Title: Nutrition Labeling of Major Cuts of Single-Ingredient Raw Meat or Poultry Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products.

OMB Number: 0583-0148.

Type of Request: Renewal of an approved information collection.

Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq. ). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.

FSIS is announcing its intention to request renewal of the approved information collection regarding nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient raw meat or poultry products and ground or chopped meat and poultry products. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on July 31, 2026.

FSIS requires nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies. Major cuts are defined in the regulations and include such products as Beef Chuck Blade Roast, Beef Brisket, Chicken Breast, Turkey Thigh (see 9 CFR 317.344 and 381.444). For these products, the nutrition labeling may be on the package or at point of purchase. FSIS also requires nutrition labels on all ground or chopped meat and poultry products, with or without added seasonings, unless an exemption applies. Further, the nutrition labeling requirements for all ground or chopped meat and poultry products are consistent with the nutrition labeling requirements for multi-ingredient and heat processed products (see 9 CFR 381.400(a), 317.300(a), 317.301(a), and 381.401(a)).

FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:

Respondents: Official establishments, grocery stores and warehouses.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 76,439.

Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.77.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 67,861 hours. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 202-720-5046.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.

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

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

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the State or local Agency that administers the program or contact USDA through the Telecommunications Relay Service at 711 (voice and TTY). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

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

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.

Agenda: (Note: Final meeting agenda will be available prior to the meeting date.)

On June 11, 2025, Commerce initiated an LTFV investigation of imports of plywood from China. 1 The period of investigation is October 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. On March 2, 2026, Commerce published its Preliminary Determination in this LTFV investigation of plywood from China. 2 The current deadline for the final determination is May 11, 2026. 3

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) provide that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the exporters or producers who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Further, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that such postponement requests by exporters be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act.

On March 2 and March 3, 2026, Xuzhou Shelter Import and Export Co., Ltd (Xuzhou Shelter) and Linyi Evergreen Wood Co., Ltd. (Linyi Evergreen), the mandatory respondents in this investigation, along with (1) Linyi Lanshan District Caihai Board Factory; (2) Feixian Haokai Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; (3) Linyi Jiahe Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; (4) Linyi Jinkun Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; (5) Linyi Linhai Wood Co., Ltd.; (6) Shandong Yimeijia New Material Co. Ltd.; (7) Linyi Hanbo Import & Export Co., Ltd.; and (8) Linyi Vata Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., requested that Commerce postpone the deadline for the final determination until no later than 135 days from the publication of the Preliminary Determination, and extend the application of the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. 4 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) the preliminary determination was affirmative; (2) the request was made by the exporters and producers who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination, and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than July 15, 2026.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(g).

On November 6, 2014, Commerce published the Order in the Federal Register . 1 On September 2, 2025, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this second sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2

On September 16, 2025, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review from a domestic interested party  3 within the deadline specified in the 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 The domestic interested party claimed interested party status within the meaning of section 771(9)(F) of the Act as an association, a majority of whose members are composed of manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers in the United States of a domestic like product. 5 On September 29, 2025, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it had received a notice of intent to participate from the domestic interested party. 6

On October 2, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), the domestic interested party filed a timely and adequate substantive response. 7 On October 12, 2025, Commerce received a substantive response from Grupo Simec, 8 a respondent interested party. 9 Commerce determined that Grupo Simec's substantive response “did not, as required by 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), contain an adequate response demonstrating that its volume and value of exports of subject merchandise to the United States accounted, on average, for more than 50 percent, on a volume basis, of the total exports of subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the notice of initiation of this review.”  10 Therefore, on December 8, 2025, Commerce notified the ITC that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from any respondent interested parties. 11 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 12 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. 13 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now March 9, 2026.

The product covered by this Order is rebar from Mexico. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decisions Memorandum. 14

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the Order and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 15 A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached in the appendix to 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 directly accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 66.70 percent.

This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

On September 14, 2021, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD) order on methionine from Spain. 1 On September 3, 2024, Commerce notified interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order covering the POR. 2

On October 17, 2024, based on timely requests for review, 3 Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order with respect to Adisseo España. 4 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled the deadline to issue the preliminary results in this administrative review by 90 days. 5 On August 15, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results of this review until December 29, 2025, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 6

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 7 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. 8 On March 5, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results of this review by two days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 9 Accordingly, the deadline for these preliminary results is now March 5, 2026. For a complete description of the events that occurred subsequent to initiation of the review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 10

The merchandise covered by the Order is methionine from Spain. For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. We calculated constructed export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act and 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. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document that 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.

Commerce preliminarily finds that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results of this administrative review 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).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 21 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register . 12 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed in ACCESS not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 14 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. 15

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. 16 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 17

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Hearing requests should contain: (1) the requesting party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those issues raised in the respective case briefs. If a hearing is requested, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. 18 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 19

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

Upon completion of the final results, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. 20 If Adisseo España's weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than or equal to 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for all reviewed sales to the importer by the total entered value of the merchandise sold to the importer. 21 Where either Adisseo España's ad valorem weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or 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. 22

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Adisseo España for which it did not know was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate determined in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation ( i.e., 37.53 percent)  23 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 24

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 25 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, Commerce 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 in effect for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register , as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Adisseo España will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established for Adisseo España 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), then the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for exporters not covered in this review but that were previously reviewed or investigated in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate assigned to the company in the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer or exporter was examined; (3) if the exporter of the subject merchandise does not have a company-specific rate but the producer of the subject merchandise does, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate assigned to the producer of the subject merchandise in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer was examined; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 37.53 percent that was established in the original investigation in this proceeding. 26 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) 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 of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On August 5, 2024, Commerce found T-type tires produced by Cheng Shin and imported from Taiwan by its U.S. affiliate UCS to be excluded from the scope of the order. 1 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC appealed Commerce's Final Scope Ruling. On June 9, 2025, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce, holding that Commerce's Final Scope Ruling was not in accordance with law and not supported by substantial evidence. 2 In its opinion, the Court stated that Commerce failed to explain how evidence supported its determination that Cheng Shin's tires do not fit passenger cars or light trucks. 3

In its final remand redetermination, issued in June 2025, Commerce determined that Cheng Shin's T-type tires are covered by the plain language of the scope of the Order and the tires did not qualify for a temporary tire exclusion because the size designation and load index combination were not listed in the 2019 Tire and Rim Association Year Book. 4 The CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 5

In its decision in Timken, 6 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 7 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's February 20, 2026, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Scope Ruling. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

In accordance with the CIT's February 20, 2026, final judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Scope Ruling and finds that the scope of the Order covers the products addressed in the Final Scope Ruling.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of Cheng Shin's T-type tires and to require cash deposits at the appropriate rate. 8 In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or is upheld on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of T-type tires produced by Cheng Shin and imported by UCS appropriately.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On July 11, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this administrative review and invited comments from interested parties. 1 This review covers six producers/exporters of corrosion inhibitors during the POR, including mandatory respondents, Anhui Trust Chem Co., Ltd. (ATC) and Nantong Botao Chemical Co., Ltd. (Botao). 2

Due to a 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 On January 14, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results by an additional 53 days. 5 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now March 9, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, 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 products covered by the Order are corrosion inhibitors from China. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised by interested parties in case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The topics discussed and the issue raised by parties to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are listed in the appendix to this notice.

Based on minor corrections received at verification, we made certain changes to the calculations for ATC, Botao, and the non-selected companies. However, no changes were made to the methodology used in the Preliminary Results . For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we determine 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 full description of the methodology underlying 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.

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

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to 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 covered by this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable ad valorem rates. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after 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)(1) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies listed above for 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 all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

The final results are 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 14, 2009, Commerce published the Order on kitchen racks from China. 1 On August 1, 2025, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the third sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 2

On September 16, 2025, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from the Nashville Wire Products and SSW Advanced Technologies (collectively, the domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 The domestic interested parties claim interested party status within the meaning of section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(29)(vii) as manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers a domestic like product in the United States. 4

On October 2, 2025, Commerce received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties, within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 5 Commerce did not receive a substantive response from either the Government of China or a respondent interested party to this proceeding. On December 8, 2025, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties. 6 As a result, Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(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. 7 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. 8 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now March 9, 2026.

The product covered by this Order is certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from China. For the full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decisions Memorandum. 9

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 10 A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS, which is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov . In addition, complete versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx .

Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following net countervailable subsidy rates:

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

On April 19, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD order on R-134a from China. 1 On May 20, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of the Order with respect to 27 exporters. 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 these preliminary results is now March 9, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 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. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached in Appendix I of this notice.

The merchandise covered by the Order is 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, R-134a, or its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type, or purity level. A full description of the scope of the Order is provided in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. 7 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the antidumping duty assessment rate for the review period. 8 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct CBP to liquidate at the calculated antidumping duty assessment rate for the review period. 9

On July 8, 2025, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review, in part, with respect to the three companies identified in Appendix II because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the POR and invited interested parties to comment. 10 No interested party submitted comments. Accordingly, in the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from these three 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).

On August 14, 2025, Sanmei  11 submitted a letter notifying Commerce of its intention to not participate in the administrative review as a mandatory respondent. 12 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily finds that Sanmei did not establish its eligibility for a separate rate because it failed to provide a complete response to Commerce's initial questionnaire. Moreover, none of the other 23 companies remaining under review submitted any evidence of eligibility for separate-rate status. As such, we preliminarily find that the Sanmei single entity and the other 23 companies are part of the China-wide entity.

Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 13 Commerce no longer considers the China-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative review. 14 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Moreover, as stated above, we preliminarily determine that the Sanmei single entity and 23 other companies under review are not eligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity because they did not provide the requisite documentation to establish separate-rate eligibility.

Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, the entity is not under review, and the entity's rate, i.e., 167.02 percent, is not subject to change. 15 All companies determined to be part of the China-wide entity are listed in Appendix III to this notice. 16

Commerce finds all companies for which a review was requested, and which are not being rescinded from the review, to be part of the China-wide entity and subject to the China-wide entity rate of 167.02 percent.

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in 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 the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce has not performed any calculations for any respondents in this review, there are no calculations to disclose.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 17 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. 18 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. 19 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. 20 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 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. 21 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 22

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, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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 in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform interested parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 23

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.

For the companies listed in Appendix II for which we are rescinding the review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice 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 that has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

For the companies listed in Appendix III, upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. 24 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the companies under review that we determine in the final results to be part of the China-wide entity at the China-wide entity rate of 167.02 percent. 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 shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously examined exporters for which a review was not requested that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 167.02 percent); and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. 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) 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 is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On September 14, 2009, Commerce published the Order in the Federal Register . 1 On September 2, 2025, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the third sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218(C). 2 On September 16, 2025, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review for domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in the 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 The domestic interested parties claimed the interested party status within the meaning of section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers of the domestic like product in the United States. 4 On September 29, 2025, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it had received a notice of intent to participate from the domestic interested party. 5

On October 10, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response. 6 Commerce did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. On December 8, 2025, Commerce notified the ITC that it did not receive substantive response from any respondent interested parties. 7 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order .

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 8 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. 9 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now March 9, 2026.

The product covered by these Order is kitchen racks from China. For the full description of the scope of the Orders, see the Issues and Decisions Memorandum. 10

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the Order and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 11 A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached in the appendix to 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 directly accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx .

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 95.99 percent.

This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective, orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

The requested LOCs have been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The General Authorization allows for bona fide scientific research that may result only in taking by Level B harassment of marine mammals. The below LOCs were issued in the calendar year 2025 (January 1, 2025-December 31, 2025).

File No. 23069-02: Issued to Florida Atlantic University's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, 5353 Parkside Drive Building MC17, Room 109, Jupiter, FL 33458 (Responsible Party [RP]: Gregg Fields, Ph.D.; Principal Investigator [PI]: Steven Burton) on March 16, 2021. The LOC authorizes vessel-based photo-identification and observational surveys of nine species of cetaceans in Florida for research on cetacean biology, ecology, behavior, social structure, health, and anthropogenic activities: Atlantic spotted dolphin ( Stenella frontalis ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae; Gulf of Maine Stock/West Indies Distinct Population Segment [DPS]), long-finned ( Globicephala melas ) and short-finned ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ) pilot whale, pantropical spotted dolphin ( Stenella attenuatta ), pygmy sperm whale ( Kogia breviceps ), Risso's dolphin ( Grampus griseus ), and Rough-toothed dolphin ( Steno bredanensis ). This amended LOC action adds an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for research and extends the duration for 12 months until March 31, 2027.

File No. 23673: This LOC, held by the Wild Dolphin Project (PI: Denise Herzing, Ph.D.), was extended on May 13, 2025, while the holder's new application (File No. 29005) was in process. The LOC authorizes vessel-based research of 13 species of cetaceans including: Atlantic spotted, bottlenose, Fraser's ( Lagenorhyncus hosei ), pantropical spotted, Risso's, spinner ( Stenella longirostris ), striped ( Stenella coeruleoalba ), and unidentified lagenorhynchine ( Lagenorhyncus spp. ) dolphins; and false killer ( Pseudorca crassidens ), unidentified beaked ( Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon spp. ), long-finned and short-finned pilot, and unidentified Kogia (dwarf or pygmy sperm; Kogia spp. ) whales. Research is authorized within Florida waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America from Martin County through the Florida Keys including in the Intracoastal Waterway, coastal waters, and offshore waters. The objectives of the research have not changed. The extended LOC expires on May 31, 2026.

File No. 24033-01: Issued to Eric Montie, Ph.D., University of South Carolina Beaufort, One University Boulevard, Bluffton, South Carolina, 29909 on January 30, 2025. This amended LOC action authorizes a minor expansion in the location where research activities may occur to include waters around Pritchards Island, South Carolina. The LOC currently authorizes vessel-based research for photo-identification, passive acoustics, photography/videography, and behavioral observations of bottlenose dolphins in the coastal waters of Bluffton and Hilton Head, South Carolina. The LOC expires on March 31, 2026.

File No. 25638-02: Issued to Clearwater Marine Aquarium (Responsible Party: Kelly McAdams, Ph.D.), 249 Windward Passage, Clearwater, FL 33767, on November 24, 2025. This amended LOC, for research on coastal bottlenose dolphins, updated the list of authorized personnel, including a change in Responsible Party (previously James Powell, Ph.D.). The LOC expires on July 15, 2026.

File No. 25751-01: Issued to Shoals Marine Laboratory (Responsible Party: Sara Morris, Ph.D.), 24 Colovos Road, Durham, NH 03824, on April 17, 2025. This amended LOC, for research on coastal pinnipeds, added unmanned aircraft systems and updated personnel, including the Responsible Party. The LOC expires on August 31, 2026.

File No. 28083: Issued to Patricia Fair, Ph.D., South Carolina Aquarium, 100 Aquarium Wharf, Charleston, SC 29401 on January 29, 2025. This LOC authorizes vessel and UAS surveys, including close approach, counts, photography, photo-identification, photogrammetry, video recording, behavioral observations, and passive acoustic recordings of bottlenose dolphins. Research may occur in estuarine and coastal waters near Charleston, South Carolina, including Charleston Harbor and the Ashley, Cooper, and Wando Rivers. The LOC expires on January 31, 2030.

File No. 28412: Issued to Jeremy Kiszka, Ph.D., Florida International University, 3000 NE 151st Street, Marine Science Building, Room 359, North Miami, FL 33181 on April 17, 2025. This LOC authorizes close approach via vessel surveys for counts, photography/videography, photo-identification, behavioral observations, and focal follows of bottlenose dolphins in southeast Florida waters. The LOC expires on April 30, 2030.

File No. 28613: Issued to Cindy Elliser, Ph.D., Pacific Mammal Research, 1513 A Ave., Anacortes, WA 98221 on February 18, 2025. This LOC authorizes close approach via vessel, ground, and aerial surveys via UAS, counts, photography/videography, photo-identification, and behavioral observations of harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ) and harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ). Research will occur in the Salish Sea and in the inland waters of Washington state. The LOC expires on February 12, 2030.

File No. 28653: Issued to Emily Wirtz, Wildlife Program Manager, Lumi Nation, 2665 Kwina Rd., Bellingham, WA 98226 on March 4, 2025. This LOC authorizes close approach via vessel, ground, and aerial surveys via UAS, counts, photography/videography, photo-identification, behavioral observations, and scat collection of harbor seals, California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), and Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus, Eastern DPS). The LOC expires on December 31, 2026.

File No. 28669: Issued to Dylan Berger, Point No Point Treaty Council, 19472 Powder Hill Pl. NE, Suite 210, Poulsbo, WA 98370 on April 16, 2025. This LOC authorizes Level B harassment of harbor seals during vessel and ground surveys for photography and scat collection in the Dungeness Bay and River area of Washington State. The LOC expires on May 31, 2027.

File No. 28781: Issued to the Low Country Marine Mammal Network (Responsible Party: Lauren Rust) 1367 Clearbrook Street, North Charleston, SC 29405 on May 15, 2025. This LOC authorizes Level B harassment of bottlenose dolphins during vessel and UAS surveys including close approach, counts, photo-identification, behavioral observations, and focal follows in the Charleston Estuarine System, including all major rivers and creeks, in South Carolina. The LOC expires on May 31, 2030.

File No. 28797: Issued to Ruth H. Carmichael, Ph.D., Dauphin Island Sea Lab, 101 Bienville Boulevard, Dauphin Island, AL 36528 on April 4, 2025. This LOC authorizes Level B harassment of bottlenose dolphins during vessel and UAS surveys including close approach, counts, photography, photo-identification, photogrammetry, videography, behavioral observations, and focal follows within coastal, bay, sound, and estuarine waters of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The LOC expires on April 15, 2035.

File No. 28811: Issued to Kimberly Jones, Ph.D., 1208 US Highway 1, Ste. G, North Palm Beach, FL 33408, on September 16, 2025. This LOC authorizes the taking by harassment of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins, and humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae; Gulf of Maine stock/West Indies DPS) within offshore, coastal and estuarine waters off Brunswick County, North Carolina. Research methods include close approach with vessel and UAS surveys for photo-identification, behavioral observations, monitoring, counts, and photography/videography. The LOC expires on August 1, 2035.

File No. 28811-01: Issued to Kimberly Jones, Ph.D., Brunswick Community College, 50 College Drive NE, Supply, North Carolina 28462 on November 24, 2025. This amended LOC authorizes a minor expansion in the location where research activities may occur to include waters of New Hanover County, North Carolina. The LOC currently authorizes vessel and UAS-based surveys for photo-identification, photography/videography, counts, monitoring, and behavioral observations of cetaceans in the offshore, coastal and estuarine waters off Brunswick County, North Carolina. The LOC expires on August 1, 2035.

File No. 28851: Issued to Jonathan Scordino, Makah Tribe, Makah Fisheries Management, P.O. Box 115, 150 Resort Drive, Neah Bay, WA 98357 on June 17, 2025. This LOC authorizes Level B harassment during vessel and ground surveys of 27 cetacean and pinniped species for counts; photography/videography; photo-identification; behavioral observations; collection of blow, feces, scat, sloughed skin, and spew; and unintentional harassment in U.S. waters of Alaska and the U.S. West Coast. The LOC will take effect on October 1, 2025, and be valid through September 30, 2035.

File No. 28905: Issued to Michelle Caputo, Ph.D., University of New England, 11 Hills Beach Rd, Biddeford, ME 04005, on May 22, 2025. This LOC authorizes take of two pinniped and six cetacean species during vessel surveys, aerial surveys via UAS, photo-identification, behavioral observations, and passive acoustic monitoring in the southern Gulf of Maine: Atlantic white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus acutus ), gray seal ( Halichoerus grypus ), harbor porpoise, harbor seal, long-finned pilot whale, short-beaked common dolphin ( Delphinus delphis ), white-beaked common dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus albirostris ), and minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ). The LOC expires on May 31, 2033.

File No. 29005: Issued to the Wild Dolphin Project (Responsible Party: Denise Herzing, Ph.D.), 1208 US Highway 1, Ste. G, North Palm Beach, FL 33408, on September 16, 2025. This LOC authorizes harassment of cetaceans during vessel surveys and aerial surveys via UAS for close approach, counts, photo-identification, photography/videography, and behavioral observations in the Florida waters of Palm Beach and southern Martin counties through the Florida Keys, including the Intracoastal Waterway, and adjacent Atlantic waters up to 20 miles offshore. Species that may be taken include Atlantic spotted dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, Pantropical spotted dolphin, Risso's dolphin, spinner dolphin, striped dolphin, false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens ), and long-finned and short-finned pilot whales. The LOC takes effect on June 1, 2026, and expires on May 31, 2031.

File No. 29177: This LOC, held by Tracy R. Kowalczyk, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 4915 Beech Tree Drive SE, Southport, NC 28461. The LOC authorizes the harassment of bottlenose dolphins, during close approach from vessel and UAS surveys for counts, photography/video, photoidentification, photogrammetry, and behavioral observations and monitoring in coastal waters and offshore (up to 2 miles) waters of North Carolina from Topsail Intel south to Carolina Beach, including the Cape Fear River. Seventeen additional species of cetaceans may also be taken if encountered opportunistically. The LOC expires on December 1, 2035.

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

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

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

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

The Pier 5 Improvements Project is published on the Federal Permitting Dashboard as a Department of Transportation project. Requirements for publication and tracking on the Federal Permitting Dashboard include a suite of provisions designed to expedite the environmental review, including enhanced interagency coordination as well as milestone tracking. The Pier 5 Improvements Project page, including milestones and schedules related to the environmental review and permitting for the project can be found at: https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/dot-projects/port-adak-pier-five-improvements-project.

On August 6, 2025, NMFS received a request from TAC for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile removal and installation activities associated with the Pier 5 Improvements Project at Adak Island, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, and discussions between NMFS and TAC, TAC submitted a revised application on February 11, 2026, which NMFS deemed adequate and complete on March 2, 2026. TAC's request is for take of five species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither TAC nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and none is proposed to be authorized; therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

TAC is proposing to fix and modernize the fender and piling system at Pier 5 on Adak Island, Alaska, to current industry and safety standards as well as upgrade the pier lighting and utilities. The project would remove the existing timber pile fender system, timber wale top rail, steel egress ladders, under-deck catwalk system, and abandoned pipelines and related utilities and infrastructure; and would replace the damaged concrete pier support piles and the entire timber fender system with a heavy-duty steel pile (circular pipe-shaped) and fender sleeve assembly with greater capacity for absorbing energy from berthing vessels. The current footprint of the pier or pier deck would not be altered. The project would enable goods to be more efficiently and safely loaded and unloaded from small/large commercial and military vessels and allow for the safe embarking/disembarking of the vessel's crew, which would support the local and regional economy as well as the seafood industry. The pier also includes a NOAA data collection structure as well as serves as an oil spill response storage hub.

Pier 5, which was constructed by the U.S. Navy in 1980, is 730 feet (ft) (222.5 meters [m]) long with concrete decking consisting of precast concrete panels and concrete topping/wear surface. The initial 165 ft (50.3 m) is 40 ft (12.2 m) wide and the next 565 ft (172.2 m) is 90 ft wide (27.4 m). Pier 5 and the surrounding infrastructure are remnants of the former Adak Naval Air Station and have experienced significant wear due to harsh environmental conditions and limited maintenance since military decommissioning. Due to the condition of the current fender and piling system at Pier 5, both large and small commercial and military vessels that have called on or been interested in calling on the Port of Adak have been unable to moor or had complications when mooring. Additionally, the electrical, firewater, potable water, and wastewater systems on Pier 5 have been abandoned in place and have not been repaired or upgraded. Limited electrical service is provided to a NOAA data collection structure, accessed by galvanized steel stairs on either side of Pier 5.

The Port of Adak also serves as an oil spill response hub for the Alaska Chadux Network, an industry-funded non-profit oil spill response organization headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. The unmanned equipment stored at the Port of Adak would be used for oil spill response for vessels passing through the Great Circle Route from North America to Asia. Pier 5 cannot currently support the movement of equipment and must rely on nearby Adak airfield to fly in response personnel.

The specified activities that have the potential to result in take of marine mammals include vibratory removal and impact and vibratory installation of piles.

The proposed IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness, and will become effective upon written notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. The project would likely occur between April and November 2027 and would require up to 126 days of pile removal and installation. The window for pile removal and installation activities is planned from May 1 through September 30 but may extend from April 1 through November 30. In-water pile removal and installation activities may not be continuous and would only occur during daylight hours, and typically over a 12-hour work day, up to 7 days per week.

The proposed activities would occur at Pier 5 of the Port of Adak, a maritime facility owned by TAC in the city of Adak, on the northern shoreline of Adak Island, Alaska. Adak Island is a remote island in the central Aleutians. The pier is located at 100 Mechanic Road in the City of Adak, Alaska. The geographical coordinates of the 2.39-acre property are approximately 51 degrees 51' 42.57” North, 176 degrees 38' 15.73” West. The seafloor footprint of the pile removal and installation activities would be within the existing footprint of Pier 5 and would not be enlarged.

The waters around Adak Island represent a complex, high-energy marine ecosystem characterized by deep, nutrient-rich, and cold water that supports a high density of benthic invertebrates, marine mammals, and seabirds. The area serves as a transitional zone between the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, influenced by strong currents that drive vertical mixing and create productive feeding grounds.

The coastline of Adak Island is characterized by steep slopes and extremely deep water depths just offshore. Adak Island is subject to strong winds and frequent storms due to its maritime climate in the Bering Sea/North Pacific Ocean. The project area includes a large portion of Sweeper Cover and a small portion of the adjacent Kuluk Bay. Water depths within Sweeper Cove range from 36 to 132 (ft) (10.9 to 40.2 m). A breakwater at the entrance to Sweeper Cove creates a protected harbor. The island is ice-free and open to navigation all year.

The Port of Adak is owned by TAC and managed and operated by its wholly owned subsidiary Aleut Enterprise, LLC. TAC is one of the 13 regional Alaska Native corporations created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. U.S. forces built the Port of Adak and other facilities on Adak Island during World War II. The Naval Air Facility in Adak operationally closed in 1997, and in 2002 the U.S. Department of the Navy and U.S. Department of the Interior entered into a land exchange agreement with TAC that resulted in conveyance of 47,150 acres (190.8 square kilometers) of the former Adak Naval Complex property to TAC, including the Port of Adak.

Pier 5 was constructed by the U.S. Navy in 1980. It is a 730 ft (222.5 m) long concrete decked pier with precast concrete panels and concrete topping/wear surface. In 2005 and 2014, Pier 5 was evaluated and determined to be in good condition with significant remaining life, with the exception of the fender and piling system, which was in poor condition.

The current fender and piling system of Pier 5 are failing, with several portions having parted from the concrete deck. On the east side of the pier, 12 of 56 fender pile assemblies have parted from the dock, and on the west side of the pier, 8 of 56 fender pile assemblies have parted from the dock. The entire timber waler system of the fenders is severely dilapidated, and most of the timbers in the waler system are broken or decayed (especially on the east side of the pier). The fenders were further damaged when they were struck by barges coming to dock at Pier 5. In December 2011, there was a barge allision incident at the southwest corner of the pier that damaged two concrete support piles, and in March 2018, there was another barge allision incident at the west side of the pier (including near the previously damaged southwest corner). Numerous timber fender system components and piles were damaged during these incidents.

The Pier 5 Improvements Project would repair and modernize the fender and piling system to current industry and safety standards as well as upgrade lighting and utilities. The existing timber pile fender system, timber wale top rail, steel egress ladders, under-deck catwalk system, and abandoned pipelines and related infrastructure and utilities would be removed. The current above-water footprint of Pier 5 would not be altered as it is in good condition, but the in-water (benthic) footprint would be reduced.

Existing timber fender piles would be removed by gaining access to the tops of piles and pulling them out. Shallow fender piles would be extracted using a crane, when possible; however, a vibratory hammer would be used for pile extraction if necessary. A hydraulic chainsaw may be used to cut below the mud (sediment) line for piles that break off during vibratory removal. The hydraulic chainsaw would be used intermittently with a sound source level lower than vibratory pile removal, and is not expected to have adverse impacts on marine mammals. Under ideal conditions, extraction of piles would be accomplished quickly, at a rate of potentially 5 to 60 piles per day. For purposes of this analysis, TAC assumes all 385 timber piles would be removed with a vibratory hammer.

Two damaged prestressed concrete piles on the southwest end of Pier 5 would be repaired, and new concrete, pile caps, bullrail, and topping slab would be installed. These two concrete piles would be reinforced and would not be removed. Vibratory pile driving techniques would be used for installation of the fender piles. A modern high-energy absorbing fender system with rubber cylindrical fenders would be installed. The fender system would be designed around the mooring requirements of the 58 ft (17.7 m) commercial fishing vessel fleet. Inset egress ladders would be incorporated into the face of the fender assemblies, and mooring cleats and bollards would be recoated.

Installation of 86 steel support piles (18- and 30-inch [45.7 and 76.2 centimeters (cm)] fender and bearing) would include vibratory pile driving for initiation penetration, and completion with an impact hammer. No other forms of advancement assistance (such as jetting or overdrilling) are planned. The installation timeline would depend on site conditions and the required embed depth of the piles. For shorter fender piles (18 inches [45.7 cm]), potentially 1 or 15 piles may be installed per day. TAC would minimize the use of impact pile driving and use it only to seat the pile in its final position, or to penetrate material that is too dense for a vibratory hammer. The total number of piles to be installed are described in table 1.

Pile removal and installation activities would occur from floating barges and Pier 5. The piles would be installed from the floating barges. The barges are anticipated to be secured by multiple means with temporary anchors and the use of barge-mounted spuds. No dredging or trenching would be required. The pile removal and installation activities would also include installation of a new sewer (including upland replacement), potable water, firewater, and access control fencing on Pier 5. The sewer and water connection points have been coordinated with the City of Adak. All of the utilities would be routed above ground to coordinated upland locations. All of the work would be done in the vicinity of Pier 5 and would not extend past the southern side of Seawall Road. Use of barges and other vessels are not expected to result in marine mammal harassment.

For a total of up to 49 pile placement days, 86 piles would be installed for the project and each pile would take approximately 1 day to install. Removal of 385 timber piles with a maximum of 60 piles per day for the project, for a total of up to 77 pile removal days. Therefore, the estimated maximum duration for pile placement and removal activities would be up to 126 days. The number of piles to be removed per day depends on the condition of the piles and substrate. Furthermore, some of the fender piles are clumped together and more than one can be pulled at the same time. Pulling the piles will be determined by the contractor, and likely a combination of dead pull and vibratory pull.

Besides pile removal and installation activities, the only in-water work would be anode installation. Anodes would be welded to the new steel fender piles above the seafloor at approximately 15 to 22 ft (4.6 to 6.7 m) below sea level. Fender panels or foam fenders would be bolted to the piles close to the water level. Because this activity is not expected to appreciably increase in-water noise levels; it is not expected to result in harassment of marine mammals. Similarly, top-side work such as upgrade lighting and utilities and adding new concrete and pile caps to existing concrete piles is not expected to result in marine mammal harassment. Therefore, TAC did not request, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take from anode installation or above-water activities.

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

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

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments ( e.g., Young et al., 2025). 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 five species (with eight managed stocks) in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species of marine mammals that could potentially occur in the proposed project area are included in table 3-1 of the IHA application. While blue whale ( Balaenoptera musculus ), fin whale ( Balaenoptera physalus ), Eastern North Pacific and Western North Pacific gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ), North Pacific right whale ( Eubalaena japonica ), sei whale ( Balaenoptera borealis ), sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ), Baird's beaked whale ( Berardius bairdii ), Cuvier's beaked whale ( Ziphius cavirostris ), Sato's beaked whale ( Berardius minimus ), Stejneger's beaked whale ( Mesoplodon stejnegeri ), Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ), harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), Northern fur seal ( Callorhinus ursinus ), Northern elephant seal ( Mirounga angustirostris ), and ribbon seal ( Histriophoca fasciata ) could occur in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur. These species all have extremely low abundance and most are observed in areas outside of the project area due to it being nearshore and its inlet geography; therefore, they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

In addition, northern sea otter ( Enhydra lutris kenyoni ) may be found in the central Aleutian Islands. However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is not considered further in this document.

On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single population into 14 distinct population segments (DPS) under the ESA, removed the species-level listing as endangered, and, in its place, listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There are four DPSs in the North Pacific Ocean, including the Western North Pacific and Central America, which are listed as endangered, Mexico, which is listed as threatened, and Hawai'i, which is not listed.

The 2022 Alaska and Pacific SARs described a revised stock structure for humpback whales which modifies the previous stocks designated under the MMPA to align more closely with the ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). Specifically, the three previous North Pacific humpback whale stocks (Central and Western North Pacific stocks and a California/Oregon/Washington [CA/OR/WA] stock) were replaced by five stocks, largely corresponding with the ESA-designated DPSs. These include the Western North Pacific and Hawai'i stocks and a Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock (which corresponds with the Central America DPS). The remaining two stocks, corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023). The former stock is expected to occur along the west coast from California to southern British Columbia, while the latter stock may occur across the Pacific, from northern British Columbia through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea region to Russia.

The Hawai'i stock consists of one demographically independent population (DIP)—Hawai'i-Southeast Alaska/Northern British Columbia DIP and one unit—Hawai'i-North Pacific unit, which may or may not be composed of multiple DIPs (Wade et al., 2021). The DIP and unit are managed as a single stock at this time, due to the lack of data available to separately assess them and lack of compelling conservation benefit to managing them separately (NMFS, 2023; NMFS, 2019; NMFS, 2022b). The DIP is delineated based on two strong lines of evidence: genetics and movement data (Wade et al., 2021). Whales in the Hawai'i-Southeast Alaska/Northern British Columbia DIP winter off Hawai'i and largely summer in Southeast Alaska and Northern British Columbia (Wade et al., 2021). The group of whales that migrate from Russia, western Alaska (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands), and central Alaska (Gulf of Alaska excluding Southeast Alaska) to Hawai'i have been delineated as the Hawai'i-North Pacific unit (Wade et al., 2021). There are a small number of whales that migrate between Hawai'i and southern British Columbia/Washington, but current data and analyses do not provide a clear understanding of which unit these whales belong to (Wade et al., 2021; Caretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023).

The Mexico-North Pacific unit is likely composed of multiple DIPs, based on movement data (Martien et al., 2021; Wade, 2021; Wade et al., 2021). However, because currently available data and analyses are not sufficient to delineate or assess DIPs within the unit, it was designated as a single stock (NMFS, 2023a; NMFS, 2019; NMFS, 2022c). Whales in this stock winter off Mexico and the Revillagigedo Archipelago and summer primarily in Alaska waters (Martien et al., 2021; Carretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023).

The Western North Pacific stock consists of two units—the Philippines/Okinawa-North Pacific unit and the Marianas/Ogasawara-North Pacific unit. The units are managed as a single stock at this time, due to a lack of data. Recognition of these units is based on movements and genetic data (Oleson et al., 2022). Whales in the Philippines/Okinawa-North Pacific unit winter near the Philippines and in the Ryukyu Archipelago and migrate to summer feeding areas primarily off the Russian mainland (Oleson et al., 2022). Whales that winter off the Mariana Archipelago, Ogasawara, and other areas not yet identified and then migrate to summer feeding areas off the Commander Islands, and to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands comprise the Marianas/Ogasawara-North Pacific unit.

Humpback whales that occur in the project area are predominantly members of the Hawai'i stock, which corresponds to the Hawai'i DPS (91 percent probability in the Aleutian Islands), and is not listed under the ESA. However, members of the Mexico North Pacific stock, which include the Mexico DPS and is listed as threatened under the ESA, have a small potential to occur in the project location (7 percent probability in the Aleutian Islands), and the Western North Pacific stock, which corresponds to the Western North Pacific DPS and is listed as endangered under the ESA, have an even smaller potential to occur in the project location (2 percent probability in the Aleutian Islands).

Humpback whales migrate to the North Pacific Ocean, including the Aleutian Islands, to feed after months of fasting in equatorial breeding grounds. Humpback whales generally travel alone or in small groups that persist for only a few hours. Groups may stay together for longer in the summer in order to feed cooperatively. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game reports that humpback whales occur in the Aleutian Islands in the spring, summer, and fall during their migration. Humpback whales are regularly observed around Adak Island during the summer and early fall when prey availability is highest. They are typically seen in small groups or as solitary individuals. Local reports indicate that humpback whales are occasionally seen in Kuluk Bay near the Port of Adak.

Minke whales occur in polar, temperate, and tropical waters worldwide in a range extending from the ice edge in the Arctic during the summer to near the equator during winter. However, they are known to prefer temperate to boreal waters due to the abundance of prey (Guerrero, 2008b). When comparing distribution and abundance in the years 2002, 2008, and 2010, it was found that that minke whales were scattered throughout all oceanographic domains: coastal, middle shelf, and outer shelf/slope (Muto et al., 2021). The minke whale mostly migrates seasonally and can travel long distances; although, some minke whale individuals and stocks have resident home ranges and are not highly migratory (Guerrero, 2008b). The Alaska stock of minke whales are migratory and are common in the waters of the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Southeast Alaska in the spring and summer (NMFS, 2023c).

The distribution of minke whales vary according to age, sex, and reproductive status. Older mature males are commonly found in small social groups around the ice edge of polar regions during the summer feeding season. Comparatively, adult females will migrate farther into the higher latitudes but generally remain in coastal waters. Immature minke whales tend to be solitary and stay in lower latitudes during the summer (Guerrero, 2008b). Although the minke whale tends to be solitary or in groups of 2 to 3 individuals, they can congregate into larger groups containing up to 400 individuals at the higher latitude foraging areas (Clark, 2008a; Guerrero 2008b; NOAA, 2021). During surveys in Alaska, minke whales are predominately observed alone (Wade et al., 2003; Waite, 2003). Breeding season typically occurs from December to March, but in some regions minke whales breed year-round. When migrating north in spring and summer, they will travel along in coastal waters, whereas in fall and winter, they move farther offshore (NMFS, 2023c). There are no known observations of minke whales in the project area.

Killer whales occur in every ocean in the world and are the most widely distributed of all cetaceans. Along the west coast of North America, killer whales occur along the entire Alaska coast (Braham and Dahlheim, 1982). This proposed IHA considers only the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident stock (Alaska Resident stock), and the Eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock because all other killer whale stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration (Muto et al., 2021; Young et al. 2023).

There are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales recognized: Resident, Transient, and Offshore. The three ecotypes differ morphologically, ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically. Spatial distribution has been shown to vary among the different ecotypes, with resident and, to a lesser extent, transient killer whales more commonly observed along the continental shelf, and offshore killer whales more commonly observed in pelagic waters (Rice et al., 2021).

When comparing movement, residents tend to have more predictable movements and the smallest home ranges and they return annually, whereas transients are less predictable due to their larger home ranges and quick transits through local areas. Offshore ecotypes have the largest home ranges that are generally farther offshore compared to the other two ecotypes (Zimmerman and Small, 2008). Resident killer whales live in large, stable groups ranging normally from 5 to 50 individuals and up to 100 or more. They feed only on fish, especially Pacific salmon. Transient killer whales, on the other hand, hunt marine mammals, like pinnipeds and porpoises, in smaller groups of 10 individuals or less (Forney and Wade, 2006).

Killer whales have been observed in the Aleutian Islands and into the Bering Sea year-round, most commonly during the summer Chinook salmon run (May through July) when the project would occur. However, local reports indicate that killer whales are infrequently seen transiting through the area near Adak Island.

Steller sea lions in the project area are anticipated to be from the Western stock, which includes all Steller sea lions originating from rookeries west of Cape Suckling (144° West longitude). The centers of abundance and distribution for Western DPS Steller sea lions are located in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. At sea, Steller sea lions commonly occur near the 656-ft (200-m) depth contour but have been found from nearshore to well beyond the continental shelf (Kajimura and Loughlin, 1988). Steller sea lions move offshore to pelagic waters for feeding excursions.

There are major ( i.e., haulouts supporting greater than 200 individuals) Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries throughout the Aleutian Islands and along the southern end of southwest Alaska. The rookery, Lake Point, is located at the tip of the Yakak Peninsula on southern Adak, on the opposite side of the island and approximately 35.4 miles (57 kilometers [km]) from Pier 5. The three major haulouts are Cape Yakak on Adak (near Lake Point on the Yakak Peninsula, about 36.7 miles (59 km) from Pier 5 and on the opposite side of the island) and Ragged Point on Kagalaska (on the side of the island facing away from the project site and about 27.3 miles [44 km] away). Five other haulouts in the area, include Argonne Point, Cape Kagigikak, Crone Island, Cape Moffet, and Head Rock on Adak Island, and Kagalaska on Kagalaska Island, have been lesser used in recent years (Sweeney et al., 2023). These sites are used year-round, with increased activity during the breeding season (mid-May through mid-July). Steller sea lions are often seen foraging near fish processing facilities, marine outfalls, and natural prey aggregations, especially during pollock and Atka mackerel seasons. Steller sea lions are occasionally seen foraging during small, seasonal (mid-June through September), steady runs of coho salmon ( Oncorhnchus kisutch ), pink salmon ( Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ), and Dolly Varden ( Salvelinus malma ) at the mouth of creeks and streams at the west end of Sweeper Cover (approximately 0.65 miles west of Pier 5).

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters off Alaska. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice. They are generally non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (Muto et al., 2021). They are opportunistic feeders and often adjust their distribution to take advantage of locally and seasonally abundant prey (Womble et al., 2010; Allen and Angliss, 2015). Although they tend to be solitary when in the water, they can form groups of about 30 or less individuals of both sexes and all ages when hauling out. Harbor seals haul out to rest periodically, give birth or nurse.

Harbor seals in the project area are recognized as part of the Aleutian Island stock, occurring along the entire Aleutian island chain from Attu Island to Ugamak Island. Pupping season in the Aleutian Islands occurs between mid-June to mid-July (Sease, 1992). Harbor seals are regularly observed year-round around Adak Island, particularly in Clam Lagoon. Clam Lagoon is a shallow, protected body of water on the northern coast of Adak Island. Clam Lagoon, which is about 6.2 miles (10 km) north of the Port of Adak, is the closest known haulout to the project area. A 2014 study tagged 15 harbor seals in Clam Lagoon and tracked their dive behavior, haul-out patterns, and movement, which determined that the area is a key habitat for the species (NMFS 2017). There have been local anectodal observations of the daily occurrence of harbor seals in the project area (Matthew Holsinger personal communication with Andrew Fisher on May 29, 2025).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Baleen whale hearing range is based on hearing measurements through auditory evoked potential (AEP) tests. NMFS is aware that the National Marine Mammal Foundation successfully collected preliminary hearing data on minke whales in Norway (Houser et al. 2024). However, results from both field seasons have yet to be published and therefore those data are not yet considered in this analysis. Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65-decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. In October 2024, NMFS published its 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which includes updated thresholds and weighting functions to inform auditory injury (AUD INJ) estimates and replaces the 2018 Technical Guidance referenced above. This 2024 Updated Technical Guidance represents the best available science. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3.

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

NMFS has summarized a brief technical description of the physics of sound and relevant measurement metrics ( i.e., root mean square [RMS], Peak, and sound exposure level [SEL]) (NMFS, 2024), available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. We refer readers to this document for definitions of the measurement terms and metrics used herein.

There are a variety of types and degrees of effects on marine mammals, prey species, and habitats that could result from the project. Below is a brief description of the sound sources the projects would generate, the general impacts of these activities, and an analysis of the anticipated impacts on marine mammals from the projects, with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.

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

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

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal equipment is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from TAC'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). Generally, exposure to pile driving and removal noise has the potential to result in behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) and, in limited cases, auditory threshold shifts. 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 removal 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 (threshold shifts) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018, 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 —NMFS (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in tissue destruction, such as loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser, 2021; Finneran, 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS). PTS is 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 generally affects only a limited frequency range, and animals with PTS have 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 threshold shift approximates AUD INJ onset (Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Henderson et al., 2008). However, a variety of terrestrial and marine mammal studies (see Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960; Miller et al., 1963; Kryter et al., 1966; Finneran et al., 2007; Kastelein et al., 2013) indicate that threshold shifts of up to 40 to 50 dB (measured a few minutes after exposure) may be induced without resulting in PTS. PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates; with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ) (Kastak et al., 2008), no empirical data measure PTS 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). NMFS has set the PTS onset as an initial threshold shift of 40 dB.

However, after sound exposure ceases or between successive sound exposures, the potential for recovery from hearing loss exists. Thus, because a threshold shift is measured a few minutes after noise exposure does not mean that those initial shifts are persistent ( i.e., no recovery). When initial threshold shifts fully recover back to baseline hearing levels, these are considered temporary threshold shift (TTS). PTS indicates there is no full recovery back to baseline hearing levels; however, it does not mean there is no recovery. Rather, PTS indicates incomplete recovery of hearing. Recovery depends on the initial threshold shift amount, the frequency at which the shift occurred, the temporal pattern of exposure ( e.g., exposure duration; continuous vs. intermittent exposure), and the physiological mechanisms underlying the shift ( e.g., mechanical vs. metabolic). Since recovery is complicated, our current AUD INJ onset criteria do not account for the potential for recovery.

Temporary Threshold Shift —A temporary, fully reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002). As described in Finneran (2016), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SEL cum ) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SEL cum, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SEL cum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

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

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

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

Behavioral Effects —Exposure to noise can also 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 a behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of higher level or longer duration have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include subtle changes ( 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) for reviews of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

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

The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses that provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the literature that is available for each species, or extrapolated from closely related species when no information exists, along with contextual factors. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. 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 respiration, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). 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.

Alteration of Dive Behavior —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., 2013). Seals exposed to non-impulsive sources with a received SPL within the range of calculated exposures (142-193 dB referenced to 1 micropascal [re 1 μPa]), have been shown to change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the sound source (Götz and Janik, 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). 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.

Alteration of Feeding Behavior —Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators ( e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance ( e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007; Melcón et al., 2012). In addition, behavioral state of the animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response, such as disruption to foraging ( e.g., Silve et al., 2016; Wensveen et al., 2017). An evaluation of whether foraging disruptions would be likely to incur fitness consequences considers temporal and spatial scale of the activity in the context of the available foraging habitat and, in more severe cases may necessitate consideration of 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. Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicate that disruption of feeding and displacement could impact individual fitness and health. However, for this to be true, we would have to assume that an individual could not compensate for this lost feeding opportunity by either immediately feeding at another location, by feeding shortly after cessation of acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a later time. There is no indication this is the case here, particularly since prey would likely still be available in the environment in most cases following the cessation of acoustic exposure.

Respiration —Respiration naturally varies with different behaviors, and variations in respiration 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. Studies with captive harbor porpoises showed increased respiration rates upon introduction of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., 2006a) and emissions for underwater data transmission (Kastelein et al., 2005). Various studies also have shown that species and signal characteristics are important factors in whether respiration rates are unaffected or change, 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., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2018; Gailey et al., 2007; Isojunno et al., 2018).

Vocalization —Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while 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; Rolland et al., 2012). Killer whales off the northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increase the duration of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel density ( e.g., whale watching) was reached, which has been suggested as a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 2004; NOAA, 2014). In some cases, however, animals may cease or alter sound production in response to underwater sound ( e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et al., 2014). Studies also demonstrate that even low levels of noise received far from the noise source can induce changes in vocalization and/or behavioral responses (Blackwell et al., 2013; Blackwell et al., 2015).

Avoidance —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). Avoidance is qualitatively different from the flight response, but also differs in the magnitude of the response ( i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc. ). Often avoidance is temporary, and animals return to the area once the noise has ceased. Acute avoidance responses have been observed in captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b; Kastelein et al., 2015b; Kastelein et al., 2015c; Kastelein et al., 2018). Short-term avoidance of seismic surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrents have also been noted in wild populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Goold and Fish, 1998; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Hiley et al., 2021) and to some extent in mysticetes (Malme et al., 1984; McCauley et al., 2000; 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).

Forney et al. (2017) described the potential effects of noise on marine mammal populations with high site fidelity, including displacement and auditory masking. In cases of Western North Pacific DPS/stock of gray whales and Cuvier's/goose-beaked whales ( Ziphius cavirostris ), anthropogenic effects in areas where they are resident or exhibit site fidelity could cause severe biological consequences, in part because displacement may adversely affect foraging rates, reproduction, or health, while an overriding instinct to remain in the area could lead to more severe acute effects. Avoidance of overlap between disturbing noise and areas and/or times of particular importance for sensitive species may be critical to avoiding population-level impacts because (particularly for animals with high site fidelity) there may be a strong motivation to remain in the area despite negative impacts.

Flight Response —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). 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 (Evans and England, 2001). There are limited data on flight response for marine mammals in water; however, there are examples of this response in species on land. For instance, the probability of flight responses in Dall's sheep ( Ovis dalli dalli ) (Frid, 2003), hauled out ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ) (Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant ( Branta bernicla nigricans ), and Canada geese ( B. canadensis ) increased as a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft more directly approached groups of these animals (Ward et al., 1999). 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 observed in marine mammals, but studies involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates and efficiency ( 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).

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 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.

To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall et al. (2007) developed and utilized a severity scale, which is a 10-point scale ranging from no effect (labeled 0), effects not likely to influence vital rates (low; labeled from one to three), effects that could affect vital rates (moderate; labeled from 4 to 6), to effects that were thought likely to influence vital rates (high; labeled from 7 to 9). Southall et al. (2021) updated the severity scale by integrating behavioral context ( i.e., survival, reproduction, and foraging) into severity assessment. For non-impulsive sounds ( i.e., similar to the sources used during the proposed action), data suggest that exposures of pinnipeds to sources between 90 and 140 dB re 1 μPa do not elicit strong behavioral responses; no data were available for exposures at higher received levels for Southall et al. (2007) to include in the severity scale analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were the only available data for which the responses could be ranked on the severity scale. For reactions that were recorded, the majority (17 of 18 individuals/groups) were ranked on the severity scale as a 4 (defined as moderate change in movement, brief shift in group distribution, or moderate change in vocal behavior) or lower. The remaining response was ranked as a six (defined as minor or moderate avoidance of the sound source).

Habituation —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., 2003). 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, 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; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 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 impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

Airborne Acoustic Effects —Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming with heads above the waterline or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds 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 pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would likely previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally larger than those associated with airborne sound ( i.e., 8 m and 36 to 58 m for phocid pinnipeds, 2 m and 12 to 18 m for otariid pinnipeds). 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 additional incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further.

TAC's proposed pile removal and installation activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs, and slightly decreasing water quality from increased turbidity. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see Masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project area where both fishes and marine mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during pile removal and installation 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.

Temporary and localized reduction in water quality would occur as a result of in-water pile removal and installation activities. Most of this effect would occur during the removal and installation of piles, when bottom sediments are disturbed, and may temporarily increase suspended sediment in the project area. During pile extraction, sediment attached to the pile moves vertically through the water column causing a sediment plume. However, since currents are so strong in the area, following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, suspended sediment in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels across all construction scenarios.

Turbidity in the water column can reduce dissolved oxygen levels and irritate the gills of prey fish in the proposed project areas. 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). However, turbidity plumes associated with the projects would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project areas would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Overall, the water quality in the immediate area that is likely impacted by the proposed pile removal and installation activities is relatively small compared to the available marine mammal habitat.

The proposed pile removal and installation activities would also remove an estimated 385 timber creosote-treated piles which would potentially improve water quality. Given those piles would be replaced by an estimated 86 piles; the total net reduction would be an estimated 299 piles, which would permanently decrease the in-water footprint of Pier 5 and increase the area (by approximately 128.32 square ft [11.9 square m]) of the seafloor without manmade structures that is available as marine mammal habitat in the Port of Adak.

In-Water Pile Removal and Installation Activities Effects on Potential Prey —Pile removal and installation activities would produce continuous ( i.e., vibratory pile driving) and intermittent ( i.e., impact driving) sounds. Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey.

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

Fish react to sounds 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 fish; several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001; Scholik and Yan, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs ( e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009).

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

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

Pile removal and installation activities have the potential to have adverse impacts on forage fish in the project area in the form of increased turbidity. Forage fish form a significant prey base for many marine mammal species that occur in the project area. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish in the proposed project area. However, fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where increase turbidity may occur. Given the limited area affected and ability of fish to move to other areas, any effects on forage fish are expected to be minor or negligible.

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

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

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

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources ( i.e., impact and vibratory pile driving and removal) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to result for mysticetes (low-frequency), odontocetes (high-frequency), phocids, and otariids. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

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

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

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

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

NMFS AUD INJ thresholds are provided in table 4. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools.