for USDA programs are as follows:

This notice provides updated compliance deadlines for the Final Determination. A Finding of No Significant Impact was prepared on the preliminary determination that preceded the Final Determination and remained applicable to the Final Determination. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(4) this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Committee meetings are available to the public through a registration link (above). Any interested members of the public may attend committee meetings. 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 each meeting will include a list of persons who are present. 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 ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-202-656-8937.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, https://tinyurl.com/3ev8d9n9. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at ebohor@usccr.gov.

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

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

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, www.box.com. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above phone number.

Committee meetings are available to the public through a registration link (above). Any interested members of the public may attend committee meetings. 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 each meeting will include a list of persons who are present. 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 ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-202-656-8937.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, https://tinyurl.com/248n7rdj. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at ebohor@usccr.gov.

The following four surveys described herein are authorized by 13 U.S.C. 131 and 182 and are necessary to furnish current data on the subjects covered by the major censuses: (1) Annual Integrated Economic Survey (AIES); (2) Annual Business Survey (ABS); (3) Business and Professional Classification Report; and (4) Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey (BERD). These surveys are made mandatory under the provisions of 13 U.S.C. 224-225. These surveys will provide continuing and timely national statistical data for the period between economic censuses. The data collected in the surveys will be within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the economic census. The most recent economic census was conducted in 2023 for the reference year 2022. The next economic census will occur in 2028 for the reference year 2027.

Notice of specific reporting requirements for each survey, including who is to report, the information to be reported, the manner of reporting, and the time and place of filing reports, will be provided by mail or by email only to those required to complete these surveys.

The AIES collects data on key economic measures including: employment; revenue ( e.g., sales, shipments, and receipts; taxes, contributions, gifts, and grants); products; e-commerce activity; operating expenses ( e.g., payroll, benefits, and purchased services); and rental payments, utilities, interest, equipment, materials, and supplies. Additionally, AIES captures information on business assets, covering capital expenditures, inventories, depreciable assets, and robotics. The survey's sample is drawn from a frame of approximately 5.4 million businesses, built using the Census Bureau's Business Register (BR), which is the Census Bureau's master business list.

The AIES delivers timely and continuous national and subnational economic statistics, serving as a valuable resource for government program officials, industry leaders, economists, business owners, and researchers across academia, business, and government.

More information regarding the AIES can be found in the Information Collection Request (ICR) approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 15, 2025, at the following link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202411-0607-003 .

The ABS provides information on selected economic and demographic characteristics for businesses and business owners by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status. Further, the survey measures research and development for microbusinesses, new business topics such as innovation and technology, as well as other business characteristics such as types of customers, number and types of employees, and sales and revenues. The ABS includes all nonfarm employer businesses filing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax forms as individual proprietorships, partnerships, or any other type of corporation, with receipts of $1,000 or more. The ABS is co-sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF) and conducted by the Census Bureau.

More information regarding the ABS can be found in the ICR approved by OMB on May 15, 2024, at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202401-0607-002 .

The Business and Professional Classification Report collects one-time data on a firm's type of business activity from a sample of businesses that were recently assigned Federal Employer Identification Numbers or recently added to the scope of the Census Bureau's current business surveys. The data are used to update the sampling frames for our current business surveys. Additionally, the business classification data will help ensure businesses are directed to complete the correct report in the economic census.

More information regarding the Business and Professional Classification Report can be found in the ICR approved by OMB on August 15, 2024, at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202405-0607-003 .

The BERD collects annual data on spending for research and development activities by businesses. The BERD collects foreign as well as domestic spending information, more detailed information about the R&D workforce, and information regarding intellectual property from U.S. businesses. The Census Bureau collects and compiles this information in accordance with a joint project agreement between the NSF and the Census Bureau. The NSF posts the BERD information results on their website.

More information regarding the BERD can be found in the ICR approved by OMB on December 6, 2024, at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202409-0607-004 .

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. In accordance with the PRA OMB approved the surveys described in this notice under the following OMB control numbers: AIES, 0607-1024; ABS, 0607-1004; Business and Professional Classification Report, 0607-0189; and BERD, 0607-0912.

Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that the current mandatory business surveys be conducted in 2025 for the purpose of collecting these data.

Ron Jarmin, Acting Director, Census Bureau, approved the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Following the 1970 decennial census and after every subsequent decennial census, the Census Bureau provided the opportunity for tribal, state, and local governments to obtain certified population and housing counts for areas where the boundaries have changed from those used to tabulate the results of the immediately preceding decennial census. These changes occur due to newly incorporated governments, the merger of two or more existing governments, the addition or annexation of land by a government, or other circumstances. The certification process is available to governments established by law for the purpose of implementing specified general-purpose or special-purpose government functions. Most governments have legally established boundaries and names and have officials (usually elected) who have the power to carry out legally prescribed functions, provide services for residents, and raise revenues. These are commonly referred to as general-purpose governments and typically include federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust land, counties and county equivalents, boroughs, cities, towns, villages, and townships. Special-purpose governments, such as school districts, typically are limited to one function.

This service is a permanent process, but one that is suspended in advance of future decennial censuses. Typically, the Census Bureau will suspend this service and direct its resources to the decennial census for approximately five years. This includes the two years preceding the decennial census, the decennial census year, and the two years following it. The Census Bureau issues notices in the Federal Register announcing when it suspends and, in turn, resumes the service.

The Census Bureau first began to make updated decennial census count determinations to reflect geographic boundary changes in 1972 in response to the requests of local governments to establish eligibility for participation in the General Revenue Sharing Program, authorized under Public Law 92-512. At that time, the Census Bureau established a fee-based service enabling governments with annexations to obtain updated decennial census population counts that reflected the population living in the annexed areas. The Census Bureau also received funding from the U.S. Department of the Treasury to make those determinations for larger annexations that met prescribed criteria, and for new incorporations. The General Revenue Sharing Program ended on September 30, 1986, but the certification program continued into 1988 with support from the Census Bureau. The program was suspended to accommodate the taking of the 1990 decennial census and resumed in 1992. The Census Bureau supported the program through fiscal year 1995 for cities with large annexations and through fiscal year 1996 for newly incorporated places. The program was continued as a fee-based service until June 1, 1998, at which time it was suspended for the 2000 decennial census (63 FR 27706, May 20, 1998).

In 2002, the program resumed and has since been referred to as the Geographically Updated Population Certification Program or GUPCP (67 FR 72095, December 4, 2002). GUPCP was suspended again in 2008 to accommodate the taking of the 2010 Census (72 FR 46602, August 21, 2007), as well as in 2019 to accommodate the taking of the 2020 Census (83 FR 53029, October 19, 2018).

Following each decennial census, published census data adhere to disclosure avoidance standards designed to protect confidentiality. Prior to 2020, governments were able to request an expedited GUPCP certificate to receive decennial census population and housing unit counts that incorporate a change in boundaries outside of the regular annual update schedule. Within the disclosure avoidance system, it was possible to generate these data as needed to satisfy expedited requests.

This decade, the modernized disclosure avoidance standards limit the application of geographic updates to the 2020 Census data to once each year. As a result, the Census Bureau can only produce updated population and housing unit counts on the annual update schedule for new incorporations or annexations. Accordingly, there is only one fee option associated with an annual processing option.

Although there is no legal requirement that the Census Bureau provide this service, there is a demand from governments for 2020 Census population and housing counts to be certified to reflect boundary updates or the formation of new governments dated after January 1, 2020, the legal effective date for boundaries used in tabulating the 2020 Census. Title 13, section 8 of the United States Code allows the Census Bureau to conduct this program by providing certain statistical materials upon payment of costs for the service. The Census Bureau is the sole provider of this service, which is based on processing 2020 Census enumeration records protected by the confidentiality restrictions at 13 U.S.C. 8 and 9.

A geographically updated population certification from the Census Bureau confirms that an official population and housing count is an accurate retabulating of the 2020 Census population and housing as configured for the updated government boundaries. A population certification may be needed for many reasons. For example, general-purpose governments may be required by state law to produce a Census Bureau population and housing certification for funds disbursement from their respective state, or federally sponsored programs may require or honor a Census Bureau population and housing certification for program eligibility. Special-purpose governments may also need official certification of census population and housing counts for other purposes.

Governments requesting certification must complete Form BC-1869(EF), Geographically Updated Population Certification Program (GUPCP) Request. Program details, and this form, are available online at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gupcp.html . Tribal, state, and local governments should submit requests for certifications on Form BC-1869(EF) by email to the Census Bureau at pop.lgemp@census.gov . Communication requesting the service without Form BC-1869(EF) will be accepted only if it contains the information necessary to complete the form.

Paperwork Reduction Act: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), unless that collection of information displays a current Office of Management and Budget control number. This notice does not represent a collection of information and is not subject to the PRA's requirements. The form reference in the notice, Form BC-1869(EF), will collect only information necessary to process a certification request. As such, it is not subject to the PRA's requirements.

Ron Jarmin, Acting Director, Census Bureau, approved the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and other Federal officials and agencies with respect to actions designed to carry out the policy set forth in section 1752 of the Export Control Reform Act. The purpose of the meeting is to have the ISTAC members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review the updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.

The open session will include working group reports, open business discussions, and industry presentations. The closed session will include discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014).

The open session will be accessible via teleconference. Registration in advance is required to receive the meeting invite for virtual attendance. Individuals interested in participating virtually should contact TAC@bis.doc.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on April 18, 2025. A limited number of seats will be available for members of the public to attend the open session in person on a first-come basis. Reservations to attend in person are not accepted. Registration in advance is not required for in-person attendance, but you will be asked to sign an attendance log when you arrive.

Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact TAC@bis.doc.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on April 16, 2025, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

To the extent that time permits during the open session, members of the public may present oral statements to the ISTAC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of materials to the ISTAC members, the ISTAC suggests that members of the public forward their materials prior to the meeting via email to TAC@bis.doc.gov. Material submitted by the public will be made public; therefore, submissions should not contain confidential information. Meeting materials from the open session will be accessible via the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) website at: https://tac.bis.doc.gov, within 30 days after the meeting.

A Senior Advisor, performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.

If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at: https://tac.bis.doc.gov.

On February 10, 2025, the President issued the Aluminum Presidential Proclamation adjusting imports of aluminum into the United States (Proclamation 10895 of February 10, 2025) (90 FR 9807). The Aluminum Presidential Proclamation instructed the United States International Trade Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, to revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments and effective dates directed in the Aluminum Presidential Proclamation within ten days of the issuance of the Proclamation. The Proclamation directed and authorized the Secretary of Commerce to publish any such modifications to the HTSUS in the Federal Register . BIS published such modifications in Annex 1 to the notice, Implementation of Duties on Aluminum Pursuant to Proclamation 10895 Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce on March 5, 2025 (90 FR 11251).

BIS in this notice revises Annex 1 to add the following two additional aluminum derivative products in Annex 1:

(1) beer; and

(2) empty aluminum cans.

All other tariff codes for aluminum and aluminum derivative products in Annex 1 remain unchanged.

Note that importers are required to report to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the primary country of smelt, secondary country of smelt, and country of cast on imports of all aluminum articles subject to the aluminum and aluminum derivatives section 232 measures. Monitor CBP's Cargo Systems Messaging Service for guidance on entry filing requirements.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

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

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

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA  1 over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses, and became effective on April 19, 2021.

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

NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).

The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.

NMFS issued a LOA to TGS on March 17, 2025, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) survey over 240 lease blocks in the Garden Banks, Keathley Canyon, and Sigsbee Escarpment areas, effective March 17, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Please see the Federal Register notice of issuance (90 FR 13346, March 21, 2025) for additional detail regarding the LOA and the survey activity.

On March 21, 2025, TGS informed NMFS that its planned survey area had shifted and, accordingly, they have requested a modification to the LOA to reflect the new survey area. No survey activity has begun. The original survey plan included a total of 64 days of sound source operation, with 38 days in Zone 5, 15 days in Zone 6, and 11 days in Zone 7. The updated survey plan decreased to 62 total days of sound source operation, with the distribution shifted to include 43 days in Zone 5, 15 days in Zone 6, and 4 days in Zone 7. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 62 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value and have been updated based on the revised survey plan. There are no other changes to the planned survey.

Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).

Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).

The take numbers for authorization are determined as described in the Federal Register notice of issuance (90 FR 13346, March 21, 2025). Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (see 86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.

This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and model-predicted abundance information ( https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/ ). Information supporting the small numbers determinations is provided in table 1.

Based on the analysis contained herein of TGS's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application, as subsequently modified by TGS, and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes ( i.e., less than one-third of the best available abundance estimate) and therefore the taking is of no more than small numbers.

NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued a modification to the LOA to TGS authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.

The joint sub-panel, consisting of Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic SSC members, will meet to review the Data Limited Methods (DLM) model for the Atlantic Blueline Tilefish stock north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina developed as part of the SouthEast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 92 process. Based on the results of the DLM model, the sub-group will also develop preliminary overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations, including methods on how to partition the ABC between the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic jurisdictions. The sub-group will conduct the review and develop a report that addresses nine Terms of Reference that considers the assessment model methods, data quality and uncertainty, recent fishery-independent survey information, and the overall assessment and review process. The final report, sub-panel recommendations, and preliminary catch limits will be presented and reviewed at subsequent meetings by the full Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic SSCs.

A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's website ( www.mafmc.org ) prior to the meeting.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden,

(302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

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

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

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA  1 over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses, and became effective on April 19, 2021.

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

NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).

The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.

NMFS issued a LOA to WesternGeco on March 7, 2025, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) survey over 240 lease blocks in the Green Canyon and Walker Ridge areas, effective March 7, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Please see the Federal Register notice of issuance (90 FR 11947, March 13, 2025) for additional detail regarding the LOA and the survey activity.

On March 20, 2025, WesternGeco informed NMFS that its planned survey area had shifted westward and, accordingly, they have requested a modification to the LOA to reflect the new survey area. No survey activity has begun. The original survey plan included 80 days of sound source operation in Zone 7 and 20 days in Zone 5. The updated survey plan remains at 100 total days of sound source operation, with the distribution shifted to include 57 days in Zone 7, 31 days in Zone 5, and 12 days in Zone 6. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 100 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value and have been updated based on the revised survey plan. There are no other changes to the planned survey.

Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).

Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).

The take numbers for authorization are determined as described in the Federal Register notice of issuance (90 FR 11947, March 13, 2025). Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (see 86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.

This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and model-predicted abundance information ( https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/ ). Information supporting the small numbers determinations is provided in table 1.

Based on the analysis contained herein of WesternGeco's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application, as subsequently modified by WesternGeco, and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes ( i.e., less than one-third of the best available abundance estimate) and therefore the taking is of no more than small numbers.

NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued a modification to the LOA to WesternGeco authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.

The applicant submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:

GMRI is requesting an EFP in support of a pilot study aimed at collecting data on the distribution, size and sex composition, feeding habits, and physical characteristics of pollock in data limited areas within the GOM. The project aims to collect data through haul-level catch and effort data collection, biological sampling, and discard monitoring via electronic monitoring (EM). The participating vessel is authorized to use EM through their Sector Operations Plans.

The project aims to fulfill specific research needs of GMRI's pollock study and address research priorities identified in the 2022 pollock stock assessment, including research on the geographic distribution by size. The exemptions would allow sampling inside the Western GOM Closure Area and the Cashes Ledge Closure Area in order to evaluate pollock size distributions and reproductive dynamics inside and outside the closure areas. The exemption to the minimum pollock size would allow the vessel to retain sub-legal sized pollock to collect catch data and biological samples.

Sampling would be conducted with hook jigging gear, including auto-jigs and rod and reel. The applicant claims that the auto-jigging machines are low-impact due to this method being associated with minimal bycatch and discards exhibiting relatively high survivability. There would be up to 4 auto-jigs, and 2 rod and reels deployed at a time, with a maximum of 32 hooks total fishing at one time. The hook sizes would vary from size 8/0 to 14/0 .

The applicant estimates there would be 28 trips inside the closure areas and 20 trips outside the closure areas. GMRI researchers are seeking at least 50 tagged pollock per area per season, so that samples of pollock on any given trip do not all come from the same school. Fishing effort may occur both inside and outside the closure areas on the same trip. GMRI would not compensate the vessel for collecting data and samples. Rather, the sampling design would allow the vessel to harvest groundfish from an area that it is not otherwise authorized to fish in, offering an incentive to participate in the study. This incentive would be used to offset costs associated with the sampling regime requested by GMRI researchers.

To help expand the temporal and spatial scope of the samples, every 10th pollock would be separated from the commercial catch, and tagged with a color-coded zip tie differentiating its harvest location. Sub-legal sized pollock selected for biological sampling would be measured according to the Vessel Electronic Monitoring Plan (VMP) prior to storing in slush ice, while sub-legal sized pollock not selected for biological sampling would be live discarded according to the VMP. Sub-legal sized fish of all other species would also be live discarded according to the VMP. GMRI scientists would conduct dockside sampling of all tagged fish including length, weight, sex, and stomach contents, as well as taking photo documentation of the physical characteristics of each tagged pollock. Haul level catch, discard, and fishing effort data collection would be completed using the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Logbook Data Recording Software.

The project would also provide 50-100 cod fin clips from inside the GOM Closure Areas to expand the geographic range of an ongoing cod DNA study being conducted by the University of New Hampshire. Samples would consist of fingernail-size fin clips from the top of the tail, presumably posing no threat to the survivability of the released cod. The project seeks to sample cod catch, including undersized cod.

If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

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 used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

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

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

On April 23, 2024, NMFS received a request from the ARRC for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activity associated with the Seward Freight Dock construction project in Seward, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, we received a revised version of the application on September 30, 2024. After finalizing further discussions and clarifications, the ARRC submitted revised versions on November 20, 2024, and February 4, 2025, followed by a final revised version on March 5, 2025, which was deemed adequate and complete on March 6, 2025. ARRC's request is for take of 11 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment, and for a subset, by Level A harassment. Neither ARRC nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The ARRC requested an IHA to expand the freight dock to improve safety and efficiency for the movement of goods, by better separating pedestrian traffic from freight and heavy truck traffic, enhance safety and efficiency of stevedoring activities, preserve the intermodal operations of commercial freight customers, accommodate larger vessels, and enhance the long-term utility of the dock. This project entails both onshore and in-water construction activities including dock expansion, pile removal and installation, and upland construction.

The ARRC proposes to construct an expansion of their existing Freight Dock in Seward, Alaska. The new dock extension will be an OPEN CELL SHEET PILE TM (OCSP TM ) bulkhead backed by a rock revetment, consistent with the existing dock. This type of bulkhead is a flexible steel sheet pile membrane supported by soil contact with the embedded steel sheet pile tail walls. The dock face will be extended by 375 feet (ft) (114.3 meters (m)); the usable width of the new extension will be 300 ft. The existing dock uplands will also be widened to 300 ft (91.4 m), further expanding the fill footprint and revetment to the east. Dock upland facilities will be improved, including the installation and upgrades of dock utilities, rails, etc. The dock extension will include typical components, such as fenders, mooring bollards, sacrificial anodes, and bullrail. South of the new dock extension, a salvaged mooring dolphin and catwalk (new or salvaged) will be installed.

The only parts of the overall project that may result in Level A and Level B harassment, and thus the only parts further analyzed in this notice, are the in-water and upland construction activities associated with vibratory and impact pile driving.

Pile driving and in-water work on the Freight Dock will require approximately 12 months beginning in November 2026. Upland vibrocompaction operations are expected to need 3 months, overlapping the in-water work period. The ARRC estimates a total of 155 days of in-water pile driving activity and 106 days of upland construction with a maximum number of 219 construction days, as some days will include both in-water and upland work. The IHA would be valid from November 1, 2026, through October 31, 2027.

The proposed project is located in Seward, Alaska, on the Kenai Peninsula and at the head of Resurrection Bay. The Freight Dock is positioned at the head of the bay between the Resurrection River delta and the Seward Small Boat Harbor.

The ARRC proposes to expand and improve the existing Freight Dock to improve safety and accommodate increasing need. This proposed project will include the removal of 4 existing piles via vibratory driving, the installation and removal of 60 temporary piles via vibratory driving, installation of 456 permanent piles via vibratory pile driving, and installation of 4 piles via vibratory and impact pile driving. ARRC plans to install 24-inch (in) (61 centimeter (cm)) to 30-in (76.2 cm) steel pipe piles, sheet pile pairs, and H-piles for their new infrastructure. Additionally, the ARRC proposes upland construction including removal of 1 steel pile via vibratory removal and installation of 5 steel piles via vibratory pile driving, and installation and removal of 2,157 steel H-piles via vibrocompaction. Vibrocompaction uses an H-pile with “displacement angles” probed with vibratory pile-driving equipment to consolidate and compact fill. All of these activities may result in incidental take of marine mammals.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska Marine Mammal SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2024 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 15 managed stocks) in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ), eastern U.S. Steller sea lions, North Pacific right whales ( Eubalaena japonica ), blue whales ( Balaenoptera musculus ), sei whales ( Balaenoptera borealis ), and beluga whales ( Delphinapterus leucas ) are included in the biological assessment, these species do not occur in inner Resurrection Bay and are more commonly found along the vessel transit routes analyzed in the Biological Assessment. Thus, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

In addition, northern sea otters ( Enhydra lutris ) may be found in Seward, Alaska. However, sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

In addition to what is included in sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application, and NMFS' website, further detail informing our analysis on the regional occurrence for select species of particular or unique vulnerability ( i.e., information regarding ESA listed species) is provided below.

Fin whales are found in the Gulf of Alaska year-round. They typically inhabit deep, offshore waters, but a portion of the northeast Pacific stock (ESA-endangered) habitually utilizes inshore waters of the Kitimat Fjord System in coastal British Columbia, Canada; and fin whales have occasionally been observed in inside waters of southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound (Keen et al., 2018; Ferguson et al., 2015). Similar hydrographic conditions to those of fin whale inhabited areas of the Kitimat Fjord System are found in the outer reaches of Resurrection Bay and the Harding Gateway (Heggie et al., 1977).

Although most commonly sighted in outer Resurrection Bay, available occurrence data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) show that fin whales have been observed as far into Resurrection Bay as the northern tip of Fox Island (GBIF, 2022c), with reported sightings in inner Resurrection Bay in 2019, 2023, and 2024 (GBIF, 2024c; Happywhale, 2025). There are no designated critical habitats for fin whales and there are no biologically important areas in the action area.

Three stocks of humpback whales could be found in the project area. These include—the Hawai'i, Mexico-North Pacific Stock (ESA-threatened), and the western North Pacific Stock (ESA-endangered). Although humpbacks seasonally migrate, they are observed in inner Resurrection Bay regularly throughout the summer season (May through August) and may venture into the outer bay year-round (McCaslin 2019; GBIF, 2022a). There are no designated critical habitats or biologically important areas for humpback whales in the action area.

Only the western stock (ESA-endangered) of Steller sea lion is likely to occur in the action area. Womble et al. (2009) characterized Steller sea lion distribution in southeast Alaska in relation to seasonally available prey resources. Womble et al. identified four types of seasonal haulouts based on prey type and Resurrection Bay is characteristic of all four site types (ADF&G, 2022a; Brown et al., 2002). The year-round availability of prey resources in Resurrection Bay (especially at the head of the bay) make it excellent foraging habitat for Steller sea lions.

It is anticipated that Steller sea lions will be present in the range of the project area year-round, with fewer individuals during the breeding season (late May through early June) when breeding females and mature males congregate at rookeries.

Reports from professional tour boat captains based in Seward indicate that at least 5 to 10 Steller sea lions can be found foraging daily throughout inner Resurrection Bay, often near Seward Harbor. Other areas where Steller sea lions are commonly observed within inner Resurrection Bay include Lowell Point, Tonsina Point, and Fourth of July Beach (Personal communication, 2022).

The proposed action does not overlap with Steller sea lion critical habitat or any major haulouts and rookeries. The closest major haulouts to the action are at the mouth of Resurrection Bay, on the Resurrection Peninsula (20.95 kilometers (km) from the proposed action area) and on Hive Island (25.72 km from the proposed action area). The closest Steller sea lion rookery is the Chiswell Islands (approximately 54 km from the proposed action area).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the ~65 decibel (dB) threshold from composite audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019). We note that the names of two hearing groups and the generalized hearing ranges of all marine mammal hearing groups have been recently updated (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in table 3.

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

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

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from impact and vibratory pile driving. The effects of underwater noise from ARRC's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area.

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

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

In-water construction activities associated with the project would include vibratory pile removal, and impact and vibratory pile driving. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018a). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al., 2007).

ARRC proposes to use vibratory hammers to remove steel piles, vibratory pile driving to install new steel pipe piles, sheet piles and H-piles and impact pile driving to install new steel pipe piles associated with the Seward Freight Dock project. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

The likely or possible impacts of ARRC's proposed activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to be primarily acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile installation and removal.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal is the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from ARRC's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience behavioral, physiological, and/or physical effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) and, in limited cases, an auditory threshold shift (TS). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (TSs) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018, 2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern ( e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure ( i.e., spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum ( i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source ( e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

Auditory Injury (AUD INJ) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) —NMFS defines AUD INJ as “damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue . . . which may or may not result in PTS” (NMFS, 2024). NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has incurred some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).

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

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

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 2013). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis ) (Southall et al., 2019). For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals, bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ) and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2007; Kastelein et al., 2019b, 2019c, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Reichmuth et al., 2019; Sills et al., 2020). TTS was not observed in spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to single airgun impulse sounds at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). These studies examine hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense or long-duration sound exposures. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times.

The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity ( i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2019a, 2019c). Note that in general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Mooney et al., 2009; Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014, 2015). This means that TTS predictions based on the total, cumulative SEL will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures, such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )) when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 2018). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS ( e.g., a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974), while a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur.

Activities for this project include impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory removal. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and the fact that many marine mammals are likely moving through the project areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral Harassment —Exposure to noise from pile driving also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Generally speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of harassment under the MMPA a non-minor response—in other words, not every response qualifies as behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of a higher level, or accrued across a longer duration, have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior ( e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses may include changing durations of surfacing and dives, changing direction and/or speed; reducing/increasing vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); eliciting a visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fin slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).

Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007, 2019; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et al. (2007) and Gomez et al. (2016) for reviews of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2004). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure.

As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; National Research Council (NRC), 2005). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources ( e.g., seismic airguns) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes (Richardson et al., 1995; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Nowacek et al., 2007).

Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive ( e.g., Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 2013b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities ( e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.

Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators ( e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. However, acoustic and movement bio-logging tools have been used in some cases, to infer responses of feeding to anthropogenic noise. For example, Blair et al. (2016) reported significant effects on humpback whale foraging behavior in Stellwagen Bank in response to ship noise including slower descent rates, and fewer side-rolling events per dive with increasing ship nose. In addition, Wisniewska et al. (2018) reported that tagged harbor porpoises demonstrated fewer prey capture attempts when encountering occasional high-noise levels resulting from vessel noise as well as more vigorous fluking, interrupted foraging, and cessation of echolocation signals observed in response to some high-noise vessel passes.

In response to playbacks of vibratory pile driving sounds, captive bottlenose dolphins showed changes in target detection and number of clicks used for a trained echolocation task (Branstetter et al., 2018). Similarly, harbor porpoises trained to collect fish during playback of impact pile driving sounds also showed potential changes in behavior and task success, though individual differences were prevalent (Kastelein et al., 2019d). As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance ( e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the relationships among prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage(s) of the animal.

Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure ( e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). For example, harbor porpoise' respiration rate increased in response to pile driving sounds at and above a received broadband SPL of 136 dB (zero-peak SPL: 151 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 μPa)); SEL of a single strike: 127 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s) (Kastelein et al., 2013).

Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales are known to change direction—deflecting from customary migratory paths—in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area once the noise has ceased ( e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not occur ( e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).

A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response ( e.g., directed movement, rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996; Bowers et al., 2018). The result of a flight response could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (England et al., 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.

Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention ( i.e., when a response consists of increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies involving fishes and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates ( e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reduction of fitness ( e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both ( e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound over a 5-day period did not cause any sleep deprivation or stress effects.

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than 1 day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day substantive ( i.e., meaningful) behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive behavioral responses.

Stress Responses —An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses ( e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance ( e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals ( e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations ( e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals would experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be classified as “distress.” In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.

Auditory Masking —Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources interfere with an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al., 2016). Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013).

Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003) or vocalizations (Foote et al., 2004), respectively, while North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ) have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). Fin whales have also been documented lowering the bandwidth, peak frequency, and center frequency of their vocalizations under increased levels of background noise from large vessels (Castellote et al., 2012). Other alterations to communication signals have also been observed. For example, gray whales, in response to playback experiments exposing them to vessel noise, have been observed increasing their vocalization rate and producing louder signals at times of increased outboard engine noise (Dahlheim and Castellote, 2016). Alternatively, animals may cease sound production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).

Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one that would be associated with harassment).

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior ( e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). Masking can be tested directly in captive species ( e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild ( e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).

Marine mammals at or near the proposed ARRC project site may be exposed to anthropogenic noise which may be a source of masking. Vocalization changes may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise and include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call repetition rate of vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased noise (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). For example, in response to loud noise, beluga whales may shift the frequency of their echolocation clicks to prevent masking by anthropogenic noise (Tyack, 2000; Eickmeier and Vallarta, 2022).

Masking occurs in the frequency band or bands that animals utilize and is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, and sound from pile driving would be within the audible range of pinnipeds and cetaceans present in the proposed action area. While some construction during the ARRC's activities may mask some acoustic signals that are relevant to the daily behavior of marine mammals, the short-term duration and limited areas affected make it very unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be impacted.

Airborne Acoustic Effects —Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with construction activities that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from these activities. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above airborne acoustic harassment criteria. According to the ARRC, pinnipeds have historically been observed hauling out on the sediment groin near the Freight Dock in 1999. While more recent information is not available, it is possible that pinnipeds could temporarily haul out in this area during the project. There is also a possibility that an animal could surface in-water, but with head out, within the area in which airborne sound exceeds relevant thresholds and thereby be exposed to levels of airborne sound that we associate with harassment. Any such occurrence on days with in-water pile driving activities would likely be accounted for in our estimation of incidental take from underwater sound. On days when pile driving is occurring only on land immediately adjacent to the Freight Dock authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted due to the potential for pinnipeds to be exposed while hauled out on the sediment groin or surfacing with head out of the water. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

The project would occur near an active marine commercial and industrial area. Construction activities at the Seward Freight Dock could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water SPLs and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see Auditory Masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During in-water vibratory and impact pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify a portion of Resurrection Bay, where both fish and some mammals occur and could affect foraging success.

Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater and airborne sound. These sounds would not be detectable at the nearest known official sea lion and seal haulouts, which are beyond the maximum distance of predicted in-air acoustical disturbance.

Water Quality —Temporary and localized reduction in water quality would occur as a result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect would occur during the installation and removal of piles when bottom sediments are disturbed. The installation and removal of piles would disturb bottom sediments and may cause a temporary increase in suspended sediment in the project area. During pile removal, sediment attached to the pile moves vertically through the water column until gravitational forces cause it to slough off under its own weight. The small resulting sediment plume is expected to settle out of the water column within a few hours. Studies of the effects of turbid water on fish (marine mammal prey) suggest that concentrations of suspended sediment can reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton, 1993).

Effects to turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be short-term, minor, and localized. Suspended sediments in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area. However, turbidity plumes associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area likely impacted by the proposed construction activities is relatively small compared to the available marine mammal habitat in the Gulf of Alaska, and does not include any areas of particular importance.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Prey —Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey.

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

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

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

The greatest potential impact to fishes during construction would occur during impact pile installation of 24-in steel pipe piles, which is estimated to occur on up to 28 days for a maximum of 1,230 strikes per day. In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, allowing fish to forage and transit the project area in the evening. Vibratory pile driving would possibly elicit behavioral reactions from fishes such as temporary avoidance of the area but is unlikely to cause injuries to fishes or have persistent effects on local fish populations. Construction also would have minimal permanent and temporary impacts on benthic invertebrate species, a marine mammal prey source. In addition, it should be noted that the area in question is low-quality habitat since it is already highly developed and experiences a high level of anthropogenic noise from normal operations and other vessel traffic. In general, any negative impacts on marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary.

Fish populations in the proposed project area that serve as marine mammal prey could be temporarily affected by noise from pile installation and removal. The frequency range in which fishes generally perceive underwater sounds is 50 to 2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz (Popper and Hastings, 2009). Fish behavior or distribution may change, especially with strong and/or intermittent sounds that could harm fishes. High underwater SPLs have been documented to alter behavior, cause hearing loss, and injure or kill individual fish by causing serious internal injury (Hastings and Popper, 2005).

The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities in the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the expected short daily duration of individual pile driving events.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat —The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in the Gulf of Alaska and does not include any biologically important areas (BIAs) or ESA-designated critical habitat. The total area affected by pile installation and removal and the new footprint is small compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the area. Pile driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct long-term movements or migration of marine mammals.

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

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

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

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

Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic source ( i.e., pile driving) 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 very high frequency species and phocids because predicted AUD INJ zones are larger than for high-frequency species and otariids. AUD INJ is unlikely to occur for high-frequency species and otariids. The proposed 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 proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

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

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria 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 of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ, as well as the names of two hearing groups, have been recently updated (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in the Level A Harassment section.

Level B Harassment —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB re 1 μPa for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources. For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals exposed above received levels of 90 dB re 20 μPa (rms) will be behaviorally harassed. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

ARRC's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.

Level A Harassment —NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0; Updated Technical Guidance, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). ARRC's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.

The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 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 coefficient.

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

The project includes vibratory pile installation and removal, and impact pile driving. Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size are presented in tables 5 and 6. Source levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same.

On February 21, 2025, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) published an initial notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. (90 FR 10074). This final notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. The Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government and has added this product to the Procurement List. In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.2, the Committee has authorized the qualified nonprofit agencies described with the product as the authorized source of supply. Additionally, in accordance with 41 CFR 51-2.4, the Committee considered relevant information from the contracting activity that this product requirement is not applicable to other Federal entities and has granted the activity's requested preference for purchase or distribution. This product is not available through the Commission's Commercial Distribution Program, and other Federal entities wishing to purchase this product must contact the contracting activity listed directly for information on purchase availability.

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 any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) to the Government.

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

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

Accordingly, the following product(s) are added to the Procurement List:

On February 28, 2025 (90 FR 10890), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On January 15, 2025, the Department published an NIA in the Federal Register for the fiscal year (FY) 2025 NTACT competition, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.326E. The Department is withdrawing this NIA and cancelling the competition as part of a comprehensive review of recently published FY 2025 NIAs. This reevaluation seeks to ensure that all priorities and requirements for the Department's FY 2025 competitions align with the objectives established by the Trump Administration while fostering consistency across all grant programs. Additionally, the Department is dedicated to optimizing the impact of our grant competitions on students and families, as well as enhancing the economic effectiveness of federal education funding.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 773(b).

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this notice and the NIA 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.

This request for written third-party comments concerning the performance of accrediting agencies under review by the Secretary of Education is required by Section 496(n)(1)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (HEA), and pertains to the summer 2026 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). The meeting date and location have not been determined but will be announced in a later Federal Register notice. In addition, a later Federal Register notice will describe how to register to provide oral comments at the meeting. Written comments submitted in response to this Federal Register notice must be submitted to the mailbox identified below by May 8, 2025. Do not submit written comments in response to this Federal Register notice directly to Department officials or to NACIQI members.

Agencies Under Review and Evaluation: The Department requests written comments from the public on the following accrediting agencies, which are currently undergoing review and evaluation by the Accreditation Group, and which will be reviewed at the summer 2026 NACIQI meeting.

The agencies are listed by the type of application each agency has submitted. Please note, each agency's current scope of recognition is indicated below. If any agency requested to expand its scope of recognition, both the current scope of recognition and the requested scope of recognition are identified below.

1. American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of programs in legal education that lead to the first professional degree in law, including those offered via distance education, as well as freestanding law schools offering such programs. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

2. Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of private, postsecondary institutions offering predominantly allied health education programs leading to a certificate, diploma, and degree at the level of the Associate of Applied Science, Associate of Occupational Science, Academic Associate, Baccalaureate and Master's; including those offered via distance education and the programmatic accreditation of medical assisting, medical laboratory technology, and surgical technology programs, through the Associate degree, including those offered via distance education. The scope extends to the Substantive Change Committee, jointly with the Commission for decisions on substantive change. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

3. Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy”) of professional non-degree and graduate degree programs, including professional doctoral programs, in the field of acupuncture and/or Oriental medicine, as well as freestanding institutions and colleges of acupuncture and/or Oriental medicine that offer such programs, including programs offered via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

4. American Osteopathic Association, Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Provisional Accreditation”) of freestanding institutions of osteopathic medicine and of osteopathic medical programs leading to the degree of Doctor of Osteopathy or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

5. American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology; and the preaccreditation of doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States. Requested Scope of Recognition: The preaccreditation and accreditation of master's programs and doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school psychology, (and combinations of two or more of these practice areas); doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology, including programs that use distance education and traditional educational methods. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

6. Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of theological schools and seminaries, as well as schools or programs that are parts of colleges or universities, offering post baccalaureate degrees in professional and academic theological education, including delivery via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States. Requested Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of theological schools and seminaries, as well as schools or programs that are parts of colleges or universities, offering post baccalaureate degrees in professional and academic theological education, including delivery via distance education and direct assessment. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

7. Council on Occupational Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) of postsecondary occupational education institutions offering non-degree and applied associate degree programs in specific career and technical education fields, including institutions that offer programs via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

8. National Nurse Practitioner Residency and Fellowship Training Consortium. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of nurse practitioner (NP) postgraduate residency and fellowship training programs. This recognition also extends to the agency's Appeals Panel. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

9. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of degree-granting institutions of higher education including the accreditation of educational programs offered via distance education, correspondence courses, and direct assessment within these institutions. The accreditation status of these institutions and their recognition extends to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, Executive Council, and the Appeals Committee of the Collegiate College Delegate Assembly on cases of initial candidacy or initial accreditation and for continued accreditation or candidacy. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

10. Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate” status) of Christian postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: The United States.

1. Kansas State Board of Nursing. Scope of Recognition: State agency for the approval of nurse education. The compliance report includes findings of noncompliance with the criterion found at 34 FR 587644 (Jan. 16, 1969) identified in the May 28, 2024, letter from the senior Department official following the February 27, 2024, NACIQI meeting, available at: https://surveys.ope.ed.gov/erecognition/#/public-documents.

Written comments in response to this Federal Register notice about the recognition of any of the accrediting agencies or State agency listed above must be received by May 8, 2025, in the ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov mailbox. Please include in the subject line “Written Comments: (agency name).” The electronic mail (email) must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a PDF, Microsoft Word document, or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word that is attached to an email or provided in the body of an email message. Comments about an agency that has submitted a compliance report scheduled for review by the Department must relate to the criteria for recognition cited in the senior Department official's letter that requested the report, or in the Secretary's appeal decision, if any. Comments about an agency that has submitted a petition for initial recognition, renewal of recognition, or an expansion of scope must relate to the agency's compliance with the Criteria for the recognition of Accrediting Agencies or the Criteria for the recognition of State Agencies, which are available at: https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.

Only written materials submitted by the deadline to the email address listed in this notice, and in accordance with these instructions, become part of the official record concerning agencies scheduled for review and are considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations. Comments about the agencies listed in this Federal Register notice may also be provided orally at the summer 2026 NACIQI meeting, which has not yet been scheduled, but which will be announced in a future Federal Register notice.

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

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b; 20 U.S.C. 1011c.

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1009(d)), and section 102-3.175(c) of the General Services Administration's (GSA) Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, the Department of Energy has issued its 2024 Annual Report of Closed Advisory Committee meetings. The report covers three closed meetings of the ACNS held in 2024, all in Washington, DC. Although there were two meetings in 2024 of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) with Federal Register Notices which indicated partially closed meetings, there were no closed portions for either meeting, due to the President's schedule.

The Advisory Committee for Nuclear Security (ACNS) held closed meetings on the following dates in 2024: March 26, August 13, and December 3. At the March 26, 2024, meeting, ACNS discussed the Science, Technology, and Engineering (ST&E) integrated strategy at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as well as the Enterprise Blueprint, a 25-year plan to align the delivery of specialized infrastructure with demands across NNSA missions. At the August 13, 2024, meeting, ACNS discussed Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs, Integrated Plutonium Program, and Pipeline & Workforce. At the December 3, 2024, meeting, ACNS closed out two subcommittee studies on Modern Materials and Manufacturing (M3) and the ST&E Revitalization.

This report was also submitted to the Library of Congress, FACA Desk for public inspection and use.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 31, 2025, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-0600;

(2) Information Collection Request Titled: Industrial Relations;

(3) Type of Review: Renewal;

(4) Purpose: This information is required for management oversight of the Department of Energy's Facilities Management Contractors and to ensure that the programmatic and administrative management requirements of the contract are managed efficiently and effectively;

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 39;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 227;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1001.25;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7256; 48 CFR 970.0370-1.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 31, 2025, by Berta Schreiber, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .