14056 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Notices 

7See Initiation Notice, 88 FR 62322. 

8See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011). 

9See Administrative Protective Order, Service, 

and Other Procedures in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings; Final Rule, 88 FR 

67069 (September 29, 2023). 

SCLM Services SDN BHD (SCLM); 

Unique Stone SDN BHD (Unique Stone); 

and Universal Quartz. We are 

conducting the ongoing AD and CVD 

administrative reviews to reconsider the 

eligibility of Bada Industries, Karina 

Stone, and Universal Quartz from the 

certification process.7

With this notice, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(b), we are affording 

interested parties, as defined by section 

771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, with a supplemental 

opportunity to request in writing that 

the Secretary conduct an administrative 

review to review the certification 

eligibility of any of the following 

companies: Ever Stone; MSI; Principal 

Safwa; Resstone; SCLM; and Unique 

Stone. For both the AD and CVD 

administrative reviews, the requestor 

must specify for which of these 

companies it is requesting a review. 

The deadline for parties to file a 

request for review of the certification 

status of these entities is not later than 

14 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. If interested parties submit 

a request for review of any of these 

companies, Commerce’s review will be 

limited to the company’s eligibility to 

participate in the certification process. 

Moreover, Commerce will only include 

those companies in the AD and CVD 

administrative reviews which have 

suspended entries of subject 

merchandise during the expanded PORs 

(i.e., November 1, 2021, through June 

30, 2023 for the AD administrative 

review; and November 1, 2021, through 

December 31, 2022 for the CVD 

administrative review). 

All review requests must be filed 

electronically in Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at 

https://access.trade.gov.8 Further, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), 

a copy of each request must be served 

on the petitioner and each exporter or 

producer specified in the request. Note 

that Commerce has amended certain of 

its requirements pertaining to the 

service of documents in 19 CFR 

351.303(f).9

Commerce intends to publish in the 

Federal Register a supplementary 

initiation notice for all timely filed 

review requests which satisfy the 

requirements noted above. 

Continued Suspension of Liquidation 

Commerce previously issued 

instructions to CBP directing the 

assessment of antidumping or 

countervailing duties on entries not 

currently under review at a rate equal to 

the cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping or countervailing duties 

required on those entries at the time of 

entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption. In the event that 

Commerce receives additional review 

requests for the companies listed above, 

Commerce intends to amend these 

instructions to direct CBP to continue to 

suspend liquidation of any unliquidated 

entries made by companies 

subsequently under review until the 

completion of these administrative 

reviews. 

Dated: February 20, 2024. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03857 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD711] 

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 LLOG Exploration Company (LLOG) 

for the take of marine mammals 

incidental to geophysical survey activity 

in the GOM. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from March 

1, 2024 through April 19, 2026. 

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: 

Jenna Harlacher, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Notices 14057 

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). 

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 

LLOG plans to conduct one of the 

following vertical seismic profile (VSP) 

survey types: Zero Offset, Offset, 

Walkaway, 3D, Salt Proximity Survey 

and/or Checkshot within Mississippi 

Canyon area Blocks 509, 629, and 589. 

The survey area has water depths of 914 

to 1,981 meters (m). LLOG plans to use 

either a 12-element, 2,400 cubic inch 

(in3) airgun array, or a 6-element, 1,500 

in3 airgun array. The survey is planned 

to occur for up to 5 days during March 

1, 2024 through July 19, 2026. Please see 

LLOG’s application for additional detail. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

final rule, the survey effort proposed by 

LLOG 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., 2D, 3D NAZ, 3D 

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 in one of 

the following forms: Zero Offset VSP— 

deployed from a drilling rig at or near 

the borehole, with the seismic receivers 

(i.e., geophones) deployed in the 

borehole on wireline at specified depth 

intervals; Offset VSP—in a fixed 

position deployed from a supply vessel 

on an offset position; Walkaway VSP— 

attached to a line, or a series of lines, 

towed by a supply vessel; 3D VSP— 

source moves along a spiral or line 

swaths towed by a supply vessel; SaltProximity—consists typically of a 

combination of both Zero Offset VSP 

plus a fixed Offset VSP; or Checkshot— 

similar to Zero Offset VSP, typically 

hung from a platform and a sensor 

placed at a few depths in the well, 

where only the first energy arrival is 

recorded. 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 

LLOG’s planned survey is expected to 

cover no additional area as a stationary 

source, the coil proxy is most 

representative of the effort planned by 

LLOG 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 

(maximum 12 elements and 2,400 in3), 

and in daily survey area planned by 

LLOG (as mentioned above), 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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
14058 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Notices 

4However, note that these species have been 

observed over a greater range of water depths in the 

GOM than have killer whales. 

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. LLOG’s planned 

activities will occur in water depths of 

approximately 914 to 1,981 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 two killer whale 

exposures. Given the foregoing, it is 

unlikely that any killer whales would be 

encountered during this at most 5-day 

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 5 days) and 

relatively small Level B harassment 

isopleths produced through use of the 

(at most) 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 size for this species in 

authorizing take. See table 1 for more 

information. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Notices 14059 

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 ................................................................................................................................ 132 2,207 6.0 

Kogia spp ..................................................................................................................................... 3 50 4,373 1.1 

Beaked whales ............................................................................................................................ 580 3,768 15.4 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................................................................................................................ 100 4,853 2.1 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 473 176,108 0.3 

Clymene dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 281 11,895 2.4 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 189 74,785 0.3 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................................................................................................... 1,274 102,361 1.2 

Spinner dolphin ............................................................................................................................ 341 25,114 1.4 

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 110 5,229 2.1 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................... 4 32 1,665 1.9 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 83 3,764 2.2 

Melon-headed whale ................................................................................................................... 185 7,003 2.6 

Pygmy killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 43 2,126 2.0 

False killer whale ......................................................................................................................... 69 3,204 2.2 

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

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................... 53 1,981 2.7 

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 3 take by Level A harassment and 47 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 LLOG’s planned 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 

LLOG authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: February 20, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03788 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 240216–0052] 

RIN 0660–XC060 

Dual Use Foundation Artificial 

Intelligence Models With Widely 

Available Model Weights 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: On October 30, 2023, 

President Biden issued an Executive 

order on ‘‘Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy 

Development and Use of Artificial 

Intelligence,’’ which directed the 

Secretary of Commerce, acting through 

the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Communications and Information, and 

in consultation with the Secretary of 

State, to conduct a public consultation 

process and issue a report on the 

potential risks, benefits, other 

implications, and appropriate policy 

and regulatory approaches to dual-use 

foundation models for which the model 

weights are widely available. Pursuant 

to that Executive order, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) hereby issues 

this Request for Comment on these 

issues. Responses received will be used 

to submit a report to the President on 

the potential benefits, risks, and 

implications of dual-use foundation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES