USDA's mission to provide accurate, timely, and relevant economic and statistical information is carried out primarily through the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and the Office of the Chief Economist's World Agricultural Outlook Board (OCE-WAOB). ERS and NASS are designated by OMB as Recognized Statistical Agencies and Units, responsible for producing relevant, timely, credible, accurate, and objective statistical data under established quality and transparency standards. NASS reports include monthly crop production, July cattle, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs, and more. 1 ERS produces reports and briefings by subject matter experts that provide context for informing policy discussions. OCE-WAOB oversees the U.S. Department of Agriculture's production of the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report.

Together, these agencies produce a broad portfolio of products ranging from high-frequency crop and livestock statistics, market intelligence assessing supply and demand for major agricultural commodities, situation and outlook reports, and farm income forecasts to data products, interactive dashboards, and data visualizations. These resources are widely used by farmers and ranchers, agribusinesses, researchers, industry organizations, local and federal agencies, and international partners. The scale and diversity of these products vary in scope, geographic resolution, delivery method, and frequency as USDA works to balance informational needs within budgetary and technical constraints. To help inform our decision-making, we seek information on how well we are meeting the needs of users.

For details on the current roles and responsibilities of these agencies and office, refer to their respective websites ERS https://ers.usda.gov/, NASS https://www.nass.usda.gov/, and OCE-WAOB https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/world-agricultural-outlook-board. Specific information on USDA's statistical products, data, and analysis for which specific feedback is requested can be found on the following sites:

• NASS Guide to Products and Services: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/2025-Guide-to-Products-and-Services.pdf including methodology and quality measures: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Methodology_and_Data_Quality/index.php .

• ERS Products:

○ Data Products and Methodology: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products .

○ Research Reports: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications?series=research-reports .

○ Outlook Reports: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications?series=outlook-reports .

• OCE-WAOB: World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE): https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report including methodology documentation: https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity-markets/wasde/faqs .

USDA is issuing this request for information (RFI) to ensure USDA's economic and statistical products continue to meet the evolving needs of users. Respondents are encouraged to identify their field ( e.g., research, agricultural industry, farm operator) and area of interest ( e.g., statistics, data, forecasting, commodity markets), and provide relevant information regarding the USDA economic and statistical programs. Respondents need not reply to all questions listed. Please ensure that you identify your answers as responses to a specific question(s).

The following questions relate to official agricultural statistics produced through data collected from surveys, censuses, and other sources published by ERS and NASS.

1. Which NASS or ERS data ( e.g., releases, reports, datasets) are most valuable to your work, and why?

2. What gaps exist in the agricultural data produced?

3. What new topic areas should USDA prioritize for data products?

4. How often should data and information be released or updated ( e.g., annually, quarterly)?

5. What geographic granularity ( e.g., national, state, county) for data best supports your work?

6. Are there NASS or ERS data products, data sets, and other relevant information that are duplicative, outdated, or underutilized? What improvements, changes or consolidations could be made ( e.g., more timely, different data collection methods)?

7. Do you use non-USDA data to supplement data elements or variables of interest that are missing from NASS or ERS products? If yes, please specify which data sets you supplement and why. Do you use non-USDA data as a proxy for data elements that are missing from NASS or ERS products? If yes, please specify why you are using non-USDA data in conjunction with USDA data.

8. How could ERS and OCE-WAOB improve transparency about data sources, assumptions, or models used in data products?

The following questions relate to the economic research and outlook reports produced by ERS and the WASDE coordinated by OCE-WAOB.

9. Which ERS or OCE-WAOB research or analytical products ( e.g., farm income, situation and outlook reports, ERS research reports, WASDE) are most valuable to your work, and how do you use them?

10. What emerging policy or economic issues should be addressed in ERS or OCE-WAOB economic analysis, outlook, and forecasts?

11. When using ERS or OCE-WAOB forecasts or research, are you more likely to use raw data files, written analysis, or both? If you use one product type more than another, why?

12. How can ERS and OCE-WAOB better tailor the content to your needs?

13. How could ERS and OCE-WAOB improve transparency of the data sources, assumptions, methodology, or models used in economic forecasts?

The following questions apply to all the products developed by ERS, NASS, and OCE-WAOB.

14. How do you currently access ERS, NASS, or OCE-WAOB data ( e.g., Quick Stats, website, Application Programming Interfaces)? What challenges do you face when accessing data or research? What improvements would you suggest?

15. What tools or formats would improve usability of ERS, NASS, and OCE-WAOB products ( e.g., dashboards, machine-readable files, visualizations, downloadable tables)?

16. Are there groups ( e.g., beginning farmers, small businesses) that face challenges using ERS, NASS, and OCE-WAOB data and analytical products? How can we improve access?

17. USDA produces a number of products associated with outlook and research output intended to increase the digestibility or access to statistical and research products. How useful are these associated products? These include NASS' QuickStats tool for accessing data, ERS products like the ERS Farm Income and Wealth Statistics, Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data dissemination tool, Amber Waves or Charts of Note, WASDE data visualization, or other documents? What formats or presentation styles work best for your intended purpose?

18. How do you assess the credibility and relevance of ERS, NASS, and OCE-WAOB data and analytical products compared to other providers ( e.g., land-grant or private universities, commercial vendors)?

19. Are there other data or analytical products or reports produced by other parts of USDA that you consider highly valuable, duplicative, or redundant? Are there any improvements that you would suggest to these data or analytical products or reports produced by other parts of USDA?

20. What is the best way for ERS, NASS, and OCE-WAOB to receive ongoing feedback on its data and analysis? Are there groups or forums we should engage with more regularly?

Responses to this RFI are voluntary. Each individual or institution is requested to submit only one response. Responses should include the name of the person(s) or organization(s) filing the response. Please identify your answers by referring to a specific question number within the response. In order to best serve consumers of ERS, NASS, or OCE-WAOB data, please be sure to specify which program you would wish to provide feedback on and when discussing data, please be sure to indicate which data set you are referring to. This information is critical to improving the quality of information and data produced by these programs.

Responses to this RFI may be posted without change online. No proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information (PII) should be submitted in response to this RFI.

This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. There will be no response to individual submissions. Please note that the United States Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in a response. If submitting a response by mail, please allow sufficient time for mail processing.

These virtual committee meetings are available to the public through the registration links above. Any interested member of the public may join at the links to listen to these meetings. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of people 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 charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls when they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the Zoom meeting platform. To request additional accommodation, please email dbarreras@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 dbarreras@usccr.gov. People who desire additional information may contact the Designated Federal Officer at (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, www.box.com, as well as at www.facadatabase.gov. People interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Designated Federal Officer at (202) 656-8937.

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 charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls when 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 Corrine Sanders, Support Specialist, at csanders@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 Ana Victoria Fortes at afortes@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (202) 681-0857.

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, as well as at www.facadatabase.gov. 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.

On September 30, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of silicon metal from Laos and invited interested parties to comment. 1 No interested party submitted comments on the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, the final determination remains unchanged from the Preliminary Determination and, thus, there is no decision memorandum accompanying this notice.

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Access System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now February 17, 2026.

On February 5, 2026, Commerce solicited surrogate country and surrogate value information from interested parties, 4 and we received comments from the petitioners, Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC. 5

The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Laos. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation.

As Commerce had no participating respondents in this investigation, no on-site verification was conducted.

As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce preliminarily assigned to Lao Silicon Co., Ltd. (Lao Silicon) an estimated weighted-average dumping margin on the basis of AFA pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 6 There is no new information on the record that would cause us to revisit our decision in the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, for this final determination, we continue to find that the application of AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is warranted with respect to Lao Silicon in this investigation.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and/or exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In the Preliminary Determination, we assigned an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 94.44 percent as the all-others rate, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 7 As noted above, we received no comments on the Preliminary Determination; thus, we continue to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 94.44 percent as the all-others rate for this final determination.

The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

For this final determination, Commerce has determined to treat Laos as an NME in forthcoming proceedings. 8 Consistent with Commerce's practice, 9 this determination will apply to future segments of this proceeding, and Commerce has relied on its market economy methodology in determining the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for this final determination. A detailed explanation of this determination along with discussion of the comments and factual information submitted concerning this determination can be found in the NME Analysis Report, issued concurrently with this memorandum.

Commerce intends to use its NME methodology to calculate antidumping duty (AD) rates in future segments of AD proceedings involving Laos. 10

On June 12, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review and invited interested parties to comment. 1 For a detailed description of the events that occurred subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 On September 23, 2025, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final results until December 9, 2025. 3 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 4 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 5 Accordingly, the deadline for the final results of this administrative review is now February 17, 2026. 6

The merchandise subject to the Order is millwork products from China. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised by interested parties in briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I of this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each subsidy program found countervailable, Commerce finds that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 8 For a description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, including any determination that relied upon the use of adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on our analysis of the case and rebuttal briefs and the evidence on the record, we made certain changes to the ocean freight benchmarks and import duty rates used in certain input for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analyses, certain free-on board sales denominators, and the purchases countervailed in the cut timber for LTAR program from the Preliminary Results. These changes are explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

There are 13 companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. See Appendix II. The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for determining the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight average the net subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 9 For the 13 non-selected companies, because the rates calculated for mandatory respondents Zhejiang Senya Board Industry Co., Ltd. (Senya Board) and Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co., Ltd. (Yinfeng) were above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available, we applied a final subsidy rate based on a weighted average of the rates calculated for the two mandatory respondents using the publicly ranged sales data they submitted on the record. This methodology is consistent with our practice for establishing an all-others subsidy rate pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act. For a list of the non-selected companies, see Appendix II to this notice.

We find that, for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, the following total net countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable ad valorem assessment rates listed for the POR. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the POR for each of the respective companies listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of the final results of review, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On May 9, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register its Preliminary Determination   1 that imports of acidic solid HEDP produced in China are circumventing the Orders. 2 Commerce conducted this circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226(j). On May 23, 2025, Jiangshan America, LLC (Jiangshan America) and Uniphos, Inc. (Uniphos) (collectively, the U.S. Importers) submitted a case brief. 3 On May 30, 2025, Compass Chemical International LLC (Compass, a domestic interested party) submitted a rebuttal brief. 4

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 5 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 6 On December 18, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final determination in this circumvention inquiry by 35 days. 7 On January 14, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final determination in this circumvention inquiry by an additional 23 days. 8 Accordingly, the deadline for this final determination is now February 18, 2026.

For a summary of events that occurred since the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for consideration in the final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9

The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). All issues raised in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise covered by the Orders includes all grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of HEDP from China. For a complete description of the scope of the Orders, see Appendix I of this notice.

The merchandise subject to the circumvention inquiry (inquiry merchandise) includes all grades of acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-disphosphonic acid (HEDP), also referred to as hydroxyethylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid, in solid or powder form (acidic solid HEDP), produced in China and exported to the United States. The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number for acidic solid HEDP is 2809-21-4. The solid or powder form of acidic HEDP subject to this circumvention inquiry is typically entered into the United States under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 2931.49.0080, 2931.90.9052, and 2811.19.6190.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made no changes to the Preliminary Determination, as described below, and at the Comment of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226. For this final determination, Commerce continues to rely on facts available under section 776(a) of the Act, including facts available with adverse inferences (AFA) under section 776(b) of the Act with respect to all known Chinese producers and exporters of acidic solid HEDP, due to their failure to respond to Commerce's requests for information. For further explanation of Commerce's decision to rely on AFA with respect to all known Chinese producers and exporters of acidic solid HEDP, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. As a result, in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act, Commerce determines that the inquiry merchandise produced in and exported from China is circumventing the Orders. Furthermore, Commerce is applying this affirmative determination of circumvention of the Order s on a country-wide basis.

Based on the affirmative country-wide determinations of circumvention, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3) and (m)(1)(ii), we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries of acidic solid HEDP produced in and exported from China that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 19, 2024, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the Federal Register . 10

In addition, we will direct CBP to collect a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties. For exporters of acidic solid HEDP that have a company-specific separate AD cash deposit rate under the AD Order, the cash deposit rate will be the exporter-specific or producer/exporter-specific separate AD cash deposit rate established for that company in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. For exporters of acidic solid HEDP that do not have an exporter-specific or producer/exporter-specific separate AD cash deposit rate, the AD cash deposit rate will be equal to the cash deposit rate for the China-wide entity. 11

Further, we will direct CBP to collect a cash deposit for estimated countervailing duties. If the acidic solid HEDP was produced and exported by the same company, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific CVD cash deposit rate established for that company in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. If both the producer and the exporter of the subject merchandise have company-specific CVD cash deposit rates, and their rates differ, the cash deposit rate will be the higher of these two rates. If either the producer or the exporter, but not both, have company-specific cash deposit rates, the cash deposit rate will be that company's CVD cash deposit rate. For companies that do not have a company-specific CVD cash deposit rate, the CVD cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters. 12

These suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

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

Commerce is issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).

I. Abstract

The United States, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and Switzerland share a commitment to enhancing privacy protection, the rule of law, and a recognition of the importance of transatlantic data flows to our respective citizens, economies, and societies, but take different approaches to doing so. Given those differences, the Department of Commerce (DOC) developed the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU-U.S. DPF), the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF), and the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (Swiss-U.S. DPF) in consultation with the European Commission, the UK Government, the Swiss Federal Administration, industry, and other stakeholders. These arrangements were respectively developed to provide U.S. organizations reliable mechanisms for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union/European Economic Area, the United Kingdom (and, as applicable, Gibraltar), and Switzerland while ensuring data protection that is consistent with EU, UK, and Swiss law.

The DOC issued the EU-U.S. DPF Principles and the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles, including the respective sets of Supplemental Principles (collectively the Principles) and Annex I of the Principles, as well as the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). The International Trade Administration (ITA) administers and supervises the Data Privacy Framework program, including by maintaining and making publicly available the Data Privacy Framework List, an authoritative list of U.S. organizations that have self-certified to the DOC and declared their commitment to adhere to the Principles pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF. While the decision by an organization to self-certify its compliance pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF and by extension participate in the Data Privacy Framework program is voluntary; effective compliance is compulsory: organizations that self-certify to the DOC and publicly declare their commitment to adhere to the Principles must comply fully with the Principles. Such commitments to comply with the Principles are legally enforceable under U.S. law. On the basis of the Principles, Executive Order 14086, 28 CFR part 201, and accompanying letters and materials, including ITA's commitments regarding the administration and supervision of the Data Privacy Framework program, the European Commission, the UK Government, and the Swiss Federal Administration have respectively recognized the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-U.S. DPF, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and the Swiss-U.S. DPF thereby enabling personal data transfers from each respective jurisdiction to U.S. organizations participating in the relevant part of the Data Privacy Framework program.

As respectively described in Annex I of the EU-U.S. DPF Principles, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and Annex I of the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles the DOC commits separately with the European Commission, the UK Government, and the Swiss Federal Administration to implement an arbitration mechanism to provide EU, UK, and Swiss individuals with the ability under certain circumstances to invoke binding arbitration to determine, for residual claims, whether an organization has violated its obligations under the Principles as to those individuals. Organizations that self-certify their compliance pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF, including those that also elect to participate in the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF are obligated to arbitrate claims and follow the terms as set forth in Annex I of the EU-U.S. DPF Principles, provided that an EU or UK (as applicable) individual has invoked binding arbitration by delivering notice to the organization at issue and following the procedures and subject to the conditions set forth in Annex I of the EU-U.S. DPF Principles. Organizations that self-certify their compliance pursuant to the Swiss-U.S. DPF are obligated to arbitrate claims and follow the terms as set forth in Annex I of the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles, provided that a Swiss individual has invoked binding arbitration by delivering notice to the organization at issue and following the procedures and subject to the conditions set forth in Annex I of the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles. An individual's decision to invoke this binding arbitration option is entirely voluntary. Arbitral decisions will be binding on all parties to the arbitration. Under this binding arbitration option, a panel (consisting of one or three arbitrators, as agreed by the parties) has the authority to impose individual-specific, non-monetary equitable relief (such as access, correction, deletion, or return of the individual's data in question) necessary to remedy the violation of the Principles only with respect to the individual. No damages, costs, fees, or other remedies are available. The parties will select the arbitrators from the list(s) of arbitrators described below.

Pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF and the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, the DOC and the European Commission has developed and will seek to maintain a list of at least 10 arbitrators. The parties, including the EU or UK individual who has invoked binding arbitration, will select arbitrators for the arbitration panel from that list of arbitrators developed under the EU-U.S. DPF (EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators). To be eligible for inclusion on the EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators, applicants must be admitted to practice law in the United States and be experts in U.S. privacy law, with expertise in EU data protection law; and shall not be subject to any instructions from, or be affiliated with, either party, or any participating organization, or the United States, European Union, or any EU Member State or any other governmental authority, public authority, or enforcement authority. Arbitrators will remain on the EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators for a period of 3 years, absent exceptional circumstances or removal for cause, renewable by the DOC, with prior notification to the European Commission for additional 3- year terms.

Pursuant to the Swiss-U.S. DPF the DOC and the Swiss Federal Administration has developed and will seek to maintain a list of up to five arbitrators to supplement the list of arbitrators developed under the EU-U.S. DPF. The parties, including the Swiss individual who has invoked binding arbitration, will select arbitrators for the arbitration panel from the list of arbitrators developed under the EU-U.S. DPF, as supplemented by the list of arbitrators developed under the Swiss-U.S. DPF (Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators). To be eligible for inclusion on the Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators, applicants must be admitted to practice law in the United States and be experts in U.S. privacy law, with expertise in European or Swiss data protection law; and shall not be subject to any instructions from, or be affiliated with, either party, or any participating organization, or the United States, Switzerland, European Union, or any EU Member State or any other governmental authority, public authority, or enforcement authority. Arbitrators will remain on the Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators for a period of 3 years, absent exceptional circumstances or removal for cause, renewable by the DOC, with prior notification to the Swiss Federal Administration for additional 3-year terms.

To be considered for inclusion on the EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators or the Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators, eligible individuals will be respectively evaluated by the DOC and the European Commission and the DOC and the Swiss Federal Administration on the basis of independence, integrity, and expertise:

The DOC has agreed with the European Commission to the adoption of arbitration rules that govern arbitration proceedings and a code of conduct for arbitrators under the EU-U.S. DPF (and similarly agreed with the UK Government as relates to arbitration proceedings under the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF), and the Swiss Federal Administration to the adoption of arbitration rules that govern arbitration proceedings and a code of conduct for arbitrators under the Swiss-U.S. DPF. In the event that the rules governing the proceedings and/or the code of conduct for arbitrators need to be changed, the DOC and the European Commission and the Swiss Federal Administration will agree to amend those rules or adopt a different set of existing, well-established U.S. arbitral procedures, and/or amend the code of conduct for arbitrators (as applicable).

The DOC has selected the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the international division of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) (collectively ICDR-AAA) to administer arbitrations pursuant to and manage the arbitral fund identified in Annex I of the EU-U.S. DPF Principles, including as relates to the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and Annex I of the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles. Among other things, the ICDR-AAA facilitates arbitrator fee arrangements, including the collection and timely payment of arbitrator fees and other expenses. The DOC and the European Commission (and the UK Government, as appropriate, with regard to the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF) agreed to the adoption of a set of arbitration rules to govern binding arbitration proceedings described in Annex I of the EU-U.S. DPF Principles, as well as a code of conduct for arbitrators that is consistent with generally accepted ethical standards for commercial arbitrators and Annex I of the Principles. The DOC and the Swiss Federal Administration agreed to the adoption of a set of arbitration rules to govern binding arbitration proceedings described in Annex I of the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles, as well as a code of conduct for arbitrators that is consistent with generally accepted ethical standards for commercial arbitrators and Annex I of the Principles.

Applications: Applications must be typewritten, electronically submitted, and headed “Application for Inclusion on the EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators” or “Application for Inclusion on the Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators” (as applicable). Applications must include the following information, and each section of the application should be labeled and numbered as indicated below:

Individuals interested in being considered for inclusion on the EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators or the Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators would submit their applications to the DOC online via email at dpf.program@trade.gov.

The DOC previously requested and obtained approval of this information collection, which has allowed the DOC, as represented by ITA, to collect information from applicants for inclusion on the EU-U.S. DPF List of Arbitrators and from applicants for inclusion on the Swiss-U.S. DPF Supplemental List of Arbitrators (OMB Control Number 0625-0281). More information on the binding arbitration option under the Data Privacy Framework program is available on the DOC's Data Privacy Framework program website ( https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/ ).

OMB Control Number: 0625-0281.

Form Number(s): None.

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

Affected Public: Private individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 120 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: The DOC's statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States (15 U.S.C. 1512).

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

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

In accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) on December 29, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register its affirmative final determinations in the countervailing duty investigations of capsules from Brazil, China, India and Vietnam. 1 On February 12, 2026, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations, pursuant to sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam, and that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports from Brazil. 2

The products covered by these orders are hard empty capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these orders, see the appendix to this notice.

Based on the above-referenced affirmative final determinations by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam, and is threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of capsules from Brazil, 3 and in accordance with sections 705(c)(2) and 706 of the Act, Commerce is issuing these countervailing duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, India, and Vietnam entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam. With the exception of entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before the publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, as further described below, countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 31, 2025, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations in the Federal Register . 4

Pursuant to section 706(b)(2) of the Act, countervailing duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination if that determination is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted without the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since Commerce's preliminary determination. Additionally, section 706(b)(2) of the Act requires CBP to refund any cash deposits or bonds of estimated countervailing duties posted since the preliminary countervailing duty determination if the ITC's final determination is threat-based.

Because the ITC's final determination for Brazil is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since the Brazil Preliminary Determination, section 706(b)(2) of the Act is applicable. 5 Therefore, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess duties on entries of capsules from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination of threat of material injury in the Federal Register , in accordance with the subsidy rates listed in the rate chart below for Brazil.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the Federal Register , and to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise. On or after the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register , CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates noted below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

The estimated countervailable subsidy rates are as follows; all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below.

Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the Preliminary Determinations on March 31, 2025. 7 Therefore, entries of capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam made on or after July 29, 2025, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register , are not subject to the assessment of countervailing duties due to Commerce's discontinuation of the suspension of liquidation.

In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, Commerce instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, certain unliquidated entries of capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 29, 2025, the date on which the provisional CVD measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC final injury determinations in the Federal Register .

On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the Final Rule in the Federal Register . 8 On September 27, 2021, Commerce also published the Procedural Guidance in the Federal Register . 9 The Final Rule and Procedural Guidance provide that Commerce will maintain an annual inquiry service list for each order or suspended investigation, and any interested party submitting a scope ruling application or request for circumvention inquiry shall serve a copy of the application or request on the persons on the annual inquiry service list for that order, as well as any companion order covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin. 10

In accordance with the Procedural Guidance, for orders published in the Federal Register after November 4, 2021, Commerce will create an annual inquiry service list segment in Commerce's online e-filing and document management system, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS), available at https://access.trade.gov, within five business days of publication of the order. Each annual inquiry service list will be saved in ACCESS, under each case number, and under a specific segment type called “AISL-Annual Inquiry Service List.”  11

Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the Procedural Guidance, the new annual inquiry service list will be in place until the following year, when the Opportunity Notice for the anniversary month of the order is published.

Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.

In the Final Rule, Commerce stated that, “after an initial request and placement on the annual inquiry service list, both petitioners and foreign governments will automatically be placed on the annual inquiry service list in the years that follow.”  12 Accordingly, as stated above, the petitioners and foreign governments should submit their initial entry of appearance after publication of this notice in order to appear in the first annual inquiry service list. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(n)(3), the petitioners and foreign governments will not need to resubmit their entries of appearance each year to continue to be included on the annual inquiry service list. However, the petitioners and foreign governments are responsible for making amendments to their entries of appearance during the annual update to the annual inquiry service list in accordance with the procedures described above.

This notice constitutes the CVD orders with respect to capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at https://www.trade.gov/data-visualization/adcvd-proceedings.

These CVD orders are published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

On August 20, 2025, Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2023-2024 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Thailand  1 in the Federal Register and invited interested parties to comment. 2 We received no comments from interested parties on the Preliminary Results, and we have made no changes to the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. The Preliminary Results are hereby adopted in these final results. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

On September 30, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of silicon metal from Angola and invited interested parties to comment. 1 No interested party submitted comments on the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, the final determination remains unchanged from the Preliminary Determination and, thus, there is no decision memorandum accompanying this notice.

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Access System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 Accordingly, the deadline for the final determination is now February 17, 2026.

On February 5, 2026, Commerce solicited surrogate country and surrogate value information from interested parties, 4 and we received comments from the petitioners, Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC. 5

The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Angola. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation.

As Commerce had no participating respondents in this investigation, no on-site verification was conducted.

As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce preliminarily assigned to PC Silicon Co. Limited (PC Silicon) and Wanhongda International Limited (Wanhongda), two companies that did not respond to our quantity and value questionnaire, estimated weighted-average dumping margins on the basis of AFA pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 6 There is no new information on the record that would cause us to revisit our decision in the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, for this final determination, we continue to find that the application of AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is warranted with respect to PC Silicon and Wanhongda in this investigation.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In the Preliminary Determination, we assigned an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 68.45 percent as the all-others rate, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 7 As noted above, we received no comments on the Preliminary Determination; thus, we continue to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 68.45 percent as the all-others rate for this final determination.

The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

For this final determination, Commerce has determined to treat Angola as an NME in forthcoming proceedings. 8 Consistent with Commerce's practice, 9 this determination will apply to future segments of this proceeding, and Commerce has relied on its market economy methodology in determining the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for this final determination. A detailed explanation of this determination along with discussion of the comments and factual information submitted concerning this determination can be found in the NME Analysis Report, issued concurrently with this memorandum.

Commerce intends to use its NME methodology to calculate antidumping duty (AD) rates in future segments of AD proceedings involving Angola.

Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce received no comments on the Preliminary Determination, it is adopting the Preliminary Determination as the final determination in this investigation. Consequently, there are no new calculations to disclose.

As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 733(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits and suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from Angola that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after September 30, 2025, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . 10 In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after January 28, 2026, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise on or before January 27, 2026.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues an affirmative final injury determination, we will issue an AD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 736(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 735(c)(2) of the Act, if the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of silicon metal. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an AD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation and Cash Deposit Requirements” section above.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

On August 5, 2008, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD order on LWRPT from Mexico. 1 On September 20, 2024, based on timely requests for review, Commerce published a notice of initiation for this administrative review covering 17 companies. 2

On December 9, 2024, we tolled the deadline for the preliminary results by 90 days. 3 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days  4 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 5 On July 16, 2025, and January 23, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results until February 5, 2026. 6

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 7 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by the Order are light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We calculated normal value in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 8 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the review period. 9 Therefore, for an administrative review of a company to be conducted, there must be a suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the AD assessment rate calculated for the POR. 10

On September 18, 2025, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review regarding the companies listed in Appendix II because there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by these companies during the POR, and we invited interested parties to comment. 11 No parties commented on our intent to rescind the review, in part. In the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the POR, we are rescinding this administrative review for the companies listed in Appendix II, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

For the rate for companies not selected for individual examination in an administrative review, generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair-value investigation. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.” In this administrative review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Perfiles and Regiopytsa that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on total facts available. For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review, we have assigned to them the weighted-average dumping margins based on the publicly-ranged versions of the net U.S. quantities calculated for Perfiles and Regiopytsa, consistent with the guidance in section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 12

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

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

Case briefs and other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 15 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 16 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the established deadline.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 17 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 18

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 19 Hearing requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised by each party in their respective case and rebuttal briefs. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days of the publication date of this notice. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing. 20

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).

If the weighted-average dumping margin for Perfiles or Regiopytsa is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to each importer and the total entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a particular importer, we will calculate an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total quantity of those sales. 21 To determine whether an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate is de minimis, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we also will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem ratio based on estimated entered values. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.”  22 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Perfiles or Regiopytsa for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction. 23

For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at an ad valorem assessment rate equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin determined in these final results. For the companies for which this review is being rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP for the companies listed in Appendix II to this notice no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each company listed above will be that established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 3.76 percent, the rate established in the investigation of this proceeding. 24 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On August 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of certain freight rail couplers and parts thereof (freight rail couplers) from the Czech Republic and India. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than March 9, 2026. 4

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On December 9, 2025, the petitioner  5 submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations. 6 The petitioner stated that it requests postponement so that Commerce can fully analyze the forthcoming questionnaire responses of the mandatory respondents and issue supplemental questionnaires, as necessary. 7

For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days ( i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated plus an additional 68 days from tolling). 8 As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than April 27, 2026. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On August 22, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review in the Federal Register and invited comments from interested parties. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 Accordingly, the current deadline for the final results of this review is now February 26, 2026.

We received no comments from interested parties on the Preliminary Results, and we made no changes from the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, no decision memorandum accompanies this notice and the Preliminary Results are hereby adopted as these final results. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by this Order is finished carbon steel flanges from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Results. 5

We determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:

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

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined in these final results of this review, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for examined sales to each importer to the total entered value of those sales. Where an importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR that were produced by ULMA for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate ( i.e., 18.81 percent), 6 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 7

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register , as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for ULMA will be zero, the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation ( i.e., 18.81 percent). 8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

These final results are being issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On September 26, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . 1 In the Preliminary Determination, and in accordance with section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce aligned the final countervailing duty (CVD) determination with the final determination in the companion less-than-fair-value investigation of silicon metal from Laos. 2

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 3 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 4 Accordingly, the deadline for this final determination is now February 17, 2026. 5

For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Laos. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, no changes were made to the scope of the investigation.

Because the sole mandatory respondent ( i.e., Lao Silicon Co., Ltd. (Lao Silicon)) did not participate in this investigation and because the Government of Laos (GOL) did not respond to Commerce's requests for cooperation to coordinate verification, Commerce did not conduct verification in this investigation. See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The subsidy programs under investigation and the issue raised in the letter in lieu of case brief filed by Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC (collectively, the petitioners) in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the topics discussed, and the issue raised to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, see Appendix II.

Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In making this final determination, Commerce relied on facts otherwise available, including with an adverse inference, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For a full discussion of our application of adverse facts available, see the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Application of Adverse Inferences” section in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For this final determination we made certain changes to the selection of the adverse facts available (AFA) rate and the countervailable subsidy rate calculation for Lao Silicon and for all other producers/exporters. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated subsidy rate for all other producers and/or exporters. Commerce in this investigation has determined the subsidy rate for the individually examined respondent under section 776 of the Act. This is the only rate available in this proceeding for deriving the all-others rate. Consequently, as a reasonable method, pursuant to sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce established the all-others rate by applying the countervailable subsidy rate assigned to Lao Silicon, the mandatory respondent in this investigation, as determined under section 776 of the Act. 8 For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

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

As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits and suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 26, 2025, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after January 24, 2026, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise on or before January 23, 2026.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act, if the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited, or securities posted, as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of silicon metal from Laos. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of silicon metal from Laos. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section, supra.

In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

On August 22, 2025, Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2023-2024 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Belgium  1 in the Federal Register and invited interested parties to comment. 2 We received no comments from interested parties on the Preliminary Results, and we have made no changes to the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice and the Preliminary Results are hereby adopted in these final results. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 3 Further, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 4 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now February 26, 2026.

The merchandise covered by this Order includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:

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

Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered this review. Because the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 5 The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 6

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Citribel for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate ( i.e., 19.30 percent)  7 if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction. 8

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of citric acid from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Citribel will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review ( i.e., 0.00 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 19.30 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 9 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On June 11, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review. 1 On July 11, 2025, Commerce cancelled its planned verification of Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (STAPIMEX). 2 On July 25, 2025, Commerce issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis to make certain changes to its differential pricing analysis in this administrative review, and invited interested parties to comment. 3

On August 26, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline to issue the final results by 60 days. 4 Further, due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 5 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 6 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now February 17, 2026. 7

For the events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise subject to the Order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 10

All issues raised by interested parties in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice.

Based on a review of the record and our analysis of comments received from interested parties, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to the weighted-average dumping margins applied to the two mandatory respondents, STAPIMEX and Thong Thuan Company Limited (Thong Thuan)/Thong Thuan Cam Ranh Seafood Joint Stock Company (TTCR) (collectively, Thong Thuan/TTCR), 11 and the weighted-average dumping margin applicable to the non-examined companies that are eligible for a separate rate. For reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce applied facts available with adverse inference (AFA), in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act to STAPIMEX and Thong Thuan/TTCR.

Because STAPIMEX's and Thong Thuan/TTCR's questionnaire responses could not be verified, we are unable to use their respective data to calculate an accurate weighted-average dumping margin for either company. Therefore, as stated above, for these final results we are relying on AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to assign a weighted-average dumping margin to each mandatory respondent, STAPIMEX and Thong Thuan/TTCR because these companies failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their abilities to comply with our requests for information. In applying AFA, we assigned STAPIMEX and Thong Thuan/TTCR a weighted-average dumping margin of 25.76 percent, a rate which previously has been applied as AFA in the Final Determination for the Vietnam-wide entity. 12

On December 29, 2025, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam, in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 On February 12, 2026, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of dumped imports of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam, within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, and threatened with material injury by reason of dumped imports of capsules from Brazil, within the meaning of 735(b)(1)(A)(ii)of the Act. 2

The products covered by these orders are capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see the appendix to this notice

Based on the above-referenced affirmative final determinations by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam, and that an industry in the United States is threatened by reason of such imports from Brazil, and in accordance with sections 735(c)(2) and 736 of the Act, Commerce is issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam, and that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of capsules from Brazil, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from these countries entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duty deposits equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, on all relevant entries of capsules from Brazil, China, India and Vietnam. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of capsules from China, India, and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 29, 2025, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations, 3 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below.

Pursuant to section 736(b)(2) of the Act, antidumping duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination if that determination is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted without the suspension of liquidation of entries since Commerce's preliminary determination. In addition, section 736(b)(2) of the Act requires CBP to refund any cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties posted before the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative determination, if the ITC's final determination is based on threat other than the threat described in section 736(b)(1) of the Act.

Because the ITC's final determination with respect to Brazil is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since publication of the Brazil Preliminary Determination, section 736(b)(2) of the Act is applicable. 4 Therefore, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on entries of capsules from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations of threat of material injury in the Federal Register , in accordance with the dumping margins listed in the rate chart below for Brazil.

In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register , and to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, pursuant to section 736(a)(1) of the Act, antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise equal to the amount by which normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the merchandise. These instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated customs duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the tables below. The relevant all-others rate (for Brazil and India), the rate for the China-wide entity (for China), or the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity (for Vietnam), as applicable, apply to all producers and exporters not specifically listed.

With respect to China, Commerce determined a weighted-average dumping margin of zero percent for subject merchandise produced and exported by Shanxi JC Biological Technology Co., Ltd As such, we are excluding this producer/exporter combination from the antidumping duty order on capsules from China. On the basis of the negative China Final Determination   5 for this producer/exporter combination, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidations and to refund all cash deposits collected for this producer/exporter combination. Such exclusion will not be applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by any other producer/exporter combinations or by third-country exporters that sourced from the excluded producer/exporter combination(s). The China-wide entity rate applies to all exporter/producer combinations not specifically listed below.

The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of capsules from Brazil, China, India and Vietnam, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months. 8

In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the Preliminary Determinations on May 29, 2025. As such, the six-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determinations ended on November 24, 2025. Therefore, entries of capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam made on or after November 24, 2025, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register , are not subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, Commerce instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of capsules from Brazil, China, India and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 25, 2025, the day on which the provisional antidumping duty measures expired. Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register .

On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the Final Rule in the Federal Register . 9 On September 27, 2021, Commerce also published the Procedural Guidance in the Federal Register . 10 The Final Rule and Procedural Guidance provide that Commerce will maintain an annual inquiry service list for each order or suspended investigation, and any interested party submitting a scope ruling application or request for circumvention inquiry shall serve a copy of the application or request on the persons on the annual inquiry service list for that order, as well as any companion order covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin.

In accordance with the Procedural Guidance, for orders published in the Federal Register after November 21, 2021, Commerce will create an annual inquiry service list segment in Commerce's online e-filing and document management system, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS), available at https://access.trade.gov, within five business days of publication of the notice of the order. Each annual inquiry service list will be saved in ACCESS, under each case number, and under a specific segment type called “AISL—Annual Inquiry Service List.”  11

On September 26, 2025, Commerce published its Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . 1 On September 30, 2025, Commerce aligned this countervailing (CVD) final determination with the final determinations in the less-than-fair value investigations of silicon metal from Angola and Lao People's Democratic Republic, in accordance with 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4). 2

The United States, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and Switzerland share a commitment to enhancing privacy protection, the rule of law, and a recognition of the importance of transatlantic data flows to our respective citizens, economies, and societies, but take different approaches to doing so. Given those differences, the Department of Commerce (DOC) developed the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU-U.S. DPF), the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF), and the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (Swiss-U.S. DPF) in consultation with the European Commission, the UK Government, the Swiss Federal Administration, industry, and other stakeholders. These arrangements were respectively developed to provide U.S. organizations reliable mechanisms for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union/European Economic Area, the United Kingdom (and, as applicable, Gibraltar), and Switzerland while ensuring data protection that is consistent with EU, UK, and Swiss law.

The DOC issued the EU-U.S. DPF Principles and the Swiss-U.S. DPF Principles, including the respective sets of Supplemental Principles (collectively the Principles) and Annex I of the Principles, as well as the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). The International Trade Administration (ITA) administers and supervises the Data Privacy Framework program, including by maintaining and making publicly available the Data Privacy Framework List, an authoritative list of U.S. organizations that have self-certified to the DOC and declared their commitment to adhere to the Principles pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF. On the basis of the Principles, Executive Order 14086, 28 CFR part 201, and accompanying letters and materials, including ITA's commitments regarding the administration and supervision of the Data Privacy Framework program, the European Commission, the UK Government, and the Swiss Federal Administration have respectively recognized the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-U.S. DPF, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and the Swiss-U.S. DPF thereby enabling personal data transfers from each respective jurisdiction to U.S. organizations participating in the relevant part of the Data Privacy Framework program.

In order to participate in the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF an organization must (a) be subject to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Transportation (DOT), or another statutory body that will effectively ensure compliance with the Principles; (b) publicly declare its commitment to comply with the Principles; (c) publicly disclose its privacy policies in line with the Principles; and (d) fully implement them.

While the decision by an organization to self-certify its compliance pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF and by extension participate in the Data Privacy Framework program is voluntary; effective compliance is compulsory: organizations that self-certify to the DOC and publicly declare their commitment to adhere to the Principles must comply fully with the Principles. Organizations that only wish to self-certify their compliance pursuant to the EU-U.S. DPF and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF may do so; however, organizations that wish to participate in the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF must participate in the EU-U.S. DPF. Such organizations' commitment to comply with the Principles with regard to transfers of personal data from the European Union and, as applicable, the United Kingdom, and/or Switzerland must be reflected in their self-certification submissions to the DOC, and in their privacy policies. An organization's failure to comply with the Principles after its self-certification is enforceable by the FTC under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce (15 U.S.C. 45); by the DOT under 49 U.S.C. 41712 prohibiting a carrier or ticket agent from engaging in an unfair or deceptive practice in air transportation or the sale of air transportation; or under other laws or regulations prohibiting such acts.

To rely on the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF for transfers of personal data from the European Union and, as applicable, the United Kingdom, and/or Switzerland an organization must self-certify its adherence to the Principles to the DOC, and both be placed and remain on the Data Privacy Framework List. The DOC will update the Data Privacy Framework List on the basis of annual re-certification submissions made by participating organizations and by removing organizations when they voluntarily withdraw, fail to complete the annual re-certification in accordance with the DOC's procedures, or are found to persistently fail to comply. The DOC will also maintain and make available to the public an authoritative record of U.S. organizations that have been removed from the Data Privacy Framework List and will identify the reason each organization was removed. The aforementioned authoritative list and record will remain available to the public on the DOC's Data Privacy Framework program website. Any organization removed from the Data Privacy Framework List must cease making claims that it participates in or complies with the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF and that it may receive personal information pursuant to same. Such an organization must nevertheless continue to apply the Principles to such personal information that it received while it participated in the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF for as long as it retains such personal information.

To initially self-certify or subsequently re-certify for the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF, an organization must on each occasion provide to the DOC a submission that contains the relevant information specified in the Principles. The submission must be made via the DOC's Data Privacy Framework program website by an individual within the organization who is authorized to make representations on behalf of the organization and any of its covered U.S. entities regarding its adherence to the Principles. Such an organization must respond promptly to inquiries and other requests for information from the DOC relating to the organization's adherence to the Principles.

ITA has committed to follow up with organizations that have been or wish to be removed from the Data Privacy Framework List. ITA will direct organizations that allow their self-certifications to lapse to verify whether they intend to re-certify or instead intend to withdraw. An organization that intends to re-certify will be required to further verify to the DOC that during the lapse of its certification status it applied the Principles to relevant personal data received in reliance on its participation in the Data Privacy Framework program and clarify what steps it will take to address the outstanding issues that have delayed its re-certification. An organization that intends to withdraw will be required to further verify to the DOC what it will do and/or has done (as applicable) with the relevant personal data that it received in reliance on its participation in the Data Privacy Framework program ( i.e., (a) retain such data, continue to apply the Principles to such data, and affirm to the DOC on an annual basis its commitment to apply the Principles to such data; (b) retain such data and provide “adequate” protection for such data by another authorized means; or (c) return or delete all such data by a specified date) and who within the organization will serve as an ongoing point of contact for Principles-related questions. Organizations will be required to provide such verification to the DOC by completing and submitting appropriate questionnaires to the DOC.

ITA has also committed to conduct compliance reviews on an ongoing basis, including, as appropriate, through sending detailed questionnaires to participating organizations. The DOC will require that a participating organization complete and submit to the DOC such a questionnaire when: (a) the DOC has received any specific, nonfrivolous complaints about the organization's compliance with the Principles; (b) the organization does not respond satisfactorily to inquiries by the DOC for information relating to the organization's adherence to the Principles; or (c) there is credible evidence that the organization does not comply with its commitments under the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF.

Organizations would make their initial self-certification, as well as annual re-certification submissions under the Data Privacy Framework program ( i.e., the EU-U.S. DPF and, as applicable, the UK Extension to the EU--U.S. DPF, and/or the Swiss-U.S. DPF) to the DOC online via the DOC's Data Privacy Framework program website ( https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/ ). Organizations would complete and submit Data Privacy Framework program questionnaires to the DOC online via the DOC's Data Privacy Framework program website or via email at dpf.program@trade.gov (as applicable) in accordance with Data Privacy Framework program requirements.

The DOC previously requested and obtained approval of this information collection, which has allowed the DOC, as represented by ITA, to collect information from organizations in the United States to enable them to self-certify their commitment to comply with the Principles (OMB Control Number 0625-0280). More information on self-certification, including annual re-certification under the Data Privacy Framework program is available on the DOC's Data Privacy Framework program website ( https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/ ).

OMB Control Number: 0625-0280.

Form Number(s): None.

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

Affected Public: Primarily businesses or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,575.

Estimated Time per Response: 40 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,977.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $7,783,710.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: The DOC's statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States (15 U.S.C. 1512).

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

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

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs 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; 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 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 (see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3, 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.

These actions are 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 IHAs qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

On April 20, 2025, NMFS received a request from the USCG, on behalf of the Navy, for authorization for the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction activities supporting the project Homeporting USCG OPC at NAVSTA in Newport, RI, over the course of approximately 1.5 years. Following NMFS' review of the application drafts and associated discussions, the USCG iteratively submitted revised versions of the application on June 20, July 15, and December 19 of 2025. The application was deemed adequate and complete on December 20, 2025. USCG's request is for authorization of take of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for six of these species, Level A harassment. Neither USCG nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and; therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS previously issued ITAs for similar activities at NAVSTA Newport, including incidental take regulations (ITRs; 2021 final rule (86 FR 71162, December 15, 2021)) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA; 87 FR 6145, February 3, 2022) and subsequent modified LOA (88 FR 5856, January 30, 2023), associated with bulkhead repairs and replacement. NMFS issued an IHA (87 FR 78072, December 21, 2022) and renewal IHA (90 FR 11400, March 6, 2025) to the Navy on behalf of NOAA's Office of Marine and Aviation Operations for a construction project associated with the relocation of NOAA's research vessels to NAVSTA Newport. More recently, NMFS issued an IHA to the Navy for the Pier 171 Repair and Replacement project (90 FR 57953, December 15, 2025). The Navy and associated parties have complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous ITAs, and information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section.

The USCG proposes to construct a modern pier and associated shore-side facilities at NAVSTA Newport in Coddington Cove, Newport, RI, to provide a fully mission-capable homeport to four 360-foot (ft) (109.7 meters (m)) long OPCs the USCG will acquire to replace the aging fleet of medium endurance cutters (figure 1). The proposed construction activities are necessary because the existing Navy Pier 1, which is the only feasible location for OPC berths at NAVSTA Newport, has been condemned due to structural deficiencies. USCG would demolish the existing Navy Pier 1 and construct its replacement immediately adjacent to the south, replace the existing riprap revetment with a new bulkhead at location S45 South, and construct a landside maintenance and weapons detachment building with a laydown area and parking. In-water demolition activities would include removal of concrete and steel pipe piles by cutting them off below the mudline, a process that is not expected to result in incidental take of marine mammals. The in-water activities that have the potential to take marine mammals, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and extraction, and down-the-hole (DTH) excavation. In total, the USCG anticipates conducting 355 non-consecutive days of in-water construction over approximately 1.5 years (Year 1: 190 days; Year 2: 165 days). The first year of in-water construction activities would begin June 1, 2027, and continue through May 31, 2028, and the second year of construction activities would begin June 1, 2028, and continue through October 31, 2029.

The USCG has requested issuance of two consecutive IHAs, one for each year of construction activities. Given the similarities in activities between project years, NMFS is issuing a single Federal Register notice to solicit public comments on the issuance of the two similar, but separate, IHAs.

The USCG anticipates that the homeporting project would occur over a 1.5-year period, beginning June 1, 2027, and ending October 31, 2028. The Year 1 IHA would be effective from June 1, 2027, through May 31, 2028, and the Year 2 IHA would be effective from June 1, 2028, through May 31, 2029. The specified activities could occur any time during each project year, although the USCG proposes to conduct the majority of in-water activities between May and December, annually ( i.e., avoiding winter months). A total of 190 days and 165 days of in-water work are planned for Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. USCG anticipates that all work would be limited to daylight hours. No in-water activities with the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals would occur concurrently.

Coddington Cove is a protected embayment on the western side of Aquidneck Island in Narragansett Bay (figure 1). The cove covers an area of approximately 395 acres (1.6 square kilometers (km 2 )), receiving partial protection by the Coddington Point mass to the south and a breakwater to the north; however, the northwestern section of the cove is exposed to the open-water conditions of Narragansett Bay. The tides in Coddington Cove are semi-diurnal, with two high tides and two low tides per day.

Proposed specified activities would occur in shallow, nearshore waters (less than 34 ft; 10 m). Based on a bathymetric survey the Navy conducted between December 2023 and January 2024, water depths near the Pier 1 location generally range between −30 and −40 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) and are, on average, approximately −5 ft MLLW at the proposed S45 South bulkhead location (Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2024). Water temperature in the Coddington Cove ranges from 36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F; 2 degrees Celsius (°C)) in winter to 68 °F (20 °C) in summer, and salinity in the nearshore areas of Narragansett Bay at NAVSTA Newport ranges between 29.2 and 33.7 parts per thousand (Navy, 2017a). A benthic survey conducted in 2024 indicated substrates primarily consist of mud or gravelly mud, including varying amounts of cobble and shell debris (Stantec Consulting Services Inc., 2024).

In addition to underwater noise-producing activities at NAVSTA Newport, vessel noise from commercial shipping and recreational traffic in Narragansett Bay contributes to the ambient underwater soundscape in the proposed project area. Underwater noise data collected at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division indicated that ambient noise in the project area ranged from approximately 120 to 123 dB referenced to a pressure of 1 micropascal (dB re 1 μPa) root mean square (RMS).

The proposed activity would establish adequate pier and support facilities to homeport four new OPCs at NAVSTA Newport, RI. In Year 1, the USCG would demolish the existing 158,500 ft 2 (14,725 m 2 ) Navy Pier 1 and construct a new 80,000 ft 2 (7,432 m 2 ) USCG OPC Pier 1 immediately adjacent to the south of the existing Navy Pier 1 footprint ( e.g., figure 1-3 in USCG's application), and install a new 315-ft (96-m) S45 South bulkhead to replace the existing riprap revetment. In Year 2, the USCG would install a fender system for the new USCG OPC Pier 1 constructed in Year 1. Detailed descriptions follow table 1, which summarizes in-water activities by year.

Demolition of the Navy Pier 1 would include removal of existing piles and concrete-filled steel support piles, steel fender piles, timber fender piles, transverse concrete beams, concrete pile caps, concrete pier deck, three buildings on the pier deck, cleats, bollards, and other amenities located on the pier deck. In-water demolition activities would include removal of concrete and steel pipe piles by cutting them off below the mudline, a process that is not expected to result in incidental take of marine mammals and is not discussed further herein.

Once completed the new USCG OPC Pier 1 would tie into the S45 North bulkhead, which was upgraded by NAVSTA Newport in 2024 as part of the Bulkheads Repair and Replacement project under a separate ITA (88 FR 5856, January 30, 2023).

Prior to pier construction, the existing riprap revetment located at S45 South, approximately 250 ft south of the existing Navy Pier 1, would first be replaced with a new 315-linear-ft bulkhead consisting of an interlocking 23-in steel sheet pile wall, installed using vibratory pile driving only ( i.e., no impact pile driving or DTH excavation). To guide the process, a template secured by a set of four 16-inch steel pipe piles would be installed and subsequently extracted a total of nine times (36 vibratory actions total) throughout installation of the 168 PZ35 steel sheet piles (22.6-inch wide) comprising the sheet pile wall. The new sheet pile wall would be anchored laterally with tie rods connected to a short steel pile wall approximately 50 ft landward (referred to as a “deadman system”).

The proposed new USCG OPC Pier 1 would have two OPC berths on each side, with a cast-in-place concrete deck, 16-inch diameter fiberglass composite fender piles (to be installed in Year 2), fendering camels, mooring fittings, brow stands, mooring devices, and deck fittings. The 36-in USCG OPC Pier 1 support piles would be installed to a 35-foot penetration depth by vibratory pile driving, followed by impact pile driving for the final 45 ft of the full 80-ft target penetration depth. USCG OPC Pier 1 support piles would be installed using a template system similar to that described for bulkhead construction, where vibratory pile installation and extraction of a set of four 16-inch steel pipe piles securing a template would precede and follow, respectively, support pile installations on 43 occasions (for a total of 172 piling events). Where obstructions such as solid bedrock, boulders, or debris are encountered, impact pile driving may be followed by DTH excavation. Based on previous knowledge of site-wide substrate conditions, USCG estimates DTH excavation would be necessary for approximately 20 percent of the 36-inch support pile installations. Further, it is assumed that auger (rotary) drilling would be required for all support pile installations (n=258), to lift sediment and clear boulders/obstructions to make way for the new pier piles. However, auger drilling is not likely to result in incidental take of marine mammals, and we do not discuss it further.

In Year 2, the USCG would construct a fender system to absorb impact energy from docking ships, protecting both the OPC vessel's hull and the new USCG OPC Pier 1 structure from damage. Using only vibratory pile driving, the USCG would install a set of four 16-inch steel pipe piles to hold a template to then guide their vibratory installation of a portion of the fender system fiberglass composite piles, extract all four 16-inch steel pipe piles once the target fiberglass composite fender system piles were installed, and then move to the next location. That process would be repeated 70 times, requiring 280 vibratory piling actions total (4 piles × 70) to facilitate installation of the 570 16-inch fiberglass composite piles required to construct the entire fender system.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the ITA 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. Information regarding population trends and threats for the following species 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 mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for the USCG's project, PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (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. Atlantic and Gulf of America Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. 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 seven species (with seven managed stocks) in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the extent that take is reasonably likely to occur. While several large whale species have been documented seasonally in New England waters, the 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. The humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), fin ( Balaenoptera physalus ), sei ( Balaenoptera borealis ), sperm ( Physeter macrocephalus ) and North Atlantic right whales ( Eubaleana glacialis ) occur seasonally in the Atlantic Ocean, offshore of RI. However, due to the relatively shallow depths of Narragansett Bay and nearshore location of the project area, these marine mammals are unlikely to occur in the project area. Therefore, the USCG did not request, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, takes of these species.

Marine mammal observation data is available from previous projects in and around NAVSTA Newport. A recent project within Coddington Cove to construct a pier for NOAA ships included pile driving and removal from June 2024 to January 2025. The monitoring report included 3 sightings of unidentified dolphins, including a pod of 5 animals on August 28, 2024, 10 animals on November 4, 2024 off Taylor Point (about 3 miles (4.8km) west-southwest of the pier), and 1 animal on November 25, 2024 (Werre, 2025). The report also included a detection of 12 common dolphins off Taylor Point on November 1, 2024 (Werre, 2025). Monitoring did not result in any confirmed harbor porpoise, gray seal, harp seal, or hooded seal sightings (Werre, 2025). However, from November 2024 through January 2025, harbor seals were the most regularly occurring marine mammal species, accounting for 26 of the 31 total seal detections, and 80 of the 109 overall individual marine mammal detections (Werre, 2025).

Harbor seals are also common in Narragansett Bay, with over 22 documented haulout sites. Results from the bay-wide count for 2019 recorded 572 harbor seals, which also included counts from Block Island (DeAngelis, 2020). During a 1-day Narragansett Bay-wide count in 2025, there were at least 551 seals observed, with all 22 haulout sites represented (The Jamestown Press, 2025). This is an increase from a count of 357 seals in 2021 and above the average of 427 seals calculated across years prior (Save the Bay, 2022).

In RI waters, harbor seals prefer to haul out on isolated intertidal rock ledges and outcrops. The Sisters seal haulout site is the closest to the project area, approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) south of the Navy Pier 1 location, on the open water edge of Coddington Cove. NAVSTA employees have reported seals hauled out at The Sisters, particularly at low tide and, in observations off the haulout site gathered between 2011 and 2020, the NUWC Division Newport noted a steady increase in wintertime harbor seal occurrence (NUWC Division, 2011). During this period, harbor seals were rarely observed at The Sisters haulout site in the early fall ( i.e., September and October), but began to occur consistently in mid-November (0-10 animals) in a population that steadily increased in number to a peak population size of 40-50 animals in March. The number of harbor seals began to decline in April and the haulout site was typically abandoned for the season by mid-May (DeAngelis, 2020).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To assess noise impacts, it is necessary to characterize marine mammal hearing ranges. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities or hear over the same frequency range ( 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. ). Subsequently, NMFS (2018, 2024) described generalized hearing ranges for marine mammal hearing groups (table 3). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65- decibel (dB) threshold from the composite audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al (2019). Of the species potentially present in the action area, Atlantic white-sided and common dolphins are considered high-frequency (HF) cetaceans, and harbor porpoise are considered very high-frequency (VHF) cetaceans. Harbor, gray, hooded and harp seals are phocid pinnipeds (PW).

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

This section includes a summary and 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 likely to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activities are expected to potentially occur from impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and extraction, and DTH excavation. The effects of underwater noise from the USCG's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area and, for some species as a result of certain activities, Level A harassment.

Overall, the proposed activities include installation and extraction of temporary and permanent piles at NAVSTA Newport. There are a variety of types and degrees of effects on marine mammals and their habitat (including prey) that could occur as a result of the specified activities. Below, we provide a brief description of the types of sound generated by specified activities, the general impacts on marine mammals and their habitat from these types of activities, and a related project-specific analysis, with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.

Activities associated with the project that have the potential to incidentally take marine mammals though exposure to sound would include impact pile installation, vibratory pile installation and extraction, and DTH excavation. Impact hammers typically operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is impulsive, characterized by rapid rise times and high peak sound pressure levels (SPLs), 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 substrate. Vibratory hammers typically produce less sound ( i.e., lower SPLs) than impact hammers. Peak 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; California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), 2015, 2020). Sounds produced by vibratory hammers are non-impulsive and, compared to sounds produced by impact hammers, have a slower rise time that reduces the probability and severity of injury, given the sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

DTH excavation uses a combination of drilling and impact hammering mechanisms to advance development of a hole in rock, with or without simultaneously advancing a pile/casing into that hole. DTH excavation is accomplished by the efficient progression of a drill bit, rotated under pressure while simultaneously hammered by a specialized percussive hammer located within the drill string ( i.e., “behind” the bit), the combined forces moving the bit forward to fracture rock. Traditional impact and vibratory pile driving involve a hammer striking the top of the pile, causing the entire length of the submerged pile to radiate sound as a linear source. However, the DTH hammering mechanism is integrated into the drill itself, so the primary sound generation point is at the interface of the drill bit and the substrate ( i.e., rock) deep within the ground/seabed, radiating sound pressure more like a point rather than linear source. DTH systems often involve a single hammer (mono-hammer), but multi- or “cluster” hammer drills are also used widely. For construction of the USCG OPC Pier, the USCG anticipate that installation of approximately 20 percent of the 36-inch steel pipe piles may require DTH excavation using a mono-hammer.

The sounds produced by the DTH excavation methods simultaneously contain both a continuous non-impulsive component from the drilling action and an impulsive component from the hammering effect. Therefore, for purposes of evaluating Level A harassment and Level B harassment under the MMPA, NMFS treats DTH systems simultaneously as both impulsive (Level A harassment thresholds) and continuous, non- impulsive (Level B harassment thresholds) sound source types.

The likely or possible impacts of USCG's proposed activities on marine mammals could be generated from both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors include the physical presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel; however, the closest known haulout site is located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) from the Navy Pier 1 location, thus we expect that visual and other non-acoustic stressors would be limited. Should any animals approach the project site(s) closely enough to be harassed due to the presence of equipment or personnel, we expect they would have already traveled through the Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment zones for the specified in-water activities and, thus, would already be considered taken by acoustic impacts. Therefore, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to be primarily acoustic in nature.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment by impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and extraction, and DTH excavation is the means by which marine mammals may be harassed by USCG's specified activities. 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). Generally, exposure to pile driving and extraction and other construction noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (TSs) and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such as 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 and demolition 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. mother 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., 2003; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (TSs) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

NMFS defines 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, 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 (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue, such as the loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser 2021; Finneran 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a PTS. PTS is subsequently defined 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 some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS or other AUD INJ are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB TS approximates AUD INJ onset (Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). AUD INJ levels for marine mammals are estimates, as with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ) (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring AUD INJ in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing AUD INJ are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2024).

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, 2024), and is not considered an AUD INJ. Based on data from marine mammal TTS measurements (Southall et al., 2007, 2019), 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 (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002; Schlundt et al., 2000). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with the 24-hour cumulative sound exposure level (SEL 24 ) in an accelerating fashion: at low exposures with lower SEL 24 , the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SEL 24 , the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the sound exposure level (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 more impactful (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more severe 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) (Finneran 2015). 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 ( Delphinapterus leucas ), 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 ( Mirounga angustirostris ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ) and California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) (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 below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group are less hazardous than those 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, SEL 24 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, 2024). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

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

Behavioral Effects —Exposure to noise ( e.g., pile driving, DTH) also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals to a level that rises to the definition of harassment under the MMPA. 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); and avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. In addition, 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), respectively, 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 shown 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 ( e.g., Erbe et al., 2019). 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. 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.

Avoidance and displacement— 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, Blair et al., 2016). 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. Acoustic and movement bio-logging tools also have been used in some cases to infer responses to anthropogenic noise. For example, Blair et al. (2015) 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. 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 relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal.

Respiration rates vary naturally 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 rates increased in response to pile driving sounds at and above a received broadband SPL of 136 dB (zero-peak SPL: 151 dB re 1 μPa; SEL of a single strike (SEL ss ): 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 ( Eschrictius robustus ) are known to change direction—deflecting from customary migratory paths—in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 1984). Harbor porpoises, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and minke whales have demonstrated avoidance in response to vessels during line transect surveys (Palka and Hammond, 2001). In addition, beluga whales in the St. Lawrence Estuary in Canada have been reported to increase levels of avoidance with increased boat presence by way of increased dive durations and swim speeds, decreased surfacing intervals, and by bunching together into groups (Blane and Jaakson, 1994). 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.

Physiological 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., Selye, 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; Ayres et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2022). 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. In addition, Lemos et al. (2022) observed a correlation between higher levels of fecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations (indicative of a stress response) and vessel traffic in gray whales. Yang et al. (2022) studied behavioral and physiological responses in captive bottlenose dolphins exposed to playbacks of “pile-driving-like” impulsive sounds, finding significant changes in cortisol and other physiological indicators but only minor behavioral changes. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will 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, 2005), however distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar construction projects.

Vocalizations and 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 ( Orcinus orca ) 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 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 ( Balaenoptera physalus ) 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, in some cases, animals may cease sound production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994, Wisniewska et al., 2018).

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, including modifications of the acoustic properties of the signal or the signaling behavior (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).

Masking occurs in the frequency band that the animals utilize, and is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Pile driving sound energy is distributed over a broad frequency spectrum, within the hearing range of marine mammals that may occur in the proposed action area. Since noises generated from the proposed construction activities are mostly concentrated at low frequencies (<2 kHz), these activities likely have less effect on mid-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. Low-frequency noise may also affect communication signals when they occur near the frequency band for noise and thus reduce the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels ( e.g., Holt et al., 2009). Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, in addition to individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals, and at higher levels for longer durations, could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. However, the noise generated by the USCG's proposed activities will only occur intermittently, across an estimated 355 days during the authorization period in a relatively small area focused around the proposed construction site. Thus, while the USCG's proposed 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. Phocid pinnipeds ( i.e., seals) 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 seals that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above airborne acoustic harassment criteria. Although seals are known to haul out regularly on man-made objects ( e.g., pier), we believe that incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are unlikely given the proximity of the proposed project area to local haulout sites (Figure 4-1 of application), which we assume would be preferred habitat. We do not anticipate that cetaceans would be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment, as defined under the MMPA.

We recognize that seals in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out seals to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to flush from haulouts, temporarily abandon the area, and or move further from the source. However, these animals would previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for seals is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

The USCG's proposed activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat and adversely affect marine mammal prey near the project areas (see discussion below). Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project areas where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during the proposed construction activities; however, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects to the individuals or populations.

The total area likely impacted by the USCG's activities is relatively small compared to the available habitat in Narragansett Bay. Avoidance by potential prey ( i.e., fish) of the immediate area due to increased noise is possible. The duration of fish and marine mammal avoidance of this area after tugging 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.

The proposed project will occur within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure. The nearshore and intertidal habitat where the proposed project will occur is an area of relatively high marine vessel traffic. Most marine mammals do not generally use the area within the footprint of the project area. Temporary, intermittent, and short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels during the proposed construction activities. Effects on marine mammals will be limited to temporary displacement from pile installation and extraction noise, and effects on prey species will be similarly limited in time and space.

Water quality —Temporary and localized reduction in water quality will occur as a result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect would occur during the installation and extraction of piles when bottom sediments are disturbed. The installation and extraction of piles would disturb bottom sediments and may cause a temporary increase in suspended sediment in the project area. During pile extraction, 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. 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 Narragansett Bay.

Potential Effects on Prey. Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fishes, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented. Studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey are described here.

Fishes 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 that 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 fishes ( 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., Peña et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012). More commonly, though, the impacts of noise on fishes are temporary.