Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81879 

13See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD 

Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension 

of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 

14See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

of its requirements for serving 

documents containing business 

proprietary information until further 

notice.13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this investigation are encouraged to 

submit with each argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. 

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 the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, whether any 

participant is a foreign national, and a 

list of the issues to be discussed. If a 

request for a hearing is made, Commerce 

intends to hold the hearing at a date and 

time to be determined. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

An electronically-filed document 

must be received successfully in its 

entirety via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS) by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the 

established deadline. 

Final Results 

Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written briefs, not 

later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, unless 

otherwise extended.14

Assessment 

If Commerce proceeds to a final 

rescission of this administrative review, 

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 

any suspended entries for the 18 

companies listed in Appendix I at the 

rate in effect at the time of entry. We 

intend to issue liquidation instructions 

to CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review. If Commerce 

proceeds to a final deferral with respect 

to Cimtas’s suspended entries during 

the POR, they will remain suspended 

until parties have an opportunity to 

request a review of the antidumping 

duty order of welded line pipe from 

Turkey for the period December 1, 2019, 

through November 30, 2020. If 

Commerce does not receive a timely 

request to review Cimtas for the period 

December 1, 2019, through November 

30, 2020, Commerce will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on and 

liquidate Cimtas’ suspended entries 

during the POR at the cash deposit rate 

in effect at the time of entry. If 

Commerce receives a timely request to 

review Cimtas for the period December 

1, 2019, through November 30, 2020, 

Cimtas’s suspended entries during the 

POR will remain suspended until the 

completion of the review and will be 

liquidated based on the final results for 

Cimtas. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

If Commerce proceeds to a final 

rescission, in part, and final deferral, in 

part, of this administrative review, no 

cash deposit rates will change. 

Accordingly, the current cash deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

importers of their responsibility under 

19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in 

Commerce’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(d). 

Dated: December 11, 2020. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

Appendix 

Borusan Istikbal Ticaret 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. 

Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

Emek Boru Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

Erbosan Erciyas Tube Industry and Trade Co. 

Inc. 

Erciyas Celik Boru Sanayii A.S. 

Guven Celik Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. 

Has Altinyagmur celik Boru Sanayii ve 

Ticaret Ltd. Sti. 

HDM Steel Pipe Industry & Trade Co. Ltd. 

Metalteks Celik Urunleri Sanayii 

MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim Sanayii ve 

Ticaret A.S. 

Noksel Steel Pipe Co. Inc. 

Ozbal Celik Boru 

Toscelik Profile and Sheet Industry, Co. 

Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. 

Umran Celik Boru Sanayii 

YMS Pipe & Metal Sanayii A.S. 

Yucel Boru Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27791 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA716] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys Off of 

Coastal Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Issuance of a modified 

incidental harassment authorization; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued a modified 

incidental harassment authorization 

(IHA) to Dominion Energy Virginia 

(Dominion) to incidentally harass 

marine mammals incidental to marine 

site characterization surveys conducted 

in the areas of the Commercial Lease of 

Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) Offshore Virginia (Lease No. 

OCS–A–0483) as well as in coastal 

waters where an export cable corridor 

will be established in support of the 

Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind 

81880 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

Commercial (CVOW Commercial) 

Project. 

DATES: This modified IHA is valid from 

the date of issuance through August 27, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the original 

application and supporting documents 

(including NMFS Federal Register 

notices of the original proposed and 

final authorizations, and the previous 

IHA), as well as a list of the references 

cited in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

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 such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

History of Request 

On February 7, 2020, NMFS received 

a request from Dominion for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

marine site characterization surveys in 

the areas of the Commercial Lease of 

Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the OCS Offshore 

Virginia (Lease No. OCS–A–0483) as 

well as in coastal waters where an 

export cable corridor will be established 

in support of the offshore wind project. 

Dominion’s planned marine site 

characterization surveys include highresolution geophysical (HRG) and 

geotechnical survey activities. 

Geophysical and shallow geotechnical 

survey activities are anticipated to be 

supported by up to four vessels. The 

vessels will transit a combined 

estimated total of 121.54 kilometers 

(km) of survey lines per day. 

Dominion’s request was for incidental 

take of small numbers of nine marine 

mammal species by Level B harassment 

only. The application was deemed 

adequate and complete on May 12, 

2020. We published a notice of 

proposed IHA and request for comments 

in the Federal Register on June 17, 2020 

(85 FR 36562). We subsequently 

published the final notice of our 

issuance of the IHA in the Federal 

Register on September 8, 2020 (85 FR 

55415), with effective dates from August 

28, 2020, to August 27, 2021. The 

specified activities were expected to 

result in the take by Level B harassment 

of 9 species (10 stocks) of marine 

mammals including bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), pilot whale 

(Globicephala spp.), common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis), Atlantic white 

sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella 

frontalis), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), 

and gray seal (Halichoerus grypus). 

On September 29, 2020, NMFS 

received a request from Dominion for a 

modification to the IHA that was issued 

on August 28, 2020 (85 FR 55415; 

September 8, 2020). Since the issuance 

of the initial IHA, Dominion has been 

recording large pods of Atlantic spotted 

dolphin within the Level B harassment 

zone such that they were approaching 

the authorized take limit for this 

species. Dominion determined that 

without an increase in authorized take 

of spotted dolphins they would be 

forced to repeatedly shut down 

whenever animals entered into specified 

Level B harassment zones. This would 

likely prolong the duration of survey 

and add increased costs to the project. 

Therefore, Dominion requested a 

modification of the IHA to increase 

authorized take of spotted dolphin by 

Level B harassment. NMFS published 

the notice of the proposed IHA 

modification in the Federal Register on 

November 12, 2020 (85 FR 71881). The 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures remain the same as prescribed 

in the initial IHA and no additional take 

is authorized for species other than 

spotted dolphin. Moreover, the IHA 

would still expire on August 27, 2021. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

and Anticipated Impacts 

The modified IHA includes the same 

HRG and geotechnical surveys in the 

same locations that were described in 

the initial IHA. The mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures 

remain the same as prescribed in the 

initial IHA. NMFS refers the reader to 

the documents related to the initial IHA 

issued on August 28, 2020, for more 

detailed description of the project 

activities. These previous documents 

include the notice of proposed IHA and 

request for comments (85 FR 36562; 

June 17, 2020), notice of our issuance of 

the initial IHA in the Federal Register 

(85 FR 55415; September 8, 2020), and 

notice of proposed IHA modification in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 71881; 

November 12, 2020). 

Detailed Description of the Action 

A detailed description of the survey 

activities is found in these previous 

documents. The location, timing, and 

nature of the activities, including the 

types of HRG equipment planned for 

use, daily trackline distances and 

number of survey vessels (four) are 

identical to those described in the 

previous notices. 

Public Comments 

A notice of proposed IHA 

modification was published in the 

Federal Register on November 12, 2020 

(85 FR 71881). During the 15-day public 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Southern 

Environmental Law Center (SELC), 

which submitted comments on behalf of 

the Conservation Law Foundation, 

Defenders of Wildlife, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation, Sierra Club 

Virginia Chapter, Assateague Coastal 

Trust, Inland Ocean Coalition, the 

International Marine Mammal Project of 

Earth Island Institute, and 

NY4WHALES. NMFS has posted the 

comments online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. A summary of the 

comments as well as NMFS’ responses 

are below. 

Comment 1: SELC indicated that 

NMFS’s interpretation of small numbers 

is contrary to the purpose of the MMPA 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81881 

and that the agency failed to consider 

the unique conservation status of 

individual populations. Instead of 

applying a 30% ceiling for all species, 

SELC recommended that NMFS revisit 

its small numbers interpretation to 

consider whether the specific take 

percentage for Atlantic spotted dolphin 

will ensure that population levels are 

maintained at or restored to healthy 

population numbers. 

Response: SELC’s suggestion would 

import biological considerations into 

the term ‘‘small numbers,’’ which NMFS 

has determined are more properly 

considered in a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

evaluation. Note that MMPA does not 

define ‘‘small numbers.’’ NMFS’s and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

1989 implementing regulations defined 

small numbers as a portion of a marine 

mammal species or stock whose taking 

would have a negligible impact on that 

species or stock. This definition was 

invalidated in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Evans, 279 

F.Supp.2d 1129 (2003) (N.D. Cal. 2003), 

based on the court’s determination that 

the regulatory definition of small 

numbers was improperly conflated with 

the regulatory definition of ‘‘negligible 

impact,’’ which rendered the small 

numbers standard superfluous. As the 

court observed, ‘‘the plain language 

indicates that small numbers is a 

separate requirement from negligible 

impact.’’ Since that time, NMFS has not 

applied the definition found in its 

regulations. Rather, consistent with 

Congress’ pronouncement that small 

numbers is not a concept that can be 

expressed in absolute terms (House 

Committee on Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Report No. 97–228 (September 

16, 1981)), NMFS makes its small 

numbers findings based on an analysis 

of whether the number of individuals 

authorized to be taken annually from a 

specified activity is small relative to the 

stock or population size. The Ninth 

Circuit has upheld a similar approach. 

See Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Salazar, No. 10–35123, 2012 WL 

3570667 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2012). 

However, we have not historically 

indicated what we believe the upper 

limit of small numbers is. 

To maintain an interpretation of small 

numbers as a proportion of a species or 

stock that does not conflate with 

negligible impact, we use the following 

framework. A plain reading of ‘‘small’’ 

implies as corollary that there also 

could be ‘‘medium’’ or ‘‘large’’ numbers 

of animals from the species or stock 

taken. We therefore use a simple 

approach that establishes equal bins 

corresponding to small, medium, and 

large proportions of the population 

abundance. 

NMFS’s practice for making small 

numbers determinations is to compare 

the number of individuals estimated 

and authorized to be taken (often using 

estimates of total instances of take, 

without regard to whether individuals 

are exposed more than once) against the 

best available abundance estimate for 

that species or stock. We note, however, 

that although NMFS’s implementing 

regulations require applications for 

incidental take to include an estimate of 

the marine mammals to be taken, there 

is nothing in section 101(a)(5)(D) (or the 

similar provision in section 101(a)(5)(A) 

that requires NMFS to quantify or 

estimate numbers of marine mammals to 

be taken for purposes of evaluating 

whether the number is small. (See CBD 

v. Salazar.) While it can be challenging 

to predict the numbers of individual 

marine mammals that will be taken by 

an activity (again, many models 

calculate instances of take and are 

unable to account for repeated 

exposures of individuals), in some cases 

we are able to generate a reasonable 

estimate utilizing a combination of 

quantitative tools and qualitative 

information. When it is possible to 

predict with relative confidence the 

number of individual marine mammals 

of each species or stock that are likely 

to be taken, the small numbers 

determination should be based directly 

upon whether or not these estimates 

exceed one third of the stock 

abundance. In other words, consistent 

with past practice, when the estimated 

number of individual animals taken 

(which may or may not be assumed as 

equal to the total number of takes, 

depending on the available information) 

is up to, but not greater than, one third 

of the species or stock abundance, 

NMFS will determine that the numbers 

of marine mammals taken of a species 

or stock are small. 

In contrast, a negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be taken 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. 

Given the definitions present above, 

establishment of a small numbers 

threshold based on a stock-specific 

context is unnecessarily duplicative of 

the required negligible impact finding. 

Comment 2: SELC stated that NMFS’ 

updated negligible impact analysis 

underestimates the potential impacts of 

HRG surveys on small cetaceans like the 

Atlantic spotted dolphin. The MMPA 

authorizes NMFS to issue an IHA only 

if the agency finds that the authorized 

harassment caused by a ‘‘specified 

activity’’ will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

on marine mammals. SELC stated that 

NMFS’ negligible impact analysis is 

inadequate given the increased level of 

take that the agency proposed. SELC 

referenced several scientific research 

papers which indicated that Atlantic 

spotted dolphin is a particularly 

acoustically sensitive species, has the 

potential to be displaced, shift their 

behavioral state and stop or alter in 

response to a variety of anthropogenic 

noises, with potentially adverse 

energetic effects even from minor 

changes. 

Response: Most of the scientific 

papers referenced by SELC describe the 

responses of various cetacean species to 

underwater noise associated with the 

use of seismic airguns, which are among 

the loudest anthropogenic sounds 

introduced into the marine 

environment. The HRG equipment used 

by Dominion radiates out less energy 

than seismic airguns and also operates 

in smaller areas. Therefore, the size of 

the area impacted by sound is much 

smaller. None of the references cited by 

SELC investigated potential impacts of 

HRG equipment to cetaceans. It should 

not be assumed that potential impacts to 

marine mammals from seismic airguns 

and from HRG equipment are similar, 

given the differences between the 

devices. 

Even with the increase in authorized 

take numbers, the impacts of these 

lower severity exposures associated 

with HRG equipment are not expected 

to accrue to the degree that the fitness 

of any individuals is impacted, and, 

therefore no impacts on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival will result. 

Furthermore, the authorized take 

amount of spotted dolphin would be of 

small numbers relative to the 

population size (less than 5 percent). 

Comment 3: SELC reiterated that 

NMFS’s use of the 160 decibel (dB) 

threshold for behavioral harassment is 

not supported by the best available 

scientific information and results in an 

inaccurate negligible impact analysis. 

81882 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

Note that NMFS addressed this 

comment in the Federal Register notice 

of issue of the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; 

September 8, 2020). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the 160-dB root mean-square (rms) stepfunction approach is simplistic, and that 

an approach reflecting a more complex 

probabilistic function may more 

effectively represent the known 

variation in responses at different levels 

due to differences in the receivers, the 

context of the exposure, and other 

factors. We recognize the potential for 

Level B harassment at exposures to 

received levels (RLs) below 160 dB rms, 

and conversely the potential that 

animals exposed to RLs above 160 dB 

rms will not respond in ways 

constituting behavioral harassment (e.g., 

Malme et al., 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988; 

McCauley et al., 1998, 2000a, 2000b; 

Barkaszi et al., 2012; Stone, 2015a; 

Gailey et al., 2016; Barkaszi and Kelly, 

2018). While in practice the 160-dB 

threshold works as a step-function, i.e., 

animals exposed to RLs above the 

threshold are considered to be ‘‘taken’’ 

and those exposed to levels below the 

threshold are not, it represents a sort of 

mid-point of likely behavioral responses 

(which are extremely complex 

depending on many factors including 

species, noise source, individual 

experience, and behavioral context). 

What this means is that, conceptually, 

the function recognizes that some 

animals exposed to levels below the 

threshold will in fact react in ways that 

are appropriately considered take, while 

others that are exposed to levels above 

the threshold will not. Use of the 160- 

dB threshold allows for a simplistic 

quantitative estimate of take, while we 

can qualitatively address the variation 

in responses across different RLs in our 

discussion and analysis. 

As behavioral responses to sound 

depend on the context in which an 

animal receives the sound, including 

the animal’s behavioral mode when it 

hears sounds, prior experience, 

additional biological factors, and other 

contextual factors, defining sound levels 

that disrupt behavioral patterns is 

extremely difficult. Even experts have 

not previously been able to suggest 

specific new criteria due to these 

difficulties (e.g., Southall et al. 2007; 

Gomez et al., 2016). NMFS 

acknowledges the limitations of the 

current system and is in the process of 

developing an updated approach to 

more accurately predict under what 

circumstances take is likely to result 

from sound exposure. 

Comment 4: SELC recommended that 

HRG surveys should commence, with 

ramp-up, during daylight hours only, to 

maximize the chance that marine 

mammals are detected and confirmed 

clear of the exclusion zone. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

limitations inherent in detection of 

marine mammals at night. However, no 

injury is expected to result even in the 

absence of mitigation, given the very 

small estimated Level A harassment 

zones. Any potential impacts to marine 

mammals authorized for take would be 

limited to short-term behavioral 

responses. Restricting surveys in the 

manner suggested by the commenters 

may reduce marine mammal exposures 

by some degree in the short term, but 

would not result in any significant 

reduction in either intensity or duration 

of noise exposure. The restrictions 

recommended by the commenters could 

result in the surveys spending increased 

time on the water, which may result in 

greater overall exposure to sound for 

marine mammals and increase the risk 

of a vessel strike; thus the commenters 

have not demonstrated that such a 

requirement would result in a net 

benefit. Restricting the applicant to 

ramp-up only during daylight hours 

would have the potential to result in 

lengthy shutdowns of the survey 

equipment, which could result in the 

applicant failing to collect the data they 

have determined is necessary and, 

subsequently, the need to conduct 

additional surveys the following year. 

This would result in significantly 

increased costs incurred by the 

applicant. Thus, the restriction 

suggested by the commenters would not 

be practicable for the applicant to 

implement. In consideration of potential 

effectiveness of the recommended 

measure and its practicability for the 

applicant, NMFS has determined that 

restricting survey start-ups to daylight 

hours when visibility is unimpeded is 

not warranted or practicable in this 

case. Note that NMFS addressed this 

comment in the Federal Register notice 

of issue of the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; 

September 8, 2020). 

Comment 5: SELC recommended that 

a standard 500-meter exclusion zone be 

established for all marine mammal 

species around survey vessels. 

Response: NMFS has determined that, 

with the exception of right whales, a 

500-m exclusion zone is not warranted. 

The largest calculated Level B 

harassment distance for all marine 

mammals is calculated to be 100 m. We 

note that a 500-m exclusion zone would 

exceed the modeled distance to the 

largest Level B harassment isopleth 

distance (100 m) by a factor of five. 

Thus, NMFS is not requiring shutdown 

if marine mammals are sighted within 

500 m of survey vessels. NMFS 

addressed this comment previously in 

the Federal Register notice of issue of 

the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; September 

8, 2020). 

Comment 6: SELC recommended that 

combination of visual monitoring—by 

four protected species observers 

adhering to ‘‘two-on/two-off’’ 

schedule—and passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM) should be used at all 

times that survey work is underway, 

and, for efforts that continue into the 

nighttime, night vision or infrared 

technology should also be used. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

the commenters that a minimum of four 

protected species observers (PSOs) 

should be required. The relatively small 

size of the exclusion means that a single 

PSO stationed at the highest vantage 

point and engaged in general 360-degree 

scanning during daylight hours is able 

to effectively observe the necessary area. 

Additionally, PSOs must be on duty 30 

minutes prior to and during nighttime 

ramp-ups for HRG surveys. Dominion 

has also committed to employing a 

minimum of two NMFS-approved PSOs 

when HRG equipment is in use at night. 

There are several reasons why we do 

not agree that use of PAM is warranted 

for 24-hour HRG surveys. While NMFS 

agrees that PAM can be an important 

tool for augmenting detection 

capabilities in certain circumstances, its 

utility in further reducing impact for 

Dominion’s HRG survey activities is 

limited. First, for this activity, the area 

expected to be ensonified above the 

Level B harassment threshold is 

relatively small (a maximum of 100 m). 

This reflects the fact that the source 

level is comparatively low and the 

intensity of any resulting impacts would 

also be low. Further, inasmuch as PAM 

will only detect a portion of any animals 

exposed within a zone (see below), the 

overall probability of PAM detecting an 

animal in the harassment zone is low. 

Together these factors support the 

limited value of PAM for use in 

reducing take in small impact zones. 

PAM is only capable of detecting 

animals that are actively vocalizing, 

while many marine mammal species 

vocalize infrequently or during certain 

activities, which means that only a 

subset of the animals within the range 

of the PAM would be detected (and 

potentially have reduced impacts). 

Additionally, localization and range 

detection can be challenging under 

certain scenarios. For example, 

odontocetes are fast moving and often 

travel in large or dispersed groups 

which makes localization difficult. In 

addition, the ability of PAM to detect 

baleen whale vocalizations is further 

limited due to its deployment from the 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81883 

stern of a vessel, which puts the PAM 

hydrophones in proximity to propeller 

noise and low frequency engine noise, 

which can mask the low frequency 

sounds emitted by baleen whales, 

including North Atlantic right whales. 

We also note that the effects to all 

marine mammals, including spotted 

dolphins, from the types of surveys 

authorized in this IHA are expected to 

be limited to low level behavioral 

harassment even in the absence of 

mitigation; no injury is expected or 

authorized. In consideration of the 

limited additional benefit anticipated by 

adding this detection method and the 

cost and impracticability of 

implementing a full-time PAM program, 

we have determined the current 

requirements for visual monitoring are 

sufficient to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected species 

or stocks and their habitat. Note that the 

initial IHA contained a requirement, 

retained in the modified IHA, that nightvision equipment (i.e., night-vision 

goggles and infrared technology) must 

be available for use for PSOs. NMFS 

previously addressed this comment in 

the Federal Register notice of issue of 

the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; September 

8, 2020). 

Comment 7: SELC reiterated some of 

the recommendations they submitted in 

response to our initial Notice of 

proposed IHA published in Federal 

Register on June 17, 2020 (85 FR 36537) 

which focused on the need for stronger 

mitigation measures for North Atlantic 

right whale. 

Response: Comments submitted by 

SELC pertaining to the North Atlantic 

right whale are outside the scope of this 

action, which only addresses increased 

take of dolphins and, further, were 

already addressed in previously in the 

Federal Register notice of issue of the 

initial IHA (85 FR 55415; September 8, 

2020). 

Comment 8: SELC recommended that 

all vessels traveling to and from the 

project area maintain a speed of 10 

knots (18.5 km/hour) or less throughout 

the survey period. 

Response: NMFS does not concur 

with this measure. NMFS has analyzed 

the potential for ship strike resulting 

from Dominion’s activity and has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

specific to ship strike avoidance are 

sufficient to avoid the potential for ship 

strike. These include: A requirement 

that all vessel operators comply with 10 

knot (18.5 km/hour) or less speed 

restrictions in any established dynamic 

management area (DMA) or seasonal 

management area (SMA); a requirement 

that all vessel operators reduce vessel 

speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hour) or less 

when any large whale, any mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of nondelphinoid cetaceans are observed 

within 100 m of an underway vessel; a 

requirement that all survey vessels 

maintain a separation distance of 500-m 

or greater from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale; a requirement that, 

if underway, vessels must steer a course 

away from any sighted North Atlantic 

right whale at 10 knots or less until the 

500-m minimum separation distance 

has been established; and a requirement 

that, if a North Atlantic right whale is 

sighted in a vessel’s path, or within 500 

m of an underway vessel, the underway 

vessel must reduce speed and shift the 

engine to neutral. We have determined 

that the ship strike avoidance measures 

are sufficient to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on species or 

stocks and their habitat. Furthermore, 

no documented vessel strikes have 

occurred for any HRG surveys which 

were issued IHAs from NMFS. NMFS 

addressed this comment previously in 

the Federal Register notice of issue of 

the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; September 

8, 2020). 

Comment 10: SELC recommended 

that NMFS consider activating Dynamic 

Management Areas (DMAs) whenever a 

single North Atlantic right whale is 

sighted or acoustically detected neat the 

project area, not just an aggregation of 

three or more whales. 

Response: DMAs are a component of 

the 2008 NOAA Ship Strike Rule to 

minimize lethal ship strikes of North 

Atlantic right whales. Note that the 

trigger of three or more whales is taken 

from a NOAA Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) analysis of 

sightings data from Cape Cod Bay and 

Stellwagen Bank from 1980 to 1996 

(Clapham & Pace 2001). This analysis 

found that an initial sighting of three or 

more North Atlantic right whales was a 

reasonably good indicator that whales 

would persist in the area, and the 

average duration of the whale’s presence 

based on these sightings data was two 

weeks. 

Description of Marine Mammals 

A description of the marine mammals 

in the area of the activities is found in 

these previous documents, which 

remains applicable to this modified IHA 

as well. In addition, NMFS has 

reviewed recent Stock Assessment 

Reports, information on relevant 

Unusual Mortality Events, and recent 

scientific literature, and determined that 

no new information affects our original 

analysis of impacts under the initial 

IHA. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

A description of the potential effects 

of the specified activities on marine 

mammals and their habitat may be 

found in the documents supporting the 

initial IHA, which remains applicable to 

the issuance of this modified IHA. There 

is no new information on potential 

effects. 

Estimated Take 

A detailed description of the methods 

and inputs used to estimate take for the 

specified activity are found in the notice 

of IHA for the initial authorization (85 

FR 55415; September 8, 2020). The HRG 

equipment that may result in take, as 

well as the source levels, marine 

mammal stocks taken, marine mammal 

density data and the methods of take 

estimation applicable to this 

authorization remain unchanged from 

the previously issued IHA. The number 

of authorized takes is also identical with 

the exception of spotted dolphin. 

During the one month period from the 

effective date of the initial IHA (August 

28, 2020) through September 29, 2020, 

a total of 19 spotted dolphins had been 

observed within the Level B harassment 

zone distances and recorded as takes. 

This was largely due to a single pod of 

15 dolphins sighted in the zone. 

Another 24 dolphins were observed 

over three survey days but they were not 

located in the Level B harassment zone. 

Prior to the issuance of the initial IHA, 

Dominion operated only during daylight 

hours under a Letter of Concurrence 

(LoC) issued by NMFS. As such, 

Dominion committed to shutting down 

whenever a marine mammal 

approached or entered a Level B 

harassment zone in order to avoid all 

incidental take. In the weeks prior to the 

issuance of the initial IHA, Dominion 

had observed pods containing up to 17 

individuals in the Level B harassment 

zone. However, these pods were not 

recorded as incidental takes since 

mitigation measures were employed, 

i.e., the acoustic source was shut down 

and the animals were not exposed to 

source levels associated with 

harassment. The estimated take in the 

initial IHA was based on the best 

available density data from Roberts et 

al. (2016, 2017, 2018), however, the 

multiple occurrences of the large pod in 

the vicinity of the survey was 

unexpected and not reflected in the take 

estimate. Table 1 shows spotted dolphin 

detection events when Dominion was 

operating under both the LoC (before 

August 28, 2020) as well as during the 

initial IHA (on or after August 28, 2020). 

81884 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

TABLE 1—ATLANTIC SPOTTED DOLPHIN OBSERVATIONS DURING DOMINION ENERGY HRG SURVEY ACTIVITIES

Vessel name Date of 

detection 

Number of 

animals 

observed 

in the group 

Level B 

takes 

accumulated 

Sarah Bordelon ............................................................................................................................ 9/16/2020 15 15 

Marcelle Bordelon ........................................................................................................................ 9/9/2020 4 4 

Marcelle Bordelon ........................................................................................................................ 9/7/2020 6 ........................

Sarah Bordelon ............................................................................................................................ 9/4/2020 7 ........................

Sarah Bordelon ............................................................................................................................ 9/4/2020 11 ........................

Marcelle Bordelon ........................................................................................................................ 8/23/2020 5 ........................

Sarah Bordelon ............................................................................................................................ 8/17/2020 17 ........................

Given that large pods of spotted 

dolphin were recorded on multiple 

occasions, Dominion became concerned 

that the authorized number of takes by 

Level B harassment would be exceeded, 

necessitating the frequent shutdown of 

HRG survey equipment to avoid 

additional take of this species. On 

October 3, 2020, Dominion reached the 

authorized take amount for spotted 

dolphins. Since that time, they have 

been shutting down whenever spotted 

dolphins are sighted approaching or 

entering the harassment zone. Dominion 

requested and NMFS has authorized 

additional take of this species to 

conservatively allow 20 authorized 

takes per day. NMFS concurs that this 

take amount is reasonable in case 

observed dolphin pods are larger than 

what has been recorded to date. While 

NMFS does not expect that larger 

spotted dolphin pods would occur every 

day, it cannot be ruled out. With 

approximately 120 survey days 

remaining, NMFS has authorized 

increased take by Level B harassment 

from 27 to 2,427 ((20 animals/day * 120 

survey days) + initial 27 authorized 

takes). This represents 4.38 percent of 

the western North Atlantic stock of 

spotted dolphin. Take by Level A 

harassment was not requested, and has 

not been authorized by NMFS (or 

anticipated). 

The total numbers of incidental takes 

by Level B harassment, including the 

authorized update in spotted dolphin 

takes, and as a percentage of population, 

is shown in Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL NUMBERS OF AUTHORIZED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

Species 

Totals 

Take 

authorization 

(number) 

Instances 

of take as 

percentage of 

population 1

Short-finned pilot whale ........................................................................................................................................... 12 0.06 

Bottlenose dolphin (Offshore) .................................................................................................................................. 511 0.81 

Bottlenose dolphin (Southern Migratory Coastal) ................................................................................................... 224 6.5 

Common dolphin ...................................................................................................................................................... 68 0.08 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................................................................................................................................... 44 0.12 

Spotted dolphin (adjusted) ....................................................................................................................................... 2,427 4.38 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 0.08 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 0.09 

Harbor seal 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 0.02 

Gray Seal 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 0.06 

1 Calculations of percentage of stock taken are based on the best available abundance estimate as shown in Table 2 in Federal Register final 

notice of issuance of the IHA (85 FR 55415; September 8, 2020). In most cases the best available abundance estimate is provided by Roberts et 

al. (2016, 2017, 2018), when available, to maintain consistency with density estimates derived from Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018. For 

bottlenose dolphins, Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) provides only a single abundance estimate and does not provide abundance estimates at 

the stock or species level (respectively), so abundance estimates used to estimate percentage of stock taken for bottlenose dolphins are derived 

from NMFS SARs (Hayes et al. 2019). 2Pinniped density values reported as ‘‘seals’’ and not species-specific. 

Description of Mitigation, Monitoring 

and Reporting Measures 

The mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures included in this 

modified IHA are identical to those 

included in the Federal Register notice 

announcing the initial IHA and the 

discussion of the least practicable 

adverse impact included in that 

document remains accurate (85 FR 

55415; September 8, 2020). 

Establishment of Exclusion Zones 

(EZs)—Marine mammal EZs must be 

established around the HRG survey 

equipment and monitored by protected 

species observers (PSOs) during HRG 

surveys as follows: 

• 500-m EZ is required for North 

Atlantic right whales; 

• During use of the GeoMarine Dual 

400 Sparker 800J, a 100-m EZ is 

required for all other marine mammals 

except delphinid(s) from the genera 

Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella or 

Tursiops and seals; and 

• When only the Triple Plate Boomer 

1000J is in use, a 25-m EZ is required 

for all other marine mammals except 

delphinid(s) from the genera Delphinus, 

Lagenorhynchus, Stenella or Tursiops 

and seals; a 200-m buffer zone is 

required for all marine mammals except 

those species otherwise excluded (i.e., 

North Atlantic right whale). 

If a marine mammal is detected 

approaching or entering the EZs during 

the survey, the vessel operator must 

adhere to the shutdown procedures 

described below. In addition to the EZs 

described above, PSOs must visually 

monitor a 200-m buffer zone for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81885 

purposes of pre-clearance. During use of 

acoustic sources with the potential to 

result in marine mammal harassment 

(i.e., anytime the acoustic source is 

active, including ramp-up), occurrences 

of marine mammals within the 

monitoring zone (but outside the EZs) 

must be communicated to the vessel 

operator to prepare for potential 

shutdown of the acoustic source. The 

buffer zone is not applicable when the 

EZ is greater than 100 m. PSOs are also 

required to observe a 500-m monitoring 

zone and record the presence of all 

marine mammals within this zone. 

Visual Monitoring—Monitoring must 

be conducted by qualified protected 

PSOs who are trained biologists, with 

minimum qualifications described in 

the Federal Register notice of the 

issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; 

September 8, 2020). Dominion must 

have one PSO on duty during the day 

and has committed that a minimum of 

two NMFS-approved PSOs must be on 

duty and conducting visual observations 

when HRG equipment is in use at night. 

Visual monitoring must begin no less 

than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up of 

HRG equipment and continue until 30 

minutes after use of the acoustic source. 

PSOs must establish and monitor the 

applicable EZs, Buffer Zone and 

Monitoring Zone as described above. 

PSOs must coordinate to ensure 360° 

visual coverage around the vessel from 

the most appropriate observation posts, 

and must conduct observations while 

free from distractions and in a 

consistent, systematic, and diligent 

manner. PSOs are required to estimate 

distances to observed marine mammals. 

It is the responsibility of the Lead PSO 

on duty to communicate the presence of 

marine mammals as well as to 

communicate action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion 

Zones—Prior to initiating HRG survey 

activities, Dominion must implement a 

30-minute pre-clearance period. During 

pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before 

ramp-up of HRG equipment begins), the 

Buffer Zone also acts as an extension of 

the 100-m EZ in that observations of 

marine mammals within the 200-m 

Buffer Zone would also preclude HRG 

operations from beginning. During this 

period, PSOs must ensure that no 

marine mammals are observed within 

200 m of the survey equipment (500 m 

in the case of North Atlantic right 

whales). HRG equipment must not start 

up until this 200-m zone (or, 500-m 

zone in the case of North Atlantic right 

whales) is clear of marine mammals for 

at least 30 minutes. The vessel operator 

must notify a designated PSO of the 

proposed start of HRG survey 

equipment as agreed upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time must not be 

less than 30 minutes prior to the 

planned initiation of HRG equipment in 

order to allow the PSOs time to monitor 

the EZs and Buffer Zone for the 30 

minutes of pre-clearance. 

If a marine mammal is observed 

within the relevant EZs or Buffer Zone 

during the pre-clearance period, 

initiation of HRG survey equipment 

must not begin until the animal(s) has 

been observed exiting the respective EZ 

or Buffer Zone, or, until an additional 

time period has elapsed with no further 

sighting (i.e., minimum 15 minutes for 

porpoises, and 30 minutes for all other 

species). The pre-clearance requirement 

includes small delphinoids. PSOs must 

also continue to monitor the zone for 30 

minutes after survey equipment is shut 

down or survey activity has concluded. 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment— 

When technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure must be used for geophysical 

survey equipment capable of adjusting 

energy levels at the start or re-start of 

survey activities. The ramp-up 

procedure must be used at the beginning 

of HRG survey activities in order to 

provide additional protection to marine 

mammals near the Survey Area by 

allowing them to detect the presence of 

the survey and vacate the area prior to 

the commencement of survey 

equipment operation at full power. 

Ramp-up of the survey equipment must 

not begin until the relevant EZs and 

Buffer Zone has been cleared by the 

PSOs, as described above. HRG 

equipment must be initiated at their 

lowest power output and would be 

incrementally increased to full power. If 

any marine mammals are detected 

within the EZs or Buffer Zone prior to 

or during ramp-up, the HRG equipment 

must be shut down (as described 

below). 

Shutdown Procedures—If an HRG 

source is active and a marine mammal 

is observed within or entering a relevant 

EZ (as described above) an immediate 

shutdown of the HRG survey equipment 

is required. When shutdown is called 

for by a PSO, the acoustic source must 

be immediately deactivated and any 

dispute resolved only following 

deactivation. Any PSO on duty has the 

authority to delay the start of survey 

operations or to call for shutdown of the 

acoustic source if a marine mammal is 

detected within the applicable EZ. The 

vessel operator must establish and 

maintain clear lines of communication 

directly between PSOs on duty and 

crew controlling the HRG source(s) to 

ensure that shutdown commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. Subsequent restart of 

the HRG equipment must only occur 

after the marine mammal has either 

been observed exiting the relevant EZ, 

or, until an additional time period has 

elapsed with no further sighting of the 

animal within the relevant EZ. 

Upon implementation of shutdown, 

the HRG source may be reactivated after 

the marine mammal that triggered the 

shutdown has been observed exiting the 

applicable EZ (i.e., the animal is not 

required to fully exit the Buffer Zone 

where applicable) or, following a 

clearance period of 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and seals and 30 minutes 

for all other species with no further 

observation of the marine mammal(s) 

within the relevant EZ. If the HRG 

equipment shuts down for brief periods 

(i.e., less than 30 minutes) for reasons 

other than mitigation (e.g., mechanical 

or electronic failure) the equipment may 

be re-activated as soon as is practicable 

at full operational level, without 30 

minutes of pre-clearance, only if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual 

observation during the shutdown and 

no visual detections of marine mammals 

occurred within the applicable EZs and 

Buffer Zone during that time. For a 

shutdown of 30 minutes or longer, or if 

visual observation was not continued 

diligently during the pause, preclearance observation is required, as 

described above. 

The shutdown requirement is waived 

for certain genera of small delphinids 

(i.e., Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, 

Stenella (which includes Atlantic 

spotted dolphins), or Tursiops) under 

certain circumstances. If a delphinid(s) 

from these genera is visually detected 

within the EZ shutdown would not be 

required. If there is uncertainty 

regarding identification of a marine 

mammal species (i.e., whether the 

observed marine mammal(s) belongs to 

one of the delphinid genera for which 

shutdown is waived), PSOs must use 

best professional judgment in making 

the decision to call for a shutdown. 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes have 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within the area encompassing the Level 

B harassment isopleth (100 m or 25 m), 

shutdown must occur. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance—Dominion 

must comply with vessel strike 

avoidance measures as described in the 

Federal Register notice of the issuance 

of the initial IHA (85 FR 55415; 

September 8, 2020). 

Seasonal Operating Requirements— 

Dominion will conduct HRG survey 

81886 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 

activities in the vicinity of the North 

Atlantic right whale Mid-Atlantic SMA 

near Norfolk and the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Activities conducted 

prior to May 1 must comply with the 

seasonal mandatory speed restriction 

period for this SMA (November 1 

through April 30) for any survey work 

or transit within this area. 

Throughout all phases of the survey 

activities, Dominion must monitor 

NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right 

whale reporting systems for the 

establishment of a DMA. If NMFS 

establishes a DMA in the Lease Area or 

cable route corridor being surveyed, 

within 24 hours of the establishment of 

the DMA, Dominion is required to work 

with NMFS to shut down and/or alter 

activities to avoid the DMA. 

Training—Project-specific training is 

required for all vessel crew prior to the 

start of survey activities. Confirmation 

of the training and understanding of the 

requirements must be documented on a 

training course log sheet. Signing the log 

sheet will certify that the crew members 

understand and will comply with the 

necessary requirements throughout the 

survey activities. 

Reporting—PSOs must record specific 

information on the sighting forms as 

described in the Federal Register notice 

of the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 

55415; September 8, 2020). Within 90 

days after completion of survey 

activities, Dominion must provide 

NMFS with a monitoring report which 

includes summaries of recorded takes 

and estimates of the number of marine 

mammals that may have been harassed. 

In the event of a ship strike or 

discovery of an injured or dead marine 

mammal, Dominion must report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS and to the New 

England/Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report must include the 

information listed in the Federal 

Register notice of the issuance of the 

initial IHA (85 FR 55415; September 8, 

2020). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures in consideration of 

the increased estimated take for spotted 

dolphins, NMFS has re-affirmed the 

determination that the required 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

spotted dolphins and their habitat. 

Determinations 

Dominion’s HRG survey activities and 

the mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are unchanged 

from those covered in the initial IHA. 

The effects of the activity, taking into 

consideration the mitigation and related 

monitoring measures, remain 

unchanged from those stated in the 

initial IHA, notwithstanding the 

increase to the authorized amount of 

spotted dolphin take. Specifically, the 

Level B harassment authorized for 

spotted dolphins is expected to be of 

low severity, predominantly in the form 

of avoidance of the sound source and 

potential occasional interruption of 

foraging. With approximately 120 

survey days remaining, NMFS has 

increased authorized spotted dolphin 

take by Level B harassment to 2,427. 

Even in consideration of the increased 

estimated numbers of take by Level B 

harassment, the impacts of these lower 

severity exposures are not expected to 

accrue to the degree that the fitness of 

any individuals is impacted, and, 

therefore no impacts on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival will result. 

Further, and separately, the authorized 

take amount of spotted dolphin would 

be of small numbers of spotted dolphins 

relative to the population size (less than 

5 percent), as take that is less than one 

third of the species or stock abundance 

is considered by NMFS to be small 

numbers. In conclusion, there is no new 

information suggesting that our effects 

analysis or negligible impact finding for 

Atlantic spotted dolphins should 

change. 

Based on the information contained 

here and in the referenced documents, 

NMFS has reaffirmed the following: (1) 

The required mitigation measures will 

effect the least practicable impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat; (2) the authorized takes 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks; (3) the authorized takes 

represent small numbers of marine 

mammals relative to the affected stock 

abundances; (4) Dominion’s activities 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on taking for subsistence 

purposes as no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals are implicated by 

this action, and (5) appropriate 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

are included. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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 modification 

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 NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the 

modified IHA qualifies to be 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued a modified IHA to 

Dominion for conducting marine site 

characterization surveys in the areas of 

the Commercial Lease of Submerged 

Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf Offshore Virginia (Lease No. OCS– 

A–0483) as well as in coastal waters 

where an export cable corridor will be 

established in support of the CVOW 

Commercial Project effective from the 

date of issuance until August 27, 2021. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27761 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA694] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental 

To Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Washington 

State Department of Transportation 

Purdy Bridge Rehabilitation Project, 

Pierce County, WA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WADOT) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to the Purdy Bridge