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

Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of fruits and vegetables that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation into the United States, as well as the requirements for their importation, be listed on the internet in APHIS' Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements database, or ACIR ( https://acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/ ).

Currently, fresh sweet potato roots from the Republic of Korea are listed in ACIR as authorized importation into Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

APHIS received a request from the national plant protection organization of the Republic of Korea to allow the importation of fresh sweet potato roots from the Republic of Korea into the rest of the United States. 1 As part of our evaluation of the Republic of Korea's request, we have prepared a pest risk assessment to identify the pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of the importation of fresh sweet potato roots into the United States from the Republic of Korea. Based on the pest risk assessment, a risk management document (RMD) was prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the fresh sweet potato roots to mitigate the pest risk.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk assessment and RMD for public review and comment. Those documents, as well as a description of the economic considerations associated with the importation of fresh sweet potato roots from the Republic of Korea, may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the pest risk assessment and RMD by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the subject of the analysis you wish to review when requesting copies.

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of fresh sweet potato roots from the Republic of Korea in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of our analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will authorize  2 the importation of fresh sweet potato roots from the Republic of Korea into the rest of the United States subject to the requirements specified in the RMD.

Title: Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0047.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ) of 2002 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The Secretary may also prohibit or restrict import or export of any animal or related material if necessary, to prevent the spread of any livestock or poultry pest or disease.

Disease prevention and disease surveillance are the most effective methods for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the United States' ability to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. The Veterinary Services (VS) unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for administering regulations intended to protect the health of the U.S. livestock population.

Brucellosis is an infectious disease of animals and humans caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. The disease is characterized by abortions and impaired fertility in its principal animal hosts. The disease infects humans through contact with infected animals or with certain body fluids of infected animals. Usually Brucella abortus is associated with the disease in cattle or bison, Brucella suis with the disease in swine, and Brucella melitensis with the disease in sheep and goats. The continued presence of brucellosis in a herd seriously threatens the health, welfare, and economic viability of the livestock industry. There is no economically feasible treatment for brucellosis in livestock.

The Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program is a national program to eliminate this serious disease of livestock. The program is conducted under the authority of the various States and supplemented by Federal authorities regulating interstate movement of infected animals. Regulations in 9 CFR part 78 outline the Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program. The regulations include required surveillance, epidemiological investigation, annual reporting, and interstate movement activities that must be documented.

Minimum program standards known as the Brucellosis Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules (UM&R) have been developed cooperatively by organizations representing the livestock industry, State animal health agencies, and the USDA. State and Federal officials in charge of program activities in each State are responsible for continuously evaluating the efficiency of local procedures in locating and eliminating infected livestock. The minimum standards in the UM&R must be met or exceeded throughout the certification period to maintain continuous classification status. Meeting these standards requires information collection.

Information is generally collected by State and Federal animal health officials through interviews or reviewing records. In addition, the information on some documents may be collected by private veterinary practitioners ( i.e., test charts, vaccination records, and official Certificates of Veterinary Inspection) or blood collection personnel on contract ( i.e., market cattle slaughter surveillance blood collection forms and brucellosis ring testing milk sample collection forms). The information is collected at the time each appropriate event occurs. In most instances, information is collected when testing or vaccinating individual animals or herds, applying official identification to animals, or conducting surveillance or epidemiological investigation activities. Some events, such as market cattle slaughter surveillance, occur daily. Other events, such as on-farm blood testing and vaccination, occur as part of routine animal health management. A few events, such as infected-herd investigations, occur only a few times a year.

In addition, the bovine brucellosis program regulations in part 78 provide a system for classifying States or portions of States according to the rate of B. abortus infection present and the general effectiveness of a brucellosis control and eradication program. The program also provides for the creation of brucellosis management areas within a State and for testing and movement mitigation activities before regulated animals are permitted to move interstate. This system enhances the ability of States to move healthy, brucellosis-free cattle and bison interstate and internationally. This management area and testing system also enhances the effectiveness of the Brucellosis Eradication Program by decreasing the likelihood that infected animals will be moved interstate or internationally.

The creation of brucellosis management areas allows States that have found B. abortus in wildlife (which are nonregulated animals) to mitigate the risk of transmission and spread of disease while maintaining the State's disease-free status in regulated domestic livestock. The State must sign a memorandum of understanding with the APHIS Administrator that describes its brucellosis management plan. The brucellosis management plan developed by the State must define the geographic brucellosis management area and describe the surveillance and mitigation activities that the State will conduct to identify occurrence of B. abortus in domestic livestock and wildlife and potential risks for spread of the disease.

We are asking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection by increasing the number of Responses and Total Burden Hours being reported for the collection.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.26 hours per response.

Respondents: Commercial livestock farm owners and managers; animal agriculture-related business owners and managers; private veterinarians; animal agriculture-related agencies and organizations; breed registry agencies; agriculture extension agents; fair and exhibition officials; owners, operators, and managers of livestock markets; owners, operators, and managers of slaughter establishments and dairy plants; and State animal health officials and laboratory personnel (including wildlife biologists).

Estimated annual number of respondents: 87,974.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 11.

Estimated annual number of responses: 956,044.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 246,575 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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.

Commerce's regulations provide that it will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. 1 Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on January 26, 2026. 2 This current notice covers all scope rulings made by Enforcement and Compliance between October 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025.

Requestor: The flexographic photopolymer printing plates imported by Miraclon Corporation Ltd. (Miraclon) are outside the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum lithographic printing plates from Japan because Miraclon's merchandise does not contain any aluminum. The scope of the order is limited to “{a}luminum lithographic printing plates consist{ing} of a flat substrate containing at least 90 percent aluminum.” November 24, 2025.

Requestor: Vision Wheel Inc. Eighty-two models of aftermarket light and medium truck wheels produced in China and imported by Vision Wheel Inc. are not covered by the scope of the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China because the record supports that they may be differentiated from subject merchandise based on certain physical factors, including rim size, offset, bolt pattern, hub bore (or center hole) size, and load rating/capacity consistent with numerous prior scope rulings concerning similar products. Additionally, one model of aftermarket light and medium truck wheels produced in China and imported by Vision Wheel Inc. are not covered by the scope of the orders because the record supports that it is distinct from subject merchandise based on an analysis of the expectations of the ultimate purchasers; the ultimate use of the product; and the manner in which the product is advertised and displayed. December 29, 2025.

Requestor: Blinds to Go (US), Inc. Feedstock for wooden slats for window blinds, feedstock for wooden bottom rails for window blinds, and feedstock for wooden valances for window blinds imported by Blinds to Go (US), Inc. are not covered by the scope of the AD and CVD orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China because they are not permanent or semi-permanent installations in buildings and are not shaped for architectural or decorative purposes or building applications: December 22, 2025

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to CommerceCLU@trade.gov.

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

On January 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain fatty acids (fatty acids) from Indonesia and Malaysia filed in proper form on behalf of Vantage Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of certain fatty acids. 1 The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. 2

Between January 30 and February 26, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires. 3 Between February 3 and 27, 2026, the petitioner filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

On February 9, 2026, Commerce extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because the Petitions “{had} not established that the domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of total production support the Petitions . . . .”  5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the petitioner alleges that the Government of Indonesia (GOI) and the Government of Malaysia (GOM) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of fatty acids in Indonesia and Malaysia and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing fatty acids in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. 6

Because the Petitions were filed on January 28, 2026, the POI for the Indonesia and Malaysia CVD investigations is January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. 7

The products covered by these investigations are fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

Between January 30 and February 26, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 8 Between February 3 and 26, 2026, the petitioner provided clarifications and/or revised the scope. 9 The description of merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 10 Commerce will consider all scope comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 11 Commerce requests that interested parties provide at the beginning of their scope comments a public executive summary for each comment or issue raised in their submission. Commerce further requests that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each comment or issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. Commerce intends to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the analysis of scope comments. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on March 30, 2026, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 12 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 9, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 13 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOI and the GOM of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions. 14 Commerce held consultations with the GOI on March 4, 2026. 15 The GOM did not request consultations.

Additionally, given the nature of certain subsidy programs alleged in the Indonesia and Malaysia CVD Petitions, on January 28, 2026, Commerce issued a letter to the Government of the People's Republic of China (China), providing the Government of China the opportunity to meet with Commerce officials. 16 The Government of China did not request to meet with Commerce officials, but filed written comments. 17

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 18 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 19

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 20 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fatty acids, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 21

On February 9, 2026, Commerce extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the industry in accordance with sections 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, because the Petitions “{had} not established that the domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of total production support the Petitions . . . .”  22 On February 13, 2026, we issued polling questionnaires to all known U.S. producers identified in the Petitions. 23 We requested that the companies complete the polling questionnaire and certify their responses by the due date specified in the cover letter to the questionnaire. 24

Our analysis of the data we received in the polling questionnaire responses indicates that the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 25 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 26

Because Indonesia and Malaysia are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia and/or Malaysia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports from Indonesia and Malaysia individually exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 27

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and negative impact on financial performance. 28 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 29

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI and the GOM, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 16 programs alleged by the petitioner. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 18 programs alleged by the petitioner. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Malaysia CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 23 companies in Indonesia and 16 companies in Malaysia. 30 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in the investigations. Following standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for imports under the appropriate Harmonized tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading(s) listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.

On March 3, 2026, Commerce released CBP data on imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. 31 Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the GOI and GOM via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which the ITC receives notice from Commerce of initiation of the investigations, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and/or Malaysia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 32 A negative ITC determination for either country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 33 Otherwise, these CVD investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  34 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 35 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 36 For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 37

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 38 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 39 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letters of appearance). Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 40

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2025. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 On January 8, 2026, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until March 9, 2026. 4

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

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

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 6 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 7 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Therefore, Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for El Marakby Steel (El Marakby) and Suez Steel Company (Suez Steel). For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In this investigation, Commerce has preliminarily assigned rates based entirely on facts available to El Marakby and Suez Steel. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Al-Ezz Dekheila Steel Alexandria Company S.A.E. (EZDK); Ezz Steel Company S.A.E. (ESR); Ezz Rolling Mills Company S.A.E. (ERM); and Al-Ezz Flat Steel Company S.A.E. (EFS) (collectively, the Ezz Group). 8 Consequently, the rate calculated for the Ezz Group is also assigned as the rate for all other producers and exporters.

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

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. However, in the companion CVD investigation, Commerce preliminarily found no export subsidies; accordingly, we did not make an export subsidy offset to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins in this preliminary determination. 9 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. 10 A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be notified to interested parties at a later date. 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. 11 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. 12

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. 13 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 14

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, 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. Requests should contain (1) the 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 the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

All briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS. 15 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

On July 11, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this administrative review and invited comments from interested parties. 1

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 On January 14, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final results until March 9, 2026. 4

For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the Order are wooden cabinets. For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on our analysis of comments received from interested parties, we made no changes to the net countervailable subsidy rates calculated for KM Cabinetry Co., Ltd. (KM Cabinetry) and The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. (Ancientree). For a discussion of comments, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find 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. For a full description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, including our reliance, in part, on facts otherwise available, including adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides the basis for calculating the all others rate in an investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce, as a general rule, to calculate the all-others rate equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

There are ten companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. In this review, the rates for Ancientree and KM Cabinetry were above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available. Therefore, we are applying to the non-selected companies the weighted average of the net subsidy rates calculated for Ancientree and KM Cabinetry, which we calculated using the publicly-ranged sales data submitted by Ancientree and KM Cabinetry. 6

Commerce determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results of a review within five days of the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce has not made any changes to the Preliminary Results, there are no new calculations to disclose.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 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) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above 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 these final results of 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.

Following the publication of this notice, the importer, or the importer's agent, must continue to submit any required certifications to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system in CBP's Automated Commercial Environment at the time of entry summary filing. Consistent with CBP's procedures, importers shall also identify entries required to have certifications by using importers' additional declaration (record 54) AD/CVD Certification Designation (type code 06) when filing entry summary. 11

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return 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).

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2025. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 On January 8, 2026, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until March 9, 2026. 4

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by this investigations is rebar from Bulgaria. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 6 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 7 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Therefore, Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

On January 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain fatty acids (fatty acids) from Indonesia and Maylasia, filed in proper form on behalf of Vantage Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of fatty acids. 1 The AD Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. 2

Between January 30 and February 26, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires. 3 Between February 3 and 26, 2026, the petitioner filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

On February 9, 2026, Commerce extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because the Petitions “{had} not established that the domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of total production support the Petitions. . . .”  5

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner alleges that imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the fatty acids industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations. 6

Because the Petitions were filed on January 28, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Indonesia and Malaysia LTFV investigations is January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.

The products covered by these investigations are fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

Between January 28 and February 26, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 7 Between February 3 and 26, 2026, the petitioner provided clarifications and/or revised the scope. 8 The description of merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 9 Commerce will consider all scope comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 10 Commerce requests that interested parties provide at the beginning of their scope comments a public executive summary for each comment or issue raised in their submission. Commerce further requests that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each comment or issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. Commerce intends to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the analysis of scope comments. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on March 30, 2026, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 11 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 9, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of these investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of fatty acids to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe fatty acids, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 30, 2026, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 13 Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 9, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the LTFV investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 15

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of these investigations. 16 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fatty acids, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 17

On February 9, 2026, Commerce extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the industry in accordance with sections 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, because the “Petitions {had} not established that the domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of total production support the Petitions. . . .”  18 On February 13, 2025, we issued polling questionnaires to all known U.S. producers identified in the Petitions. 19 We requested that the companies complete the polling questionnaire and certify their responses by the due date specified in the cover letter to the questionnaire. 20

Our analysis of the data we received in the polling questionnaire responses indicates that the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 21 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 22

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 23

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and negative impact on financial performance. 24 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 25

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.

For Indonesia and Malaysia, the petitioner based export price (EP) on transaction-specific average unit values (AUVs) ( i.e., month- and port-specific AUVs) derived from official import statistics and tied to ship manifest data. 26 For each country, the petitioner made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where applicable. 27

For Indonesia and Malaysia, the petitioner calculated NV on home market pricing information it obtained for fatty acids produced in and sold, or offered for sale, in the respective countries during the POI. 29 The petitioner provided information indicating that the prices for fatty acids sold or offered for sale in Indonesia and Malaysia were below the COP. 30 Therefore, for both countries, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV. 31 For further discussion of CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value.”

As noted above for Indonesia and Malaysia, the petitioner provided information indicating the prices for fatty acids sold or offered for sale in Indonesia and Malaysia were below the COP. Therefore, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV. 32

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 33 For Indonesia and Malaysia, in calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioner relied on its own production experience and input consumption rates for fatty acids, valued using publicly available information applicable to the respective countries. 34 In calculating SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios, the petitioner relied on the fiscal year 2024 financial statements of producers of comparable merchandise domiciled in each country, respectively.

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for fatty acids for each of the countries covered by these initiations are as follows: (1) Indonesia—18.38 to 69.56 percent; and (2) Malaysia—59.56 to 170.49 percent. 35

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 23 companies in Indonesia and 16 companies in Malaysia as producers and/or exporters of fatty acids. 36 Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based on its resources, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.

On March 3, 2026, Commerce released CBP data on imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia, under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. 37 Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which the ITC receives notice from Commerce of initiation of the investigations, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fatty acids from Indonesia and/or Malaysia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 38 A negative ITC determination for either country will result in the investigation being terminated with respects to that country. 39 Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  40 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 41 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act ( i.e., a cost-based PMS allegation), the submission must be filed in accordance with the requirements of 19 CFR 351.416(b), and Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a cost-based PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.

We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act ( i.e., a sales-based PMS allegation) must be filed within 10 days of submission of a respondent's initial section B questionnaire response, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.404(c)(2).

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 42 For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 43

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 44 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 45 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letter of appearance). Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 46

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On June 30, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the CVD order on freight rail couplers from China. 1 Commerce received a timely request for review of the CVD order from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers (the petitioner) for certain producers/exporters of subject merchandise. 2

On August 22, 2025, Commerce published the initiation notice in the Federal Register for thirteen companies, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 3 On September 12, 2025, we notified interested parties that information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicated that there were no POR entries of the subject merchandise. 4 On September 19, 2025, the petitioner submitted comments on the lack of entries in the CBP data, stating that there may be entries of subject merchandise that entered as a product other than an entry for consumption (such as entries of subject merchandise that entered mounted to railcars), or under harmonized tariff schedule subheadings listed in the scope of the CVD order. 5 We did not receive any additional comments in this administrative review.

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 6 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. 7 Accordingly, the deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now June 9, 2026.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a CVD order where it concludes that there were there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 8 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the CVD rates calculated for the review period. 9 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 CVD rates for the review period. 10 As noted above, there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise for any companies subject to this review during the POR. 11 Accordingly, in the absence of reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we are hereby rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

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

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

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

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2025. 1

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 On January 8, 2026, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now March 9, 2026. 4

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

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

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 6 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 7 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Therefore, Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the Vietnam- wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 8 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice. 9

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

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) for the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Vietnam producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the Vietnam-wide entity; and (3) for all third-county exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Vietnam producer/exporter combination (or the Vietnam-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. However, in the companion CVD investigation of rebar from Vietnam, Commerce preliminarily found no export subsidies; accordingly, we did not make an export subsidy offset to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins in this preliminary determination. 11 These suspension of liquidating instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 12 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. 13

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. 14 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 15

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, 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. Requests should contain: (1) the 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 the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

All briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS. 16 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 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 exporters 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On March 3, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Hoa Phat Steel requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. 17 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) the preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

The Council formed the Shrimp workgroup to identify workable solutions to reduce interactions of smalltooth sawfish and giant manta rays with the South Atlantic Federal shrimp trawl fishery. The workgroup will review existing data and policies and discuss what information will be needed to develop recommendations.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aid should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES ) 5 days prior to the meeting.

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

Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), a state must revise the management plan for a reserve at least every five years. Major changes to a reserve's management plan may be made only after receiving written approval from NOAA. NOAA approves changes to management plans via notice in the Federal Register . On August 2, 2024, NOAA issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing a 30-day public comment period for the proposed revision of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve management plan (89 FR 63165). On December 2, 2024, NOAA issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing a 30-day public comment period for the proposed revision of the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve management plan (89 FR 95187). Each plan contains a summary of written and oral comments received and an explanation of how comments were incorporated into the final version of the management plan.

The management plan outlines a reserve's strategic goals and objectives; administrative structure; programs for conducting research and monitoring, education, and training; resource protection, restoration, and manipulation plans; public access and visitor use plans; consideration for future land acquisition; and facility development to support reserve operations.

In particular, the revised management plan for the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve focuses on changes to the strategic plan, physical boundaries, and enhanced programmatic alignment across the reserve's sectors. Since the last management plan, the reserve received approval for an expansion of the site's boundary—approved in March 2020— to include the City of St. Augustine's sovereign submerged lands within the Matanzas River and Salt Run, the state's sovereign submerged lands along the Matanzas and Tolomato Rivers that connect the City of St. Augustine's portion to the previous boundary, and the Marshview parcel in the southern portion of the reserve. In addition, the reserve completed several facility-construction projects: the Princess Place Preserve Legacy House and cabins for visiting investigator use, a freshwater wetland boardwalk, a freshwater marsh boardwalk on the Guana River Yellow Trail, and a storage facility (pole barn). The reserve also installed redesigned interpretive displays at the Visitor Center and along several trails within the reserve. This revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve for the next five years.

The revised plan for the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve provides information on new staff positions and new staff hired, describes the reserve's updated position within the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, and reflects an expansion of the site's boundary approved in May 2024. Additionally, the updated plan describes strategic goals and objectives and identifies topic areas where additional planning will be conducted to identify and develop new goals and objectives over the next five years. This revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for the next five years.

NOAA reviewed the environmental impacts of the revised management plans and determined that this action is categorically excluded from further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ).

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

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (collectively referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

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

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

On February 26, 2025, NMFS received a request from the City of Kodiak for two consecutive IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving (installation and removal), down-the hole (DTH) drilling and hydraulic rock hammering associated with the SHHIRP in Kodiak, Alaska. The City of Kodiak has divided the project into two phases and is requesting an IHA for each phase. Following NMFS' review of the application, the City of Kodiak submitted a revised version on January 23, 2026. The application was deemed adequate and complete on February 2, 2026. The City of Kodiak's request is for take of 12 species (15 stocks) of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and, for a subset of 4 species (4 stocks), Level A harassment. Take for these numbers of species and stocks of marine mammals are the same for both proposed IHAs. Neither the City of Kodiak nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from these activities' and, therefore, IHAs are appropriate.

St. Herman Harbor in Kodiak, Alaska, provides essential mooring for both recreational and commercial fishing vessels but much of the harbor's infrastructure is over 40 years old, deteriorating, and difficult to navigate. This has led to a loss of mooring capacity and poses challenges for vessels. To address these issues, the City of Kodiak is proposing the SHHIRP. This project will remove and replace the aging infrastructure and dredge the harbor to restore functionality and improve vessel navigation. The SHHIRP will be completed in two phases over 2 years, from 2026 to 2028. Phase I is currently scheduled to begin November 1, 2026, and continue through October 31, 2027. Phase I construction involves installing a new vessel mooring float and drive-down dock. These additions will provide extra mooring capacity and serve as temporary moorage for vessels displaced during Phase II. Phase II construction would begin after Phase II is complete and is anticipated to take no more than one year to complete. Phase II construction will involve removing and replacing the main harbor infrastructure and will include the removal of 12 existing concrete headwalks, mainwalks, slip floats, and piles. These will be replaced with 14 new floats and associated piles in a more efficient configuration. Phase II will also include dredging approximately 1,900 cubic yards (yd 3 ) (1,453 cubic meters (m 3 )) of sediment and bedrock from the harbor to improve vessel safety. To facilitate removal, hydraulic rock hammering will be used to fracture bedrock at an existing shoal.

Activities that have the potential to cause incidental take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment of marine mammals include vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile driving, DTH drilling, and hydraulic rock hammering to break up bedrock.

The City of Kodiak anticipates the project would occur in two phases over 2 years. The proposed IHAs 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 specified activities could occur any time each year, during daylight hours from 30 minutes before civil dawn to 30 minutes after civil dusk. Phase I will occur over 42 non-consecutive construction days, and Phase II will occur over 227 non-consecutive days.

The City of Kodiak would construct the SHHIRP within St. Herman Harbor, situated on the western shore of Near Island, Kodiak, Alaska. As one of Kodiak's 2 primary boat harbors, the facility provides moorage for more than 328 vessels, ranging from small recreation boats to large commercial fishing vessels. The benthic substrate within the harbor consists of sediment and bedrock, including a prominent bedrock shoal that runs parallel to southern shore of Uski Island along the Federal Navigation Channel.

Regionally, St Herman Harbor is located on Near Island off the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island within the Kodiak Archipelago. Situated in the northwestern Gulf of Alaska, the archipelago is separated from the Alaska mainland by the Shelikof Strait. This subarctic marine environment is characterized by high primary productivity, complex insular geography, and post glacial isolation. The harbor serves as a primary regional hub for the Kodiak commercial fishing fleet, which targets Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ), various groundfish species (including walleye pollock and Pacific cod), king crab ( Paralithodes camtschaticus ), and Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasii ).

For Phase I of the SHHIRP, in-water work will include the installation of the slip float and drive down dock. First, 20 24-inch steel pipe temporary piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer, but 12 of these temporary piles could be installed by impact driving or DTH drilling. All temporary piles would be removed with a vibratory hammer after permanent pile installation. With the temporary piles as guides, 6 24-inch steel pipe piles and 52 30-inch permanent steel pipe piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer and then driven to tip elevation with an impact hammer. After piles reach tip elevation, a DTH drill would be inserted into each permanent pile, drilled into the bedrock, and then the shaft would be filled with concrete (table 1). Phase I would occur over 42 non-consecutive days from November 1, 2026, through October 31, 2027.

For Phase II of the SHHIRP, 12 existing slip floats, consisting of 656 steel pipe piles between 12 and 20 inches in diameter, would be removed. These piles would primarily be extracted by direct pull methods but may be extracted with vibratory methods when direct pull methods are not practicable. For purposes of the IHA, the City of Kodiak and NMFS assume all piles would be removed via vibratory hammer.

New structures for Phase II include 14 new slip floats and the associated support piles. Initially, 80 24-inch steel pipe temporary piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer which would be used to guide permanent piles into place. The permanent support piles consist of 41 16-inch steel pipe piles, 78 18-inch steel pipe piles, 22 20-inch steel pipe piles, and 120 24-inch steel pipe piles. All permanent and the 48 24-inch steel pipe temporary piles would be installed with vibratory hammering, impact hammering, and DTH drilling methods similar to Phase I (table 2). Multiple pile driving methods during Phase I or Phase II of the SHHIRP could occur on the same day but would not occur simultaneously.

Phase II of the SHHIRP would also include dredging of approximately 1,900 yd 3 (1,453 m 3 ) of sediment and bedrock. Bedrock will be removed by breaking up rock with a hydraulic hammer ( i.e., hoe ram or breaker). Dredging is not expected to cause take of marine mammals because dredging activities would not last for sufficient duration to present the reasonable potential for disruption of behavioral patterns, do not produce sound with characteristics likely to result in marine mammal harassment, or some combination of the above, and are thus not addressed further. However, incidental take could occur from the hydraulic hammering methods proposed to be used for breaking up bedrock because the underwater sound generated could reach levels and durations that may result in behavioral harassment and auditory injury. All dredged material would be loaded on a barge and disposed of in a quarry on Near Island. Phase II would occur over 227 non-consecutive days after Phase I is complete. Due to current funding restraints, the exact timing of Phase II is currently unknown.

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

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

Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 3 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 12 species (with 15 managed stocks) in table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed action area are included in table 3 of the IHA application. While North Pacific right whales, goose-beaked whales, and sperm whales have been reported in waters off Kodiak Island, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. North Pacific right whales goose-beaked whales, and sperm whales prefer deep, pelagic waters and are all considered to be rare (no sightings in recent years) within the project area. Take of these species has not been requested nor proposed to be authorized and these species are not considered further in this document.

In addition, the northern sea otter may be found in Kodiak, AK. However, northern sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

Gray whales are found most regularly throughout the North Pacific Ocean in shallow coastal waters, occasionally crossing deep waters during migration (NOAA Fisheries, 2023). Two distinct population segments (DPS) of gray whale occur in the north Pacific: the Eastern North Pacific DPS (delisted) and the Western North Pacific DPS (Endangered). The Eastern North Pacific DPS is more likely to occur near Kodiak Archipelago.

Some scientific and opportunistic data exists on gray whale presence near the project area. During aerial surveys in waters surrounding Kodiak Island conducted between 1999 and 2005 for Sea Grant Gulf Apex Predator-Prey Project, gray whales were primarily observed near Ugak Bay, approximately 79 (km) (49 mi) south of the project area (Sea Grant Alaska, 2012). Smaller numbers of gray whales were also observed approximately 8 km (5 mi) to the southeast of the project site, in Chiniak Bay (Sea Grant Alaska, 2012). During a ferry terminal reconstruction and dock improvement project completed in Kodiak Harbor, approximately 1.5 km (1 m) north of the site, monitors observed marine mammals during construction activities on 110 days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016 (ABR, Inc., 2016). No gray whales were observed during that time.

Wild et al., (2023) identified a Gray Whale Migratory Route Biologically Important Area (BIA) that intersects with a small portion of the project area during the months of January, March, April, May, November and December, with an importance score of 1 (the lowest of three possible scores (1, 2, or 3), reflecting an intensity score of 2 (indicating an area of moderate comparative significance) and a data support score of 1 (lower relative confidence in the available supporting data). Wild et al., (2023) also identified the waters to the southeast of Kodiak Island as a BIA for gray whales for feeding during June through August, April and May, and September and October. However, this feeding BIA does not intersect with the project area.

Gray whales are typically solitary or travel in small groups (Frost and Karpovich, 2008) and are considered rare in the project area. While the shallow waters of St. Herman Harbor do not represent preferred habitat for large whales, given confirmed gray whale sightings in Chiniak Bay, and that the project area overlaps with a small portion of the migratory BIA for this species, gray whales could occur within the project area.

Fin whales from the Northeast Pacific stock (ESA-Endangered) are known to occur within the waters surrounding Kodiak Island. During vessel transect surveys conducted along Western Alaska and the central Aleutian Islands between 2001 and 2003, fin whales were observed throughout a broad range, from the Kenai Peninsula to the Shumagin Islands. Notably, high concentrations were found in the coastal waters surrounding Kodiak Island (Zerbini et al., 2006). This finding is corroborated by aerial surveys conducted from 1999 to 2005, which also indicate that some of the highest regional concentrations of fin whales occur in the Chiniak Trough South of Afognak Island and north of Kodiak Island in the Shelikof Strait (Sea Grant Alaska, 2012). These areas have deeper bathymetry than the project area and provide fin whales with direct access to open waters they typically inhabit.

Wild et al. (2023) identified the waters around Kodiak Island (including the proposed project area) as a BIA for fin whales for feeding during the months of June through September, with an importance score of 1 (the lowest of three possible scores (1, 2, or 3), reflecting an intensity score of 1 (indicating an area of lower comparative significance) and a data support score of 2 (moderate relative confidence in the available supporting data).

Fin whales occur year-round near Kodiak Island, with peak sightings in spring and summer (Wynne and Witteveen, 2005). While the shallow-water characteristics of the project area are not consistent with fin whales' preferred habitat, they have recently been documented northwest of the action area in Marmot Bay (Happywhale, 2025). Additionally, fin whales are known to occur in coastal regions within the broader Gulf of Alaska, and a small portion of the feeding BIA overlaps with the project area. Therefore, fin whales have the potential to enter ensonified areas during construction for the SHHIRP.

Humpback whales are one of the most common marine mammal species in the Gulf of Alaska. In the project area, the Hawaii stock is the most predominant and accounts for approximately 89 percent of humpbacks occurring in the Gulf of Alaska. The Mexico-North Pacific stock is expected to represent approximately 11 percent, while the Western North Pacific stock represents less than 1 percent of humpbacks observed within the project areas (Wade, 2021).

Wild et al. (2023) identified the waters around and to the East of Kodiak Island (including the proposed project area) as a BIA for humpback whales for feeding during the months of May through September, with an importance score of 1 (the lowest of three possible scores (1, 2, or 3), reflecting an intensity score of 2 (indicating an area of moderate comparative significance) and a data support score of 1 (lower relative confidence in the available supporting data).

Humpback whales are common in the project area year-round with peaks during the spring and fall. They often feed in shallower waters closer to the coastline and have been documented in shallow coastal waters near Kodiak Island on some years (Baraff 2006; ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). For example, during construction for the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project from November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016, one humpback whale was documented in the area in Kodiak, AK (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). Therefore, humpback whales have the potential to enter ensonified areas during project construction.

Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar, temperate, and tropical waters. The International Whaling Commission has identified three minke whale stocks in the North Pacific: one near the Sea of Japan, a second in the rest of the western Pacific (west of 180° W), and a third, less concentrated stock throughout the eastern Pacific. NMFS further splits this third stock between Alaska whales and resident whales of California, Oregon, and Washington (Muto et al., 2018). Minke whales are found in all Alaska waters; however, no population estimates are currently available for the Alaska stock.

Minke whale sightings are rare in the Gulf of Alaska, including near Kodiak. During the Gulf of Alaska Line-Transect Survey (GOALS) II, so few individuals were sighted in the central Gulf of Alaska that no abundance estimates could be computed (Rone et al., 2017). Across 110 monitoring days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016, no minke whales were observed during the ferry terminal reconstruction and dock improvement project in Kodiak Harbor (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). However, a few observations of minke whales were recorded in nearshore waters near Kodiak Island during line transect surveys conducted in central Alaska coastal waters (Zerbini et al., 2006). They are often observed in groups of two or three (Guerrero, 2008).

Killer whales have been observed in all oceans, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at high latitudes. Killer whales occur along the entire coast of Alaska (Braham and Dahlheim, 1982), inland waterways of British Columbia and Washington (Bigg et al., 1990), and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Green et al., 1992; Barlow, 1995, 1997; Forney et al., 1995). Resident killer whales in the eastern North Pacific primarily feed on salmonids, and show distinct preference for Chinook salmon, whereas transient killer whales primarily hunt and feed on marine mammals, including harbor seals, Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoises, and sea lions (Muto et al., 2020). Eight stocks of killer whales are recognized within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Muto et al., 2020).

The fish-eating Alaska resident stock of killer whale most commonly occurs in nearshore waters near the project area throughout the year. However, transient killer whales are also known to frequent the Kodiak Harbor area to hunt Steller sea lions during the months of February through May (UAF, 2015). During the Kodiak Ferry Terminal Improvements project, four pods of killer whales were observed in groups ranging from three to seven individuals across 110 days of monitoring between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016 (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). Therefore, it is expected that killer whales may occur in the project area during the proposed activities.

The Pacific white-sided dolphin is found in temperate waters of the North Pacific from the southern Gulf of California to Alaska. Across the North Pacific, it appears to occur between 33° N and 47° N (Young et al., 2023; Waite and Shelden, 2018). In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the Pacific white-sided dolphin is one of the most common cetacean species, occurring primarily in shelf and slope waters (Green et al., 1993; Barlow 2003, 2010). During winter, this species is most abundant in California slope and offshore areas; as northern waters begin to warm in the spring, it appears to move north to slope and offshore waters off Oregon/Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Forney et al., 1995; Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow, 2003). White-sided are highly gregarious and typically observed in groups from 10 to 100 individuals but groups can range into the thousands (Clark, 2008b; NMFS, 2022).

In the Gulf of Alaska, specifically within the project area, only the North Pacific stock is expected to occur during construction. In 2015, NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in collaboration with NOAA Fisheries Alaska Fisheries Science Center, undertook a robust whale survey along the U.S. and Canadian Pacific coast (Weller, 2021). During the SWFSC survey several Pacific white-sided dolphins were sighted south of the project area between Chiniak and Sitkalidak Island (Weller, 2021). Across 110 monitoring days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016, no Pacific white-sided dolphins were observed during the ferry terminal reconstruction and dock improvement project in Kodiak Harbor (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). Given their preference for deeper, pelagic waters, Pacific white-sided dolphins have the potential to occur near St. Herman Harbor, which is situated close to the edge of the continental shelf.

Dall's porpoise is found in temperate to subarctic waters of the North Pacific and adjacent seas (Jefferson et al., 2015). It is widely distributed across the North Pacific over the continental shelf and slope waters, and over deep (greater than 2,500 m) oceanic waters (Friday et al., 2012; Friday et al., 2013). It is probably the most abundant small cetacean in the North Pacific Ocean, and its abundance changes seasonally, likely in relation to water temperature (Becker, 2007).

During three surveys from 2009 through 2015, Dall's porpoises were one of the most frequently observed marine mammal species in the Gulf of Alaska including inshore and continental shelf waters (Rone et al., 2017). Similarly, in a survey conducted in 2012, one group of three Dall's porpoises were documented in 66 meters along the continental slope of Kodiak Island (Suzuki et al., 2016). For the 110 days of monitoring from November 10, 2015, through June 16, 2016, no Dall's porpoises were observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal Improvements Project (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). Since Dall's Porpoises are known to occur near Kodiak Island, they may occur in the project area during the proposed activities for the SHHIRP.

There are six harbor porpoise stocks in Alaska: the Bering Sea stock occurs throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass; the Gulf of Alaska stock occurs from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass; the Northern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters stock includes Cross Sound, Glacier Bay, Icy Strait, Chatham Strait, Frederick Sound, Stephens Passage, Lynn Canal, and adjacent inlets; the Southern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters stock encompasses Sumner Strait, including areas around Wrangell and Zarembo Islands, Clarence Strait, and adjacent inlets and channels within the inland waters of Southeast Alaska north-northeast of Dixon Entrance; and the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock includes offshore habitats in the Gulf of Alaska west of the Southeast Alaska inland waters and the areas around Yakutat Bay (Young et al., 2023). Only harbor porpoise from the Gulf of Alaska stock is expected to be encountered in the project area.

During the 1992 National Marine Mammal Laboratory's Harbor Porpoise Aerial Survey conducted around Kodiak Island, dozens of harbor porpoises were spotted, with one documentation occurring within the action area (Dahlheim et al., 2000). Group sizes reported during the same survey averaged 1.41 individuals (Dahlheim et al., 2000). A total of six harbor porpoise were documented across 110 monitoring days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016, during the ferry terminal reconstruction and dock improvement project in Kodiak Harbor (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). The largest group size was two. Considering that harbor porpoises are known to occur around Kodiak Island and were observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal Improvements Project, they may occur in the project area during construction for the SHHIRP.

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

Northern elephant seals are uncommon in project area and are rarely seen as far north as Kodiak Island. However, the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak indicated that a northern elephant seal was observed near the project area for about 10 days in 2023.

Northern fur seals occur from southern California north to the Bering Sea and west to the Sea of Okhotsk and Honshu Island, Japan. During the summer breeding season, most of the worldwide population is found on the Pribilof Islands (St. Paul Island and St. George Island) in the southern Bering Sea, with the remaining animals on rookeries in Russia, on Bogoslof Island in the southern Bering Sea, on San Miguel Island off southern California, and on the Farallon Islands off central California (Muto et al., 2022). Northern fur seals feed on a variety of prey including squid, walleye pollock ( Gadus chalcogrammus ), Pacific hearing ( Clupea pallasii ), and capelin ( Mallotus villosus ) (Gomez et al., 2015). Breeding and important haulouts areas are not expected to spatially overlap with the project area.

Northern fur seals inhabit deep pelagic waters for most of their lives. The closest documented occurrence occurred approximately 60 miles west of the project area (Hobbs, 2004). Across 110 monitoring days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016, no northern fur seals were observed during the ferry terminal reconstruction and dock improvement project in Kodiak Harbor (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016).

The Steller sea lion's range extends across the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California with areas of abundance in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2020). In 1997, based on demographic and genetic dissimilarities, NMFS identified two DPSs of Steller sea lions under the ESA: a western DPS (western stock) and an eastern DPS (eastern stock). The western DPS breeds on rookeries located west of 144° W in Alaska and Russia, whereas the eastern DPS breeds on rookeries in southeast Alaska through California. Steller sea lions in the project area are anticipated to be part of the western DPS (western stock; Hastings et al., 2020).

Steller sea lions do not follow traditional migration patterns but will move from offshore rookeries in the summer to more protected haulouts closer to shore in the winter. They use rookeries and haulouts as resting spots as they follow prey movements and take foraging trips for days, usually within a few miles of their rookery or haulout. They are generalist marine predators and opportunistic feeders based on seasonal abundance and location of prey. Steller sea lions forage in nearshore as well as offshore areas, following prey resources.

Steller sea lion critical habitat in western Alaska includes a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haulouts and rookeries as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas. The project area would overlap with the aquatic zone of Steller sea lion haulouts designated as critical habitat.

During aerial surveys in 2007 and 2008, Steller sea lions were regularly documented on haulouts around Kodiak Island, AK (Sea Grant Alaska, 2012). Similarly, during the Kodiak Island Ferry Terminal Improvements Project, 5,111 observations of individual Steller sea lions occurred across 110 monitoring days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016 (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). Steller sea lions were most commonly observed hauled out on the Dog Bay Float, and the number of individuals hauled out ranged between 20 to over 100 individuals when counts occurred bi-weekly. Due to the presence of Steller sea lions on the Dog Bay Float and the close proximity of the SHHIRP to this float (200 m for Phase I and 300 m for Phase II), Steller sea lions are expected to occur in the project area on a daily basis throughout project activities.

Sightings of Steller sea lions in St. Herman Harbor are common, and animals have been observed hauled out on the Dog Bay Float all months except June and July. The Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak conducted single day counts of Steller sea lions hauled out at the Dog Bay Float once per month during March, May, June, and September 2023; January, April, May, and October 2024; and March, May, July, and September 2025 (Van Daele, pers. comm., 2025). The maximum number of Steller sea lions observed in one day was 226 in May 2025, the minimum was 0 in June 2023 and July 2025. Throughout these float counts, individual Steller sea lions with brands or scars were re-sighted multiple times, suggesting that animals that use the float consists of a resident group of approximately 300 animals. Therefore, this resident group of Steller sea lions is expected to occur in the project area daily during construction for the SHHIRP.

Harbor seals are common in the coastal and inside waters of the project area. Harbor seals in Alaska are typically non-migratory with local movements attributed to factors such as prey availability, weather, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp, 1944; Fisher, 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981; Hastings et al., 2004). Harbor seals haul out of the water periodically to rest, give birth, and nurse their pups. There are 12 stocks of harbor seals in Alaska but only the South Kodiak stock is expected to occur in the project area.

Limited data exists for harbor seal in the project area, but animals have been documented during marine mammal monitoring for other coastal construction projects between the months of November and June (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016; Pacific Seafood, 2025). During Construction for the Kodiak Ferry Terminal Improvements Project, 13 harbor seals were observed over 110 monitoring days between November 10, 2015, and June 16, 2016 (ABR, Inc. et al., 2016). Considering that harbor seals are known to occur around Kodiak Island and were observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal Improvements Project, they may occur in the project area during construction for the SHHIRP.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the ~65 decibel (dB) threshold from composite audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019). We note that the names of two hearing groups and the generalized hearing ranges of all marine mammal hearing groups have been recently updated (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in table 4.

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

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section and the Proposed Mitigation section 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.

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

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

In-water construction associated with the proposed project would include vibratory and impact pile driving, DTH drilling, vibratory pile removal, and hydraulic rock hammering. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive (defined below). 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). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.

Impulsive sound sources ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are brief (typically considered to be less than 1 second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1998; International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2003; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Impulsive sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.

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).

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

A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate ( i.e., it is similar to a “hammer drill” hand tool). The sounds produced by DTH systems contain both a continuous, non-impulsive component from the drilling action and an impulsive component from the hammering effect. Therefore, NMFS treats DTH systems as both impulsive (for estimating Level A harassment zones) and non-impulsive (for estimating Level B harassment zones) sound source types simultaneously.

Hydraulic rock hammers ( i.e., hoe rams) are impact devices that would be used to break up bedrock prior dredging. Hydraulic rock hammers operate by using rock hammer operates by using a chisel-like hammer to rapidly strike an exposed surface to break it up into smaller pieces that will be removed by a clamshell dredge or bucket excavator, as appropriate. Few data exist regarding the underwater sounds produced by rock hammers. Data reported by Escude (2012), however, suggest that the sounds produced by hoe rams are comparable to impact hammers. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that hydraulic rock hammers act as an impulsive source characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels.

The likely or possible impacts of the City of Kodiak's proposed activities on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal, DTH drilling, and hydraulic rock hammering is the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the City of Kodiak's specified activities. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life from none or minor to potentially severe responses depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources, such as those in the projects, can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Götz et al., 2009).

We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of pile driving hammers (impact, vibratory, and DTH) are reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions ( e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015). The Project activities considered here do not involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency tactical sonar that are associated with these types of effects.

In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Exposure to anthropogenic noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). It can also lead to non-observable physiological responses, such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions, such as communication and predator and prey detection.

The degree of effect of an acoustic exposure on marine mammals is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), signal characteristics, the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the noise source and the animal, received levels, behavioral state at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). In general, sudden, high-intensity sounds can cause hearing loss as can longer exposures to lower-intensity sounds. Moreover, any temporary or permanent loss of hearing, if it occurs at all, will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range. We describe below the specific manifestations of acoustic effects that may occur based on the activities proposed by the City of Kodiak.

Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of effect that might be expected to occur in relation to distance from a source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing range. First (at the greatest distance) is the area within which the acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone (closer to the receiving animal) corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological responsiveness. The third is a zone within which, for signals of high intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking ( i.e., when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.

Below, we provide additional detail regarding potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat from noise in general, starting with hearing impairment, as well as from the specific activities the City of Kodiak plans to conduct, to the degree it is available.

Auditory Injury (AUD INJ) —NMFS defines auditory injury as “damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue . . . which may or may not result in permanent threshold shift (PTS)” (NMFS, 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS). NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level ANSI, 1995; Yost, 2007). A variety of terrestrial and marine mammal studies ( e.g., 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. Therefore, an exposure producing an initial threshold shift of 40 dB is considered the minimum upper limit for a reversible threshold shift and any additional exposure could result in some PTS. Thus, NMFS has set the PTS onset as a 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 TTS. PTS indicates that there is not full recovery back to baseline hearing levels, but it does not mean that there is no recovery. Rather PTS indicates that there is incomplete recovery. Recovery is dependent on the initial threshold shift amount, the frequency where the shift occurred, temporal pattern of exposure ( e.g., exposure duration; continuous vs. intermittent or interrupted exposure), and physiological mechanisms associated with the shift ( e.g., mechanical vs. metabolic, recovery processes within cochlea). Since recovery is complicated, our current AUD INJ onset criteria do not account for the potential for recovery.

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) —TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (Southall et al., 2007, 2019), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum TS clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al, 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

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

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 2013). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ) and California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) (Kastak et al., 1999, 2007; Kastelein et al., 2019b, 2019c, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Reichmuth et al., 2019; Sills et al., 2020). These studies examined hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense or long-duration sound exposures. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of TS at various post-exposure times.

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

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dBs above that inducing mild TTS ( e.g., a 40-dB TS approximates PTS onset (Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974)), while a 6-dB TS approximates TTS onset (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS SELcum thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS SELcum thresholds (Southall et al., 2007, 2019).

Construction at SHHIRP would require a combination impact and vibratory pile driving and removal, DTH drilling, and hydraulic rock hammering. Construction for each phase of the SHHIRP would be independent both spatially and temporally. Only one method of pile installation, pile removal or hydraulic rock hammering would occur at a time, although multiple methods may be used in the same day. Proposed construction activities for each phase are not expected to be constant and pauses in the activities producing sound are likely to occur each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the project areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines. For Steller sea lions, animals are expected to remain in project area, particularly around the Dog Bay float. Animals swimming with heads underwater would be exposed to pile driving noise throughout a day on multiple days, increasing risk of TS. However, we also expect these individuals to remain out of the water on the float for extended durations which reduces risk of TS.

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

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within exposures of an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2021), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. For a review of the studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound, see Southall et al., 2007; Gomez et al., 2016; and Southall et al., 2021 reviews.

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

Airborne Acoustic Effects —Pinnipeds that occur near the project sites could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile installation, pile removal, or DTH drilling that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from the 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 or hauled out near the project sites within the range of noise levels elevated above the airborne acoustic harassment criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when swimming 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 previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

Stress Response —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, 2005), however distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar construction projects around Kodiak Island.

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; Erbe et al., 2016). 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., 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.

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

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior ( e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested directly in captive species ( e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild ( e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).

Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals ( e.g., from vessel traffic), contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking. The SHHIRP project is located in an area with commercial and recreational fishing, recreational boating, ferry operations, and includes routine vessel traffic; therefore, background sound levels are generally already elevated.

Proposed construction for Phase I and II of the SHHIRP could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see Auditory Masking) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During DTH drilling, impact and vibratory pile driving, and hydraulic rock hammering elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project area where both fish and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during construction; 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.

Water Quality —In-water DTH Drilling, pile driving, pile removal, rock hammering, and dredging activities would also cause short-term effects on water quality due to increased turbidity. Temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area surrounding where piles are installed or removed and where rock hammering or dredging will occur, due to benthic sediment disturbance. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25 ft (7.6 m) radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). The suspended solids from disturbed sediment at project sites would settle out of the water column within a few hours. Studies of the effects of turbid water on fish (marine mammal prey) suggest that concentrations of suspended sediment can reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton, 1993).

Effects from turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be short-term, minor, and localized. Suspended solids in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area. However, suspended sediment associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area likely impacted by the proposed construction activities is relatively small compared to the total available marine mammal habitat as well as the critical habitat and the BIAs around Kodiak, AK. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.

In-water Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat —The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals and no increases in vessel traffic are expected in either location as a result of the specified activities. The areas likely impacted by the proposed actions are relatively small compared to the total available habitat in the Gulf of Alaska and the water surrounding Kodiak Island. The proposed project areas are highly influenced by anthropogenic activities and provide limited foraging habitat for marine mammals. The total seafloor area affected by piling activities is small compared to the vast foraging areas available to marine mammals surrounding proposed construction sites. At best, the area impacted provide marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes. Furthermore, pile driving, pile removal and hydraulic rock hammering would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

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

Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation ( e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish, several of which are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Many 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., Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Paxton et al., 2017). In response to pile driving, Pacific sardines ( Sardinops sagax ) and northern anchovies ( Engraulis mordax ) may exhibit an immediate startle response to individual strikes but return to “normal” pre-strike behavior following the conclusion of pile driving with no evidence of injury as a result (see NAVFAC, 2014). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Wardle et al., 2001; Popper et al., 2005; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Peña et al., 2013).

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 is likely restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012b) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long. Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Casper et al., 2013) and the greatest potential effect on fish during the proposed project would occur during impact pile driving, if it is required. However, the duration of impact pile driving would be limited to a contingency in the event that vibratory driving does not satisfactorily install the pile depending on observed soil resistance. In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours allowing fish to forage and transit the project area at night. Vibratory pile driving may elicit behavioral reactions from fish such as temporary avoidance of the area but is unlikely to cause injuries to fish or have persistent effects on local fish populations. In addition, it should be noted that the area in question is low-quality habitat since it is already developed and experiences anthropogenic noise from routine vessel traffic.

The most likely impact to fishes from pile driving, pile removal, DTH drilling, and hydraulic rock hammering in the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of the area after pile driving stops is unknown but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. There are times of known seasonal marine mammal foraging when fish are aggregating but the impacted areas are small portions of the total foraging habitats available in the regions. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary. Further, it is anticipated that preparation activities for pile driving and DTH drilling ( i.e., positioning of the hammer) and upon initial startup of devices would cause fish to move away from the affected area where injuries may occur. Therefore, relatively small portions of the proposed project areas would be affected for short periods of time, and the potential for effects on fish to occur would be temporary and limited to the duration of sound‐generating activities.

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, also have the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project area. Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasii ) is a primary prey species of Steller sea lions, humpback whales, and many other marine mammal species that occur in the project areas. As discussed earlier, increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (approximately 25 ft (7.6 m) or less) of construction activities (Everitt et al., 1980). However, suspended solids are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates any effects on forage fish are expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best management practices would be in effect to limit the extent of turbidity to the immediate project areas. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not expected to be different from the current exposure; fish and marine mammals in the regions are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from glacial sources.

In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with pile driving, DTH drilling, and hydraulic rock hammering and the relatively small areas being affected by these activities associated with the proposed actions are not likely to have a permanent adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.

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

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

Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources ( i.e., impact, and vibratory pile driving; DTH drilling; vibratory pile removal; and hydraulic rock hammering) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and Steller sea lion because predicted AUD INJ zones are larger than for other species and those four species are more commonly seen within the area. AUD INJ is unlikely to occur for gray whale, minke whale, fin whale, humpback whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, killer whale, northern fur seal, and northern elephant seal. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

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

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Criteria for AUD INJ, and hearing group categories are available in NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance (NMFS 2024) and are reflected below in the Level A harassment section.

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

The City of Kodiak's proposed activities includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving/removal and DTH drilling) and intermittent (impact pile driving, DTH drilling, and hydraulic rock hammering) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa, respectively, are applicable.

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

The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss (TL) coefficient.

The sound field in the proposed project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of Phase I and II of the SHHIRP activities ( i.e., pile installation, pile removal, DTH drilling and hydraulic rock hammering).

The source levels assumed for pile installation, pile removal, and rock hammering activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles and rock hammering activities from similar coastal construction projects. We note that the City of Kodiak proposed a source level of 155 dB RMS SPL for the vibratory installation of 16- to 18-inch steel piles during Phase II of the SHHIRP Project, citing Denes et al. (2016). However, NMFS has determined that use of this proxy source level in this location is not appropriate; the substrate in Kake, AK, where the data in Denes et al. (2016) were collected is primarily mud, and source levels recorded at that location are consistently lower than those measured elsewhere in Alaska (Navy 2012, 2013; Minor 2020). Consequently, NMFS applied a more appropriate source level of 163 dB RMS SPL to 16- and 18-in piles. These source levels were derived from recordings in Bangor, Washington, and Gustavus, Alaska, where pile sizes and substrate are similar to the project area.