68106 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD400] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of letter of 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to TGS for the take of marine mammals 

incidental to geophysical survey activity 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from 

September 29, 2023 through September 

28, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/action/incidental-takeauthorization-oil-and-gas-industrygeophysical-survey-activity-gulf-mexico. 

In case of problems accessing these 

documents, please call the contact listed 

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final 

rule with regulations to govern the 

unintentional taking of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activities conducted by oil and 

gas industry operators, and those 

persons authorized to conduct activities 

on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry 

operators’’), in U.S. waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 

years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). 

The rule was based on our findings that 

the total taking from the specified 

activities over the 5-year period will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stock(s) of marine mammals 

and will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

those species or stocks for subsistence 

uses. The rule became effective on April 

19, 2021. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et 

seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to 

industry operators for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during 

geophysical survey activities and 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat (often referred to as 

mitigation), as well as requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 

217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations and a 

determination that the amount of take 

authorized under the LOA is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Summary of Request and Analysis 

TGS plans to conduct a threedimensional (3D) ocean bottom node 

(OBN) survey in the Green Canyon, 

Ewing Bank, and Atwater Valley 

protraction areas, including 

approximately 380 lease blocks. 

Approximate water depths of the survey 

area range from 150 to 2,000 meters (m). 

See section F of the LOA application for 

a map of the area. 

TGS anticipates using two source 

vessels, each towing low-frequency 

airgun sources known as Gemini (also 

referred to as a dual barbell source). 

Please see TGS’s application for 

additional detail. The Gemini source 

was not included in the acoustic 

exposure modeling developed in 

support of the rule. However, our rule 

anticipated the possibility of new and 

unusual technologies (NUT) and 

determined they would be evaluated on 

a case-by case basis (86 FR 5322, 5442, 

January 19, 2021). This source was 

previously evaluated as a NUT in 2020 

(prior to issuance of the 2021 final rule) 

pursuant to the requirements of NMFS’ 

2020 Biological Opinion on BOEM’s 

Gulf of Mexico oil and gas program as 

well as the issuance of the rule. An 

associated report produced by Jasco 

Applied Sciences (Grooms et al., 2019) 

provides information related to the 

acoustic output of the Gemini source, 

which informs our evaluation here. 

The Gemini source operates on the 

same basic principles as a traditional 

airgun source in that it uses compressed 

air to create a bubble in the water 

column which then goes through a 

series of collapses and expansions 

creating primarily low-frequency 

sounds. However, the Gemini source 

consists of one physical element with 

two large chambers of 4,000 cubic 

inches (in3) each (total volume of 8,000 

in3). This creates a larger bubble 

resulting in more of the energy being 

concentrated in low frequencies, with a 

fundamental frequency of 3.7 Hertz. In 

addition to concentrating energy at 

lower frequencies, the Gemini source is 

expected to produce lower overall 

sound levels than the conventional 

airgun proxy source. The number of 

airguns in an array is highly influential 

on overall sound energy output, because 

the output increases approximately 

linearly with the number of airgun 

elements. In this case, because the same 

air volume is used to operate two very 

large guns, rather than tens of smaller 

guns, the array produces lower sound 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Notices 68107 

1For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the 

GOM was divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not 

included in the geographic scope of the rule. 

2For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, 

seasons include winter (December–March) and 

summer (April–November). 

3The final rule refers to the GOM Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were 

subsequently described as a new species, Rice’s 

whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021). 

levels than a conventional array of 

equivalent total volume. 

The modeled distances described in 

the aforementioned Jasco report show 

expected per-pulse sound pressure level 

threshold distances to the 160-dB level 

of 4.29 kilometers (km). When 

frequency-weighted, i.e., considering 

the low frequency output of the source 

relative to the hearing sensitivities of 

different marine mammal hearing 

groups, the estimated distance is 

decreased to approximately 1 km for the 

low-frequency cetacean hearing group 

and to de minimis levels for mid- and 

high-frequency cetacean hearing groups, 

significantly less than comparable 

modeled distances for the proxy 72- 

element, 8,000 in3 array evaluated in the 

rule. 

These factors lead to a conclusion that 

take by Level B harassment associated 

with use of the Gemini source would be 

less than would occur for a similar 

survey instead using the modeled airgun 

array as a sound source. Based on the 

foregoing, we have determined there 

will be no effects of a magnitude or 

intensity different from those evaluated 

in support of the rule. Moreover, use of 

modeling results relating to use of the 

72 element, 8,000 in3 airgun array are 

expected to be significantly conservative 

as a proxy for use in evaluating 

potential impacts of use of the Gemini 

source. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

final rule, the survey effort proposed by 

TGS in its LOA request was used to 

develop LOA-specific take estimates 

based on the acoustic exposure 

modeling results described in the 

preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19, 

2021). In order to generate the 

appropriate take numbers for 

authorization, the following information 

was considered: (1) survey type; (2) 

location (by modeling zone 1); (3) 

number of days; and (4) season.2 The 

acoustic exposure modeling performed 

in support of the rule provides 24-hour 

exposure estimates for each species, 

specific to each modeled survey type in 

each zone and season. 

No 3D OBN surveys were included in 

the modeled survey types, and use of 

existing proxies (i.e., two-dimensional 

(2D), 3D narrow-azimuth (NAZ), 3D 

wide-azimuth (WAZ), Coil) is generally 

conservative for use in evaluation of 3D 

OBN survey effort, largely due to the 

greater area covered by the modeled 

proxies. Summary descriptions of these 

modeled survey geometries are available 

in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 

FR 29220, June 22, 2018). Coil was 

selected as the best available proxy 

survey type in this case because the 

spatial coverage of the planned survey 

is most similar to the coil survey 

pattern. 

The planned 3D OBN survey will 

involve two source vessels sailing along 

survey lines approximately 56 km in 

length. The coil survey pattern was 

assumed to cover approximately 144 

kilometers squared (km2) per day 

(compared with approximately 795 km2, 

199 km2, and 845 km2 per day for the 

2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ survey 

patterns, respectively). Among the 

different parameters of the modeled 

survey patterns (e.g., area covered, line 

spacing, number of sources, shot 

interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS 

considers area covered per day to be 

most influential on daily modeled 

exposures exceeding Level B 

harassment criteria. Although TGS is 

not proposing to perform a survey using 

the coil geometry, its planned 3D OBN 

survey is expected to cover 

approximately 55 km2 per day, meaning 

that the coil proxy is most 

representative of the effort planned by 

TGS in terms of predicted Level B 

harassment exposures. In addition, all 

available acoustic exposure modeling 

results assume use of a 72-element, 

8,000 in3 array. Thus, as discussed 

above, estimated take numbers for this 

LOA are considered conservative due to 

differences between the Gemini acoustic 

source planned for use and the proxy 

array modeled for the rule. 

The survey will take place over 

approximately 114 days, including 65 

days of sound source operation. The 

survey plan includes approximately 64 

days within Zone 5 and approximately 

1 day within Zone 2. The seasonal 

distribution of survey days is not known 

in advance. Therefore, the take 

estimates for each species are based on 

the season that produces the greater 

value. 

For some species, take estimates 

based solely on the modeling yielded 

results that are not realistically likely to 

occur when considered in light of other 

relevant information available during 

the rulemaking process regarding 

marine mammal occurrence in the 

GOM. The approach used in the 

acoustic exposure modeling, in which 

seven modeling zones were defined over 

the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages finescale information about marine mammal 

distribution over the large area of each 

modeling zone. This can result in 

unrealistic projections regarding the 

likelihood of encountering particularly 

rare species and/or species not expected 

to occur outside particular habitats. 

Thus, although the modeling conducted 

for the rule is a natural starting point for 

estimating take, our rule acknowledged 

that other information could be 

considered (e.g., 86 FR 5322, January 19, 

2021), discussing the need to provide 

flexibility and make efficient use of 

previous public and agency review of 

other information and identifying that 

additional public review is not 

necessary unless the model or inputs 

used differ substantively from those that 

were previously reviewed by NMFS and 

the public). For this survey, NMFS has 

other relevant information reviewed 

during the rulemaking that indicates use 

of the acoustic exposure modeling to 

generate a take estimate for Rice’s 

whales and killer whales produces 

results inconsistent with what is known 

regarding their occurrence in the GOM. 

Accordingly, we have adjusted the 

calculated take estimates for those 

species as described below. 

NMFS’ final rule described a ‘‘core 

habitat area’’ for Rice’s whales (formerly 

known as GOM Bryde’s whales) 3

located in the northeastern GOM in 

waters between 100 and 400 m depth 

along the continental shelf break (Rosel 

et al., 2016). However, whaling records 

suggest that Rice’s whales historically 

had a broader distribution within 

similar habitat parameters throughout 

the GOM (Reeves et al., 2011; Rosel and 

Wilcox, 2014). In addition, habitatbased density modeling identified 

similar habitat (i.e., approximately 100– 

400 m water depths along the 

continental shelf break) as being 

potential Rice’s whale habitat (Roberts 

et al., 2016), although the core habitat 

area contained approximately 92 

percent of the predicted abundance of 

Rice’s whales. See discussion provided 

at, e.g., 83 FR 29228, June 22, 2018; 83 

FR 29280, June 22, 2018; 86 FR 5418, 

January 19, 2021. 

Although Rice’s whales may occur 

outside of the core habitat area, we 

expect that any such occurrence would 

be limited to the narrow band of 

suitable habitat described above (i.e., 

100–400 m) and that, based on the few 

available records, these occurrences 

would be rare. TGS’s planned activities 

will overlap this depth range, with 

approximately 18 percent of the area 

expected to be ensonified by the survey 

above root-mean-squared pressure 

received levels (RMS SPL) of 160 dB 

(referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 mPa)) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
68108 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Notices 

4However, note that these species have been 

observed over a greater range of water depths in the 

GOM than have killer whales. 

overlapping the 100–400 m isobaths. 

Therefore, while we expect take of 

Rice’s whale to be unlikely, there is 

some reasonable potential for take of 

Rice’s whale to occur in association 

with this survey. However, NMFS’ 

determination in reflection of the data 

discussed above, which informed the 

final rule, is that use of the generic 

acoustic exposure modeling results for 

Rice’s whales would result in estimated 

take numbers that are inconsistent with 

the assumptions made in the rule 

regarding expected Rice’s whale take (86 

FR 5322, January 19, 2021; 86 FR 5403, 

January 19, 2021). 

Killer whales are the most rarely 

encountered species in the GOM, 

typically in deep waters of the central 

GOM (Roberts et al., 2015; Maze-Foley 

and Mullin, 2006). As discussed in the 

final rule, the density models produced 

by Roberts et al. (2016) provide the best 

available scientific information 

regarding predicted density patterns of 

cetaceans in the U.S. GOM. The 

predictions represent the output of 

models derived from multi-year 

observations and associated 

environmental parameters that 

incorporate corrections for detection 

bias. However, in the case of killer 

whales, the model is informed by few 

data, as indicated by the coefficient of 

variation associated with the abundance 

predicted by the model (0.41, the 

second-highest of any GOM species 

model; Roberts et al., 2016). The 

model’s authors noted the expected 

non-uniform distribution of this rarelyencountered species (as discussed 

above) and expressed that, due to the 

limited data available to inform the 

model, it ‘‘should be viewed cautiously’’ 

(Roberts et al., 2015). NOAA surveys in 

the GOM from 1992 to 2009 reported 

only 16 sightings of killer whales, with 

an additional 3 encounters during more 

recent survey effort from 2017 to 2018 

(Waring et al., 2013; https://

www.boem.gov/gommapps). Two other 

species were also observed on fewer 

than 20 occasions during the 1992–2009 

NOAA surveys (Fraser’s dolphin and 

false killer whale 4). However, 

observational data collected by 

protected species observers (PSOs) on 

industry geophysical survey vessels 

from 2002 to 2015 distinguish the killer 

whale in terms of rarity. During this 

period, killer whales were encountered 

on only 10 occasions, whereas the next 

most rarely encountered species.4

However, note that these species have 

been observed over a greater range of 

water depths in the GOM than have 

killer whales. (Fraser’s dolphin) was 

recorded on 69 occasions (Barkaszi and 

Kelly, 2019). The false killer whale and 

pygmy killer whale were the next most 

rarely encountered species, with 110 

records each. The killer whale was the 

species with the lowest detection 

frequency during each period over 

which PSO data were synthesized 

(2002–2008 and 2009–2015). This 

information qualitatively informed our 

rulemaking process, as discussed at 86 

FR 5322 and 86 FR 5334 (January 19, 

2021), and similarly informs our 

analysis here. 

The rarity of encounter during seismic 

surveys is not likely to be the product 

of high bias on the probability of 

detection. Unlike certain cryptic species 

with high detection bias, such as Kogia 

spp. or beaked whales, or deep-diving 

species with high availability bias, such 

as beaked whales or sperm whales, 

killer whales are typically available for 

detection when present and are easily 

observed. Roberts et al. (2015) stated 

that availability is not a major factor 

affecting detectability of killer whales 

from shipboard surveys, as they are not 

a particularly long-diving species. Baird 

et al. (2005) reported that mean dive 

durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales 

for dives greater than or equal to 1 

minute in duration was 2.3–2.4 minutes, 

and Hooker et al. (2012) reported that 

killer whales spent 78 percent of their 

time at depths between 0 and 10 m. 

Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. (2012) 

reported data from a study of 4 killer 

whales, noting that the whales 

performed 20 times as many dives 1–30 

m in depth than to deeper waters, with 

an average depth during those most 

common dives of approximately 3 m. 

In summary, killer whales are the 

most rarely encountered species in the 

GOM and typically occur only in 

particularly deep water. This survey 

would take place in deep waters that 

would overlap with depths in which 

killer whales typically occur. While this 

information is reflected through the 

density model informing the acoustic 

exposure modeling results, there is 

relatively high uncertainty associated 

with the model for this species, and the 

acoustic exposure modeling applies 

mean distribution data over areas where 

the species is in fact less likely to occur. 

In addition, as noted above in relation 

to the general take estimation 

methodology, the assumed proxy source 

(72-element, 8,000- in3 array) results in 

a significant overestimate of the actual 

potential for take to occur. NMFS’ 

determination in reflection of the 

information discussed above, which 

informed the final rule, is that use of the 

generic acoustic exposure modeling 

results for killer whales will generally 

result in estimated take numbers that 

are inconsistent with the assumptions 

made in the rule regarding expected 

killer whale take (86 FR 5322, January 

19, 2021; 86 FR 5403, January 19, 2021). 

In past authorizations, NMFS has 

often addressed situations involving the 

low likelihood of encountering a rare 

species such as Rice’s or killer whales 

in the GOM through authorization of 

take of a single group of average size 

(i.e., representing a single potential 

encounter). See 83 FR 63268, December 

7, 2018; 86 FR 29090, May 28, 2021; 85 

FR 55645, September 9, 2020. For the 

reasons expressed above, NMFS 

determined that a single encounter of 

Rice’s whales or killer whales is more 

likely than the model-generated 

estimates and has authorized take 

associated with a single group 

encounter (i.e., up to two animals for 

Rice’s whale and up to seven animals 

for killer whales). 

Based on the results of our analysis, 

NMFS has determined that the level of 

taking authorized through the LOA is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

regulations for the affected species or 

stocks of marine mammals. See Table 1 

in this notice and Table 9 of the rule (86 

FR 5322, January 19, 2021). 

Small Numbers Determination 

Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not 

authorize incidental take of marine 

mammals in an LOA if it will exceed 

‘‘small numbers.’’ In short, when an 

acceptable estimate of the individual 

marine mammals taken is available, if 

the estimated number of individual 

animals taken is up to, but not greater 

than, one-third of the best available 

abundance estimate, NMFS will 

determine that the numbers of marine 

mammals taken of a species or stock are 

small. For more information please see 

NMFS’ discussion of the MMPA’s small 

numbers requirement provided in the 

final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 

2021). 

The take numbers for authorization, 

which are determined as described 

above, are used by NMFS in making the 

necessary small numbers 

determinations through comparison 

with the best available abundance 

estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 

January 19, 2021; 86 FR 5391, January 

19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS’ 

approach is to use the maximum 

theoretical population, determined 

through review of current stock 

assessment reports (SAR; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marineVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Oct 02, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Notices 68109 

mammal-stock-assessment-reportsspecies-stock) and model-predicted 

abundance information (https://

seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/ 

GOM/). For the latter, for taxa where a 

density surface model could be 

produced, we use the maximum mean 

seasonal (i.e., 3-month) abundance 

prediction for purposes of comparison 

as a precautionary smoothing of monthto-month fluctuations and in 

consideration of a corresponding lack of 

data in the literature regarding seasonal 

distribution of marine mammals in the 

GOM. Information supporting the small 

numbers determinations is provided in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS

Species Authorized 

take 

Scaled 

take 1 Abundance 2 Percent abundance 

Rice’s whale ..................................................................................................... 2 n/a 51 3.9 

Sperm whale .................................................................................................... 1,683 705.6 2,207 32.0 

Kogia spp ......................................................................................................... 3 636 193.4 4,373 5.2 

Beaked whales ................................................................................................ 7,430 750.4 3,768 19.9 

Rough-toothed dolphin .................................................................................... 1,293 2,197.3 4,853 1.2 

Bottlenose dolphin ........................................................................................... 7,656 562.7 176,108 0.3 

Clymene dolphin .............................................................................................. 3,595 1,031.7 11,895 8.7 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ................................................................................... 2,664 764.6 74,785 1.0 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ............................................................................. 16,313 4,681.8 102,361 4.6 

Spinner dolphin ................................................................................................ 4,371 1,254.5 25,114 5.0 

Striped dolphin ................................................................................................. 1,404 403.0 5,229 7.7 

Fraser’s dolphin ............................................................................................... 404 116.0 1,665 7.0 

Risso’s dolphin ................................................................................................. 1,056 311.6 3,764 8.3 

Melon-headed whale ....................................................................................... 2,362 696.7 7,003 9.9 

Pygmy killer whale ........................................................................................... 556 164.0 2,126 7.7 

False killer whale ............................................................................................. 885 261.2 3,204 8.2 

Killer whale ...................................................................................................... 7 n/a 267 2.6

Short-finned pilot whale ................................................................................... 683 201.5 1,981 10.2

1Scalar ratios were applied to ‘‘Authorized Take’’ values as described at 86 FR 5322 and 86 FR 5404 (January 19, 2021) to derive scaled take 

numbers shown here. 2Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to 

be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was 

produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual 

abundance is available. For Rice’s whale and the killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. 3 Includes 34 takes by Level A harassment and 602 takes by Level B harassment. Scalar ratio is applied to takes by Level B harassment only; 

small numbers determination made on basis of scaled Level B harassment take plus authorized Level A harassment take. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of TGS’s proposed survey 

activity described in its LOA 

application and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the affected species 

or stock sizes (i.e., less than one-third of 

the best available abundance estimate) 

and therefore the taking is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Authorization 

NMFS has determined that the level 

of taking for this LOA request is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

incidental take regulations and that the 

amount of take authorized under the 

LOA is of no more than small numbers. 

Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to 

TGS authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: September 27, 2023. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21760 Filed 10–2–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD433] 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP), 

Groundfish Management Team (GMT), 

Ecosystem Working Group (EWG), 

Salmon Technical Team (STT), Habitat 

Committee (HC), and Salmon Advisory 

Subpanel (SAS) will hold online 

meetings to discuss items on the Pacific 

Council’s November Council meeting 

agenda as detailed in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. 

These meetings are open to the public. 

DATES: The GAP meeting, including a 

joint session with the GMT and EWG, 

will be held Monday, October 23, 2023, 

from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., Pacific daylight 

time (PDT), or until business is 

completed. 

The STT meeting will be held 

Tuesday, October 24, from 9 a.m. to 3 

p.m., PDT, or until business is 

completed. 

The HC meeting will be held Tuesday, 

October 24, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

and Wednesday, October 25, from 1:30 

p.m. to 4:30 p.m., until business is 

completed each day. 

The SAS meeting will be held 

Tuesday, October 31, 2023, from 9 a.m. 

to 3 p.m., PDT, or until business is 

completed. 

ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held 

online. Specific meeting information, 

including directions on how to join the 

meeting and system requirements, will 

be provided in the meeting 

announcement on the Pacific Council’s 

website (see www.pcouncil.org). You 

may send an email to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov) or contact him at (503) 820– 

2412 for technical assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1