72996 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Notices 

Period of review 

Egypt: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet, A–729–803 .............................................................................................................. 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

Iceland: Silicon Metal, A–400–001 .......................................................................................................................................... 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

India: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet, A–533–895 ............................................................................................................... 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

Indonesia: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet, A–560–835 ....................................................................................................... 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

Italy: 

Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel, A–475–838 ........................................................... 6/1/2022–5/31/2023 

Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet, A–475–842 .................................................................................................................. 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

Oman: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet, A–523–814 ............................................................................................................. 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

The People’s Republic of China: 

Aluminum Extrusions, A–570–967 ................................................................................................................................... 5/1/2022–4/30/2023 

Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet, A–570–073 .................................................................................................................. 2/1/2022–1/31/2023 

Certain Vertical Shaft Engines Between 99cc and up to 225cc, and Parts Thereof, A–570–124 .................................. 5/1/2022–4/30/2023 

Difluoromethane, A–570–121 ........................................................................................................................................... 3/1/2022–2/28/2023 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks, A–570–983 ........................................................................................................................ 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes, A–570–929 ........................................................................................................... 2/1/2022–1/31/2023 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip, A–570–042 ................................................................................................................... 4/1/2022–3/31/2023 

Turkey: Quartz Surface Products, A–489–837 ....................................................................................................................... 6/1/2022–5/31/2023 

CVD Proceedings 

India: 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod, C–533–888 ....................................................................................................... 1/1/2022–12/31/2022 

Quartz Surface Products, C–533–890 ............................................................................................................................. 1/1/2022–12/31/2022 

The People’s Republic of China: 

Certain Vertical Shaft Engines Between 99cc and up to 225cc, and Parts Thereof, C–570–125 .................................. 1/1/2022–12/31/2022 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip, C–570–043 ................................................................................................................... 1/1/2022–12/31/2022 

Turkey: Quartz Surface Products, C–489–838 ....................................................................................................................... 1/1/2022–12/31/2022 

Assessment 

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping and/or countervailing 

duties on all appropriate entries during 

the PORs noted above for each of the 

listed administrative reviews at rates 

equal to the cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping or countervailing duties, 

as applicable, required at the time of 

entry, or withdrawal of merchandise 

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 recission notice in 

the Federal Register for rescinded 

administrative reviews of AD/CVD 

orders on countries other than Canada 

and Mexico. For rescinded 

administrative reviews of AD/CVD 

orders on Canada or Mexico, Commerce 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the 

date of publication of this recission 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to importers of merchandise 

subject to AD/CVD orders of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties and/or 

countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during the review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

and/or countervailing duties occurred 

and the subsequent assessment of 

doubled antidumping duties and/or 

countervailing duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in these 

segments of these proceedings. Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: October 19, 2023. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23444 Filed 10–23–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD470] 

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 (GOM), 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to Murphy Exploration & Production 

Company (Murphy) for the take of 

marine mammals incidental to 

geophysical survey activity in the GOM. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from 

November 1, 2023, through October 30, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-oil-andVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Oct 23, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24OCN1.SGM 24OCN1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Notices 72997 

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). 

gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-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 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 

Murphy plans to conduct a vertical 

seismic profile (VSP) within Atwater 

Valley Block 138. The survey will occur 

at a water depth of 1,050 meters (m). 

Murphy plans to use a 12-element, 

2,400 cubic inch (in3) airgun array. The 

survey is planned to occur for 2 days 

during the period from November 1, 

2023 to October 30, 2024. Please see 

Murphy’s application for additional 

detail. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

final rule, the survey effort proposed by 

Murphy 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 5322, January 19, 

2021). In order to generate the 

appropriate take number 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 VSP surveys were included in the 

modeled survey types, and use of 

existing proxies (i.e., two-dimensional 

(2D), three-dimensional narrow azimuth 

(3D NAZ), 3D wide-azimuth (WAZ), 

Coil) is generally conservative for use in 

evaluation of VSP survey effort. 

Summary descriptions of these modeled 

survey geometries are available in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 

29212, June 22, 2018). Coil was selected 

as the best available proxy survey type 

because the spatial coverage of the 

planned survey is most similar to that 

associated with the coil survey pattern. 

For the planned survey, the seismic 

source array will be deployed from a 

stationary drilling rig at or near the 

borehole, with the seismic receivers 

(i.e., geophones) deployed in the 

borehole on wireline at specified depth 

intervals. The coil survey pattern in the 

model 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. Because 

Murphy’s planned survey would not 

cover any additional area beyond that 

ensonified by the stationary source, the 

coil proxy is most representative of the 

effort planned by Murphy in terms of 

predicted Level B harassment. 

In addition, all available acoustic 

exposure modeling results assume use 

of a 72 element, 8,000 in3 array. Thus, 

estimated take numbers for this LOA are 

considered conservative due to the 

differences in both the airgun array (12 

elements and 2,400 in3), and in daily 

survey area planned by Murphy, as 

compared to those modeled for the rule. 

The survey is planned to occur in 

Zone 5. The survey could take place in 

any season. Therefore, the take 

estimates for each species are based on 

the season that has the greater value for 

the species (i.e., winter or summer). 

Additionally, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
72998 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Notices 

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). 

4However, note that these species have been 

observed over a greater range of water depths in the 

GOM than have killer whales. 

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 (see, 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 100–400 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, 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. Murphy’s planned 

activities will occur in water depths of 

approximately 1,050 m in the central 

GOM. Thus, NMFS does not expect 

there to be the reasonable potential for 

take of Rice’s whale in association with 

this survey and, accordingly, does not 

authorize take of Rice’s whale through 

the LOA. 

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 

1992–2009 reported only 16 sightings of 

killer whales, with an additional 3 

encounters during more recent survey 

effort from 2017–2018 (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– 

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 (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, 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 0–10 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, 86 FR 

5403, January 19, 2021). In this case, use 

of the acoustic exposure modeling 

produces an estimate of one killer whale 

exposure. Given the foregoing, it is 

unlikely that any killer whales would be 

encountered during this at most 2-day 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Notices 72999 

survey, and accordingly no take of killer 

whales is authorized through this LOA. 

In addition, in this case, use of the 

exposure modeling produces results that 

are smaller than average GOM group 

sizes for one species (Maze-Foley and 

Mullin, 2006). NMFS’ typical practice in 

such a situation is to increase exposure 

estimates to the assumed average group 

size for a species in order to ensure that, 

if the species is encountered, exposures 

will not exceed the authorized take 

number. However, other relevant 

considerations here lead to a 

determination that increasing the 

estimated exposures to the average 

group size would likely lead to an 

overestimate of actual potential take. In 

this circumstance, the very short survey 

duration (maximum of 2 days) and 

relatively small Level B harassment 

isopleths produced through use of the 

12-element, 2,400-in3 airgun array 

(compared with the modeled 72- 

element, 8,000 in3 array) mean that it is 

unlikely that certain species would be 

encountered at all, much less that the 

encounter would result in exposure of a 

greater number of individuals than is 

estimated through use of the exposure 

modeling results. As a result, in this 

case NMFS has not increased the 

estimated exposure values to assumed 

average group sizes in authorizing take. 

Based on the results of our analysis, 

NMFS has determined that the level of 

taking expected for this survey and 

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 5322, 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, 

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/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and modelpredicted 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 1 Abundance 2 Percent abundance 

Rice’s whale ................................................................................................................................. 0 51 n/a 

Sperm whale ................................................................................................................................ 53 2,207 2.4 

Kogia spp ..................................................................................................................................... 3 20 4,373 0.4 

Beaked whales ............................................................................................................................ 232 3,768 6.2 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................................................................................................................ 40 4,853 0.8 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 189 176,108 0.1 

Clymene dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 112 11,895 0.9 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 76 74,785 0.1 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................................................................................................... 510 102,361 0.5 

Spinner dolphin ............................................................................................................................ 4 137 25,114 0.5 

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 4 44 5,229 0.8 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................... 4 13 1,665 0.8 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 33 3,764 0.9 

Melon-headed whale ................................................................................................................... 4 74 7,003 1.1 

Pygmy killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 4 17 2,126 0.8 

False killer whale ......................................................................................................................... 28 3,204 0.9 

Killer whale .................................................................................................................................. 0 267 n/a 

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................... 4 21 1,981 1.1 

1Scalar ratios were not applied in this case due to brief survey duration. 

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 killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. 3 Includes 1 take by Level A harassment and 19 takes by Level B harassment. 

4 Modeled exposure estimate less than assumed average group size (Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of Murphy’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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
73000 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2023 / Notices 

1www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/11/ 

09/00-29003/consultation-and-coordination-withIndian-tribal-governments/. 

2www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-ontribal-consultation-and-strengthening-nation-tonation-relationships/. 

3www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

presidential-actions/2022/11/30/memorandum-onuniform-standards-for-tribal-consultation/. 

4www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/media/ 

files/2013/tribal-consultation-final.pdf. 

5WIPO currently has 193 Member States: 

www.wipo.int/members/en/. 

6The current ‘‘IGC Mandate’’ may be found at: 

www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc. As of this writing, the IGC 

Mandate covers the biennium 2024/2025. 

amount of take authorized under the 

LOA is of no more than small numbers. 

Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to 

Murphy authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: October 19, 2023. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23455 Filed 10–23–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No.: PTO–C–2023–0020] 

Formal Tribal Consultation on WIPO 

IGC Negotiations 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Tribal Consultation 

meetings and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), Department 

of Commerce, announces a formal Tribal 

Consultation, and requests written 

comments on issues involving genetic 

resources (GR), traditional knowledge 

(TK), and traditional cultural 

expressions (TCEs). These topics are 

being discussed at the World 

Intellectual Property Organization 

(WIPO). Specifically, the WIPO 

Intergovernmental Committee on 

Intellectual Property and Genetic 

Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and 

Folklore (traditional cultural 

expressions) (WIPO IGC) is undertaking 

negotiations regarding how best to 

protect GR, TK, and TCEs of Indigenous 

Peoples. 

DATES: Webinar Dates: The webinar for 

federally recognized Tribal Nations and 

their proxies will be held on Tuesday, 

January 16, 2024, from 3 to 5 p.m. ET 

and Wednesday, January 17, 2024 from 

3 to 5 p.m. ET. The webinar for state 

recognized Tribes and other Tribal 

members, Native Hawaiians and their 

representatives, and inter-tribal 

organizations, will be held on Friday, 

January 19, 2024, from 3 to 5 p.m. ET 

and Tuesday, January 23, 2024, from 3 

to 5 p.m. ET. Please register in advance 

to participate in one of these webinars 

at: https://cvent.me/bZRP3L. After 

registering, you will receive a 

confirmation email containing 

information about joining the meeting. If 

you are unable to join via the platform, 

a call-in number also will be provided. 

The webinar for federally recognized 

Tribes is open only to federally 

recognized Tribal Nations and their 

proxies and is closed to the press. The 

webinar for state recognized Tribes and 

other Tribal members, Native Hawaiians 

and their representatives, and intertribal organizations is open only to these 

entities and communities and is also 

closed to the press. 

Comment Deadline: Written 

comments pursuant to the questions in 

this Notice must be received by Friday, 

February 23, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by email to: 

TribalConsultWIPOIGC2023@uspto.gov. 

Please use the heading ‘‘WIPO IGC 

FORMAL TRIBAL CONSULTATION 

2023’’ in the subject line. 

If electronic submission of comments 

is not feasible due to a lack of access to 

a computer and/or the internet, please 

submit comments by First-Class Mail or 

Priority Mail to: Susan Anthony, Tribal 

Affairs Liaison, Mail Stop OPIA, U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexandria, VA 22314–1450. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Anthony, Tribal Affairs Liaison, 

Office of Policy and International 

Affairs (OPIA), USPTO, at 

Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov or at 571– 

272–8459. Please direct media inquiries 

to the USPTO’s Office of the Chief 

Communications Officer at 571–272– 

8400. These webinars are closed to the 

media. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

USPTO has been actively engaged in 

discussions in the WIPO IGC, along 

with other Federal agencies, and has 

been responsible for leading the 

development of U.S. positions on WIPO 

IGC issues. The USPTO’s announcement 

for formal Tribal Consultation on WIPO 

IGC issues aligns with the Federal 

Government’s policies and relationship 

with Tribal Governments, including: 

Executive Order 13175; 1 President 

Biden’s Memorandum on Tribal 

Consultation and Strengthening Nationto-Nation Relationships; 2 President 

Biden’s Memorandum on Uniform 

Standards for Tribal Consultation; 3 and 

the Tribal Consultation and 

Coordination Policy for the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Policy’’).4

The Policy requires that the Department 

and operating units engage in 

meaningful dialogue with Tribes 

regarding policies that have Tribal 

implications. This Tribal Consultation 

will consist of a webinar for federally 

recognized Tribal Nations and their 

proxies and a separate webinar for state 

recognized Tribes and other Tribal 

members, Native Hawaiians, and intertribal associations. 

In addition to these webinars, the 

USPTO seeks written comments 

regarding the questions in this Notice. 

Written comments may include 

comments responsive to the questions 

in this Notice, comments responsive to 

issues discussed during the webinars, 

and any other related concerns. 

WIPO is a specialized United Nations 

agency based in Geneva, Switzerland, 

that focuses on intellectual property 

(IP). Established in September 2000, the 

WIPO IGC serves as a forum where 

WIPO Member States 5 and accredited 

observers can discuss the intellectual 

property issues that arise in the context 

of access to GR and benefit-sharing, as 

well as the protection of TK and 

folklore/TCEs. 

Since 2009, the WIPO IGC has been 

engaged in text-based negotiations on an 

international legal instrument for GR, 

TK, and TCEs. The U.S. understands the 

term ‘‘international legal instrument(s)’’ 

in the WIPO IGC mandate 6 to include 

declarations, recommendations, best 

practices, toolkits, and other forms of 

‘‘soft law’’ and actively seeks practical 

recommendations in addressing the 

matters under discussion within the 

WIPO IGC. WIPO also has the authority 

to initiate norm-setting discussions and 

to propose international rules for 

adoption by a diplomatic conference or 

adoption by another WIPO body. 

‘‘International legal instrument(s)’’ 

could also include a treaty or 

international agreement, although there 

is no requirement that prescribes this 

particular outcome. This request for 

comments seeks Tribal input on, among 

other topics, whether a treaty or forms 

of soft law are necessary to address 

issues regarding TK and TCEs. 

The WIPO General Assembly, held in 

Geneva, Switzerland, on July 14–22, 

2022, decided to convene a diplomatic 

conference to conclude an International 

Legal Instrument Relating to Intellectual 

Property, Genetic Resources and 

Traditional Knowledge Associated with 

Genetic Resources, based on document 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1