Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79557 

(FONSI) was signed on September 4, 

2024. Copies of the EA and FONSI are 

available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-oil-and-gas. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Hilcorp 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of 12 marine mammal species 

incidental to Hilcorp’s use of tugs to 

tow, hold, and position a jack-up rig in 

support of their oil and gas activities in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska from September 24, 

2024 through September 23, 2025, that 

includes the previously explained 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements. 

Dated: September 24, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22293 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE225] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Army Corps 

of Engineers Baker Bay Pile Dike 

Repair Project 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with the Baker Bay pile dike repair 

project in Baker Bay, Oregon. There are 

no changes from the proposed 

authorization in this final authorization. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from August 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-armycorps-engineers-baker-bay-pile-dikerepair-project-baker. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. The definitions 

of all applicable MMPA statutory terms 

cited above are included in the relevant 

sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On September 8, 2022, NMFS 

received a request from the ACOE for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving and removal at the mouth 

of the Columbia River in Oregon. 

Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, the ACOE submitted two 

revised versions on March 4, 2024 and 

May 1, 2024. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on June 

10, 2024. The ACOE’s request is for take 

of eight species of marine mammals by 

Level B harassment and, for harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina), Level A harassment. 

Neither ACOE nor NMFS expect serious 

injury or mortality to result from this 

activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Activity 

ACOE is planning to conduct pile 

dike repairs in the Baker Bay system, 

located in the Columbia River estuary. 

There are a variety of activities that will 

occur during this project. Take of 

marine mammals is expected to occur 

only during the construction of the 

material offload facility and the 

installation of the marker piles. 

Vibratory and impact pile driving will 

introduce underwater sounds that may 

result in take, by Level A and Level B 

harassment, of marine mammals. It is 

expected to take up to 12 nonconsecutive days to complete the pile 

driving activities from August through 

October. 

A detailed description of the planned 

construction project is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 60385, July 25, 2024). Since 

that time, no changes have been made 

to the planned activities. Therefore, a 

detailed description is not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for the description of the 

specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to the ACOE was published in 

the Federal Register on July 25, 2024 

(89 FR 60385). That notice described, in 

detail, the ACOE’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. In that notice, we 

requested public input on the request 

for authorization described therein, our 

analyses, the proposed authorization, 

and any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed IHA, and requested that 

interested persons submit relevant 

information, suggestions, and 

comments. During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS did not receive 

any public comments. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this activity and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endanger Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. PBR is defined by 

the MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species or stocks and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Pacific SARs. All values 

presented in table 1 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication 

(including from the draft 2023 SARs) 

and are available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 2

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Order Artiodactyla—Infraorder Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae (baleen 

whale): 

Gray Whale ...................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern N Pacific ................... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 131 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals) 

Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Central America/Southern 

Mexico—CA/OR/WA.

E, D, Y 1,494 (0.171, 1,284, 2021) .... 3.5 14.9 

Mainland Mexico—CA/OR/WA T, D, Y 3,477 (0.101, 3,185, 2018) .... 43 22 

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Killer whale ....................... Orcinus orca ........................... West Coast Transient ............ -, -, N 349 (N/A, 349, 2018) ............. 3.5 0.4 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Northern OR/WA Coast ......... -, -, N 22,074 (0.391, 16,068, 2022) 161 3.2 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

Steller sea lion ................. Eumetopias jubatus ................ Eastern DPS .......................... -, -, N 36,308 (N/A, 36,308, 2022) ... 2,178 93.2 

California sea lion ............ Zalophus californianus ........... U.S ......................................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014) 14,011 >321 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ....................... Phoca vitulina ......................... OR/WA Coastal ...................... -, -, N UNK (UNK, UNK, 1999) ......... UND 10.6 

Northern elephant seal ..... Mirounga angustirostris .......... CA Breeding ........................... -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013) 5,122 13.7 

1 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy. 

2Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 3 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the Baker Bay 

pile dike project, including brief 

introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (89 FR 60385, July 25, 2024); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for 

generalized species accounts. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79559 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Subsequently, NMFS 

(2018) described generalized hearing 

ranges for these marine mammal hearing 

groups. Generalized hearing ranges were 

chosen based on the approximately 65- 

decibel (dB) threshold from the 

normalized composite audiograms, with 

the exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized 

hearing range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ......................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .............................. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger & L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ....................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .................................................................................. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the ACOE’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the project area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (89 FR 60385, July 25, 

2024) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the ACOE’s 

construction on marine mammals and 

their habitat. That information and 

analysis is referenced in this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (89 FR 60385, July 25, 2024). 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHA, which will 

inform NMFS’ consideration of ‘‘small 

numbers,’’ the negligible impact 

determinations, and impacts on 

subsistence uses. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes will primarily be by 

Level B harassment, as use of the 

construction equipment (i.e., pile 

driving) has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) of phocids 

because predicted auditory injury zones 

are larger than for other species. The 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

expected to minimize the severity of the 

taking to the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or to 

be authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take numbers are 

estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur Permanent 

Threshold Shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al. 2007, 2021; Ellison 

et al. 2012). Based on what the available 

science indicates and the practical need 

to use a threshold based on a metric that 

is both predictable and measurable for 

most activities, NMFS typically uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

behavioral harassment. NMFS generally 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meanVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 27, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM 30SEN1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

squared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by Temporary Threshold 

Shift (TTS) as, in most cases, the 

likelihood of TTS occurs at distances 

from the source less than those at which 

behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of 

a sufficient degree can manifest as 

behavioral harassment, as reduced 

hearing sensitivity and the potential 

reduced opportunities to detect 

important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that will not otherwise occur. 

The ACOE’s construction includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the RMS 

SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa are applicable. 

Level A Harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0; 

Technical Guidance 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The ACOE’s construction 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1:Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .......................... Cell 2:LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3:Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .......................... Cell 4:LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5:Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .......................... Cell 6:LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7:Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ......................... Cell 8:LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9:Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ......................... Cell 10:LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

project. Marine mammals are expected 

to be affected via sound generated by 

the primary components of the project 

(i.e., impact pile driving and vibratory 

pile driving and removal). The 

maximum (underwater) area ensonified 

above the thresholds for behavioral 

harassment referenced above is 20.72 

km2 (12.87 mi2), and will consist of 

most of the mouth of the Columbia 

River immediately south of West Sand 

Island (See figure 1 in the proposed IHA 

89 FR 60385, July 25, 2024). 

Additionally, vessel traffic in the project 

area may contribute to elevated 

background noise levels which may 

mask sounds produced by the project. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B × Log10 (R1/R2), 

where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions including in-water structures 

and sediments. Spherical spreading 

occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (freefield) environment not limited by depth 

or water surface, resulting in a 6–dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance from the source 

(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading 

occurs in an environment in which 

sound propagation is bounded by the 

water surface and sea bottom, resulting 

in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for 

each doubling of distance from the 

source (10*log[range]). A practical 

spreading value of 15 is often used 

under conditions, such as the project 

site, where water increases with depth 

as the receiver moves away from the 

shoreline, resulting in an expected 

propagation environment that will lie 

between spherical and cylindrical 

spreading loss conditions. Practical 

spreading loss is assumed here. 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79561 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. In order to calculate the distances 

to the Level A harassment and the Level 

B harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, the applicant and NMFS used 

acoustic monitoring data from other 

locations to develop proxy source levels 

for the various pile types, sizes and 

methods. The project includes vibratory 

and impact pile installation of steel pipe 

and sheet piles and vibratory removal of 

steel sheet piles. Source levels for 24-in 

steel pipe piles are used as a proxy for 

all steel piles that may be placed for 

marker piles of the dike system, though 

smaller piles may be used during the 

construction. NMFS consulted multiple 

sources to determine valid proxy source 

levels for the impact installation of 

sheet piles, as indicated in table 4. This 

is the best available data for sheet pile 

source levels and is based on 24-in sheet 

piles used for a project in California. 

Source levels for each pile size and 

driving method are presented in table 4. 

TABLE 4—PROXY SOUND SOURCE LEVELS FOR PILE SIZES AND DRIVING METHODS

Pile size Method 

Proxy source level 

(at 10 m) 

Literature source 

dB RMS 

re 1μPa 

dB SEL re 

1μPa2sec 

dB peak 

re 1μPa 

24-in ............................................ Vibratory ..................................... 154 N/A N/A Navy 2015. 

24-in sheet pile ........................... Vibratory ..................................... 160 N/A N/A Caltrans 2020. 

24-in ............................................ Impact ......................................... 189 178 203 Caltrans 2015. 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources such as impact or vibratory pile 

driving, the optional User Spreadsheet 

tool predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance for the duration of the activity, 

it would be expected to incur PTS. 

Inputs used in the optional User 

Spreadsheet tool are reported below 

(table 5). The resulting estimated Level 

A harassment isopleths and the Level B 

harassment isopleths are reported in 

table 6. 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS FOR CALCULATING LEVEL A HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Pile size and installation method Spreadsheet tab used 

Weighting 

factor 

adjustment 

(kHz) 

Number of 

strikes 

per pile 

Number of 

piles 

per day 

Activity 

duration 

(minutes) 

24-in vibratory installation (MOF Option 

2).

A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...................... 2.5 N/A 8 20 

24-in vibratory removal (MOF Option 2) A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...................... 2.5 N/A 16 5 

24-in sheet pile vibratory installation 

(MOF Option 1).

A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...................... 2.5 N/A 25 15 

24-in sheet pile vibratory removal 

(MOF Option 1).

A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...................... 2.5 N/A 60 3 

24-in vibratory installation (Pile Markers).A.1 Vibratory pile driving ...................... 2.5 N/A 8 15 

24-in impact installation (Pile Markers) E.1 Impact pile driving ......................... 2 225 5 N/A 

TABLE 6—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Activity 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) LFcetaceans 

MFcetaceans HFcetaceans Phocids Otariids 

24-in Steel Pipe Pile Vibratory Install (MOF Option 2) ................. 4.5 0.4 6.6 2.7 0.2 1,847.8 

24-in Steel Pipe Pile Vibratory Removal (MOF Option 2) ............. 2.8 0.3 4.2 1.7 0.1 

24-in sheet pile vibratory installation (MOF Option 1) ................... 23.4 2.1 34.6 14.2 1.0 4,641.1 

24-in sheet pile vibratory removal (MOF Option 1) ....................... 12.2 1.1 18 7.4 0.5 

24-in vibratory installation (Pile Markers) ...................................... 3.7 0.3 5.5 2.3 0.2 1,847.8 

24-in impact installation (Pile Markers) ......................................... 501.4 17.8 597.2 268.3 19.5 857.7 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Estimation 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. We describe how 

the information provided is synthesized 

to produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and authorized. 

When available, peer-reviewed 

scientific publications were used to 

estimate marine mammal abundance in 

the project area. Data from monitoring 

reports from the previous Sand Island 

Test Pile Project was used to calculate 

take for several species. However, 

scientific surveys and resulting data, 

such as population estimates, densities, 

and other quantitative information, are 

lacking for some species. The ACOE 

also gathered qualitative information 

from discussions with knowledgeable 

local people that frequent the mouth of 

the Columbia River. Assumptions 

regarding the size of expected groups of 

different species, and the frequency of 

occurrence of those groups, were made 

by the ACOE on the basis of the 

aforementioned information and are 

described for each species below. 

Since reliable densities are not 

available, the take numbers are based on 

the assumed occurrence of a given stock 

during the activity. The applicant used 

equation 1, below, to estimate take of 

killer whales and Steller sea lions, 

equation 2 to estimate take of humpback 

whale, harbor porpoise, California sea 

lions, and harbor seals, and neither 

equation for gray whale or Northern 

elephant seals. NMFS concurs with this 

method. The estimated take calculation 

for these/this species is explained in the 

relevant section below. 

(1) Estimated Take = number of 

individuals in a group × groups per 

day × days of pile-related activity 

(2) Estimated Take = total expected 

duration of the project (minutes) ÷ 

total duration of the Sand Island 

Test Pile Project × the total number 

of animals of a given species 

observed during the Sand Island 

Test Pile Project 

Gray Whale 

Historically gray whales have not 

frequented the mouth of the Columbia 

River. No gray whales were observed 

during monitoring activities of the Sand 

Island Test Pile Project (Hamer 

Environment L.P. 2020). In August of 

2020, an ACOE biologist observed two 

gray whales traveling upriver from the 

project site. Given this recent sighting 

and the temporal overlap of the project 

and the most recent sighting, NMFS 

authorized two takes of gray whales by 

Level B harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for gray whales extends 513 m from the 

noise source (table 6). ACOE is planning 

to implement shutdown zones for lowfrequency cetaceans that exceed the 

Level A harassment isopleth for all 

activities. Therefore, especially in 

combination with the already low 

occurrence of gray whales in the area, 

implementation of the shutdown zones 

is expected to eliminate the potential for 

take by Level A harassment of gray 

whale. Therefore, no take by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or authorized 

for humpback whales. 

Humpback Whales 

Humpback whales have occurred in 

the lower Columbia River near the 

project area in recent years. Feeding 

groups have been using the mouth of the 

Columbia River as a foraging ground, 

arriving as early as mid-June, and have 

been observed as late as mid-November 

with a peak of abundance coinciding 

with the peak abundance of forage fish 

in mid-summer (The Columbian 2019). 

During pile driving activities of the 

Sand Island Test Pile Project, seven 

animals were observed (Hamer 

Environment L.P. 2020). The ACOE 

estimated take of humpback whales 

using equation 2 above resulting in a 

take estimate of 16 takes by Level B 

harassment (2277 (pile driving minutes 

for this activity)/1037 (pile driving 

minutes for Sand Island Test Pile 

Project) × 7 observed animals). NMFS 

agrees with this approach and estimated 

take. As described above, NMFS 

anticipates that 42 percent of takes will 

occur to individuals of the Central 

America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA 

stock and 58 percent of takes will occur 

to individuals of the Mainland MexicoCA/OR/WA which will equate to seven 

and nine takes respectively. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for humpback whales extends 513 m 

from the noise source (table 6). ACOE is 

planning to implement shutdown zones 

for low-frequency cetaceans that exceed 

the Level A harassment isopleth for all 

activities. Implementation of the 

shutdown zones is expected to 

eliminate the potential for take by Level 

A harassment of humpback whale. No 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or authorized for humpback 

whales. 

Killer Whale 

Use of the mouth of the Columbia 

River is rare for killer whales, but in 

recent years pods of killer whales have 

been observed in and around the mouth 

of the Columbia River. During the recent 

monitoring of the Sand Island Test Pile 

Project, no killer whales were observed 

(Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Aerial 

seabird marine mammal surveys 

observed 0 killer whales in January 

2011, 0 in February 2012, and 10 in 

September 2012 within an 

approximately 1,500 km2 range near the 

Mouth of the Columbia River (Adams 

2014). A pod of transient killer whales 

was detected near the Astoria Bridge in 

May of 2018 (Frankowicz 2018) and in 

2022 (Tomlinson 2022). The ACOE 

estimated the average group sizes from 

these past observations was seven. 

Based on the rare occurrence of killer 

whales in the project area, ACOE 

expects that one group of seven killer 

whales may occur during the 12 days of 

construction in the Level B harassment 

zone. NMFS concurs and authorized 

seven takes of killer whale by Level B 

harassment. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for killer whales extends 17.8 m from 

the noise source (table 6). ACOE is 

planning to implement shutdown zones 

for mid-frequency cetaceans that exceed 

the Level A harassment isopleth for all 

activities. Implementation of the 

shutdown zones is expected to 

eliminate the potential for take by Level 

A harassment of killer whale. No take by 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

authorized for killer whales. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are regularly 

observed in the offshore waters near the 

mouth of the Columbia River and are 

known to occur there year-round. 

Porpoise abundance peaks when 

anchovy (Engraulis mordax) abundance 

in the river and nearshore are highest, 

which is usually between April and 

August (Litz et al. 2008). Harbor 

porpoise tend to occur in groups of one 

to two individuals. During the recent 

monitoring of the Sand Island Test Pile 

Project, eight harbor porpoise were 

observed during construction activities 

(Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Using 

equation 2 above, ACOE expects that 18 

takes by Level B harassment will occur 

over the 12 days of pile driving (2277 

(pile driving minutes for this activity)/ 

1037 (pile driving minutes for Sand 

Island Test Pile Project) × 8 observed 

animals). NMFS agrees with this 

approach and authorized 18 takes by 

Level B harassment of harbor porpoise. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for harbor porpoise extends 597 m from 

the noise source (table 6). ACOE is 

planning to implement shutdown zones 

for high-frequency cetaceans that exceed 

the Level A harassment isopleth for all 

activities, and it did not request take by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79563 

Level A harassment of harbor porpoise. 

For some activities (i.e., impact driving 

of 24-in piles), the shutdown zones 

extends farther than Protected Species 

Observers (PSO) may be able to reliably 

detect harbor porpoise. However, given 

the portion of the zone within which 

PSOs could reliably detect a harbor 

porpoise, the infrequency of harbor 

porpoise observations during the Sand 

Island Test Pile project monitoring, and 

harbor porpoise sensitivity to noise, no 

take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or authorized for harbor 

porpoise. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Steller sea lion occurrence was 

estimated using Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife haulout survey data 

from the South Jetty at the mouth of the 

Columbia River from 2000 to 2014. 

During the recent monitoring of the 

Sand Island Test Pile Project no Steller 

sea lions were observed (Hamer 

Environment L.P. 2020). Given the close 

proximity of the haulout, NMFS expects 

that Steller sea lions could occur near 

the project site. Occurrence was 

estimated using the monthly haulout 

numbers for the months when work will 

be occurring during the project. In 

August, the average number of Steller 

sea lions hauled out at the jetty was 72, 

and in October, the average number of 

sea lions at the jetty was 77. In August, 

construction will occur over 7-days, and 

in October, construction will occur over 

5 days. Given the daily occurrence rates 

and days of in-water construction, and 

using equation 1, the ACOE expects that 

889 takes by Level B harassment will 

occur (daily occurrence (72 or 77) × 

days of activity), and NMFS authorized 

889 takes by Level B harassment of 

Steller sea lion. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Steller sea lions extends 19.5 m from 

the noise source (table 6). ACOE is 

planning to implement shutdown zones 

for otariids that exceed the Level A 

harassment isopleth for all activities. 

Implementation of the shutdown zones 

is expected to eliminate the potential for 

take by Level A harassment of Steller 

sea lion. No take by Level A harassment 

is anticipated or authorized for Steller 

sea lion. 

California Sea Lion 

Similar to Steller sea lions, California 

sea lions use the South Jetty at the 

mouth of the Columbia River and make 

frequent trips inside the mouth of the 

river. Occurrence on the South Jetty 

peaks in summer and use in the fall and 

winter is more concentrated. During 

recent monitoring activities of the Sand 

Island Test Pile Project 59 animals were 

observed (Hamer Environment L.P. 

2020). Using equation 2 above, ACOE 

expects that 144 takes by Level B 

harassment California sea lions will 

occur (2277 (pile driving minutes for 

this activity)/1037 (pile driving minutes 

for Sand Island Test Pile Project) × 59 

observed animals), and NMFS 

authorized 144 takes by Level B 

harassment of California sea lion. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for California sea lions extends 19.5 m 

from the noise source (table 6). ACOE is 

planning to implement shutdown zones 

for otariids that exceed the Level A 

harassment isopleth for all activities. 

Implementation of the shutdown zones 

is expected to eliminate the potential for 

take by Level A harassment of California 

sea lion. No take by Level A harassment 

is anticipated or authorized for 

California sea lion. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are the most abundant 

pinniped in Oregon and occur in the 

project are year-round. Large numbers of 

harbor seals move through the mouth of 

the Columbia River throughout the year 

and are expected to be present in the 

project area. During recent monitoring 

of the Sand Island Test Pile Project, a 

total of 309 harbor seals were observed 

during construction activities (Hamer 

Environment L.P. 2020). Take estimates 

were generated using equation 2 above 

and the Sand Island Pile Test Project 

monitoring results. ACOE expects that 

679 takes by Level B harassment of 

harbor seals will occur during the 

project (2277 (pile driving minutes for 

this activity)/1037 (pile driving minutes 

for Sand Island Test Pile Project) × 309 

observed animals), and NMFS 

authorized 679 takes by Level B 

harassment of harbor seal. 

The Level A harassment zone for 

harbor seals during impact installation 

is 268 m (table 6). ACOE will implement 

a shutdown zone of 150 m given the 

difficulty of observing harbor seals at 

greater distances and practicability 

concerns regarding efficient work 

production rates that will be associated 

with a larger shutdown zone (see 

Mitigation section). During impact 

installation ACOE expects that two 

harbor seals could be present in the 

Level A harassment zone. Therefore, 

over the 3 days of impact pile driving, 

NMFS anticipates, and authorized, six 

takes by Level A harassment (two takes 

per day * 3 days = six takes by Level 

B harassment). 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals occur 

infrequently in the mouth of the 

Columbia River. Recent sightings of 

elephant seals have occurred in the fall 

and spring upriver from the project site. 

Although, no Northern elephant seals 

were observed during the Sand Island 

Test Pile Project (Hamer Environment 

L.P. 2020). ACOE expects that two 

animals may be present in the Level B 

harassment zone during the 12-days of 

construction, and NMFS authorized two 

takes by Level B harassment of elephant 

seal. 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for Northern elephant seals extends 268 

m from the noise source (table 6). ACOE 

is planning to implement shutdown 

zones for Northern elephant seal that 

exceed the Level A harassment isopleth 

for all activities. Implementation of the 

shutdown zones is expected to 

eliminate the potential for take by Level 

A harassment of Northern elephant seal. 

No take by Level A harassment is 

anticipated or authorized for Northern 

elephant seals. 

TABLE 7—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance a Level A Level B Total take Take as a percentage 

Gray Whale .................................... Eastern N Pacific ........................... 26,960 0 2 2 <1 

Humpback Whale .......................... Central America/Southern MexicoCA/OR/WA.1,494 0 7 7 <1 

Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA ........ 3,477 0 9 9 <1 

Killer Whale .................................... West Coast Transients .................. 349 0 7 7 2 

Harbor Porpoise ............................. Northern OR/WA Coast ................. 22,074 0 18 18 <1 

Steller sea lion ............................... Eastern .......................................... 36,308 0 889 889 2.4 

California Sea Lion ........................ United States ................................. 257,074 0 144 144 <1 

Harbor Seal .................................... OR/WA Coastal ............................. UKN 6 679 685 N/A 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

TABLE 7—AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND STOCK—Continued 

Common name Stock Stock 

abundance a Level A Level B Total take Take as a percentage 

Northern Elephant Seal ................. CA Breeding .................................. 187,386 0 2 2 <1 

aStock size is best estimate of population (Nbest) according to NMFS 2022 Final Stock Assessment Reports and where apporiate the draft 

NMFS 2022 Final Stock Assessment Reports was used to estimate Nbest. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations. 

ACOE is required to implement the 

following mitigation measures: 

Implementation of Shutdown Zones— 

For all pile driving/removal activities, 

the ACOE will implement shutdowns 

within designated zones. The purpose of 

a shutdown zone is generally to define 

an area within which shutdown of 

activity will occur upon sighting of a 

marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 

animal entering the defined area). 

Implementation of shutdowns will be 

used to minimize the number and 

severity of takes from vibratory and 

impact pile driving and removal (table 

8). For all pile driving/removal 

activities, a minimum 25-m shutdown 

zone will be established for pinnipeds 

and 50-m shutdown zone for cetaceans 

as outlined in the ACOE application for 

an IHA. For harbor seals, ACOE will 

implement a shutdown zone of 25 m 

given its concerns about potential 

frequent shutdowns that may occur with 

a larger shutdown zone in consideration 

of high occurrence of harbor seals in the 

project area. To minimize the potential 

of Level A harassment of harbor seals, 

NMFS recommended a shutdown zone 

of 150 m for harbor seals. ACOE 

concurred that this zone was 

practicable, and therefore, NMFS 

required a shutdown zone of 150 m for 

harbor seals. Shutdown zones for 

impact pile driving are based on the 

Level A harassment zones and therefore 

vary by marine mammal hearing group 

(table 8). The placement of PSOs during 

all pile driving activities (described in 

detail in the Monitoring and Reporting 

section) will ensure the full extent of 

shutdown zones are visible to PSOs. 

TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN ZONES DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Activity Pile size 

Shutdown zones (m) 

LF 

cetaceans 

MF 

cetaceans 

HF 

cetaceans 

Harbor 

seals 

Northern 

elephant 

seal 

Otariids 

Vibratory Installation ................................ 24-in (pile markers) ................................. 50 50 50 25 25 25 

Vibratory Installation and removal ........... 24-in (MOF option 2) ............................... 50 50 50 25 25 25 

Vibratory Installation and removal ........... 24-in sheet pile (MOF option 1) .............. 50 50 50 25 25 25 

Impact Installation ................................... 24-in (pile markers) ................................. 510 50 600 150 270 25 

Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment—The ACOE has identified 

monitoring zones correlated with the 

Level B harassment zones. Monitoring 

zones provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. PSOs will monitor the 

entire visible area to maintain the best 

sense of where animals are moving 

relative to the zone boundaries defined 

in table 8. Placement of PSOs on the 

shorelines around Sand Island will 

allow PSOs to observe marine mammals 

near the project area. While not required 

by this IHA, ACOE states that it may 

also place a PSO on a skiff near the 

project area if safe conditions allow. 

Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

used to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals by providing warning 

and/or giving marine mammals a chance 

to leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors will be required 

to provide an initial set of three strikes 

at reduced energy, followed by a 30- 

second waiting period, then two 

subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. 

Soft start will be implemented at the 

start of each day’s impact pile driving 

and at any time following cessation of 

impact pile driving for a period of 30 

minutes or longer. Soft start is not 

required during vibratory pile driving 

and removal activities. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79565 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot 

proceed until the animal has left the 

zone or has not been observed for 15 

minutes. If the monitoring zone has 

been observed for 30 minutes and 

marine mammals are not present within 

the zone, soft-start procedures can 

commence and work can continue. Prestart clearance monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

that the shutdown zones, indicated in 

table 9, are clear of marine mammals. 

When a marine mammal for which take 

by Level B harassment is authorized is 

present in the Level B harassment zone, 

activities may begin. If work ceases for 

more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity 

monitoring of both the monitoring zone 

and shutdown zone will commence. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures, NMFS has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring shall be conducted by 

NMFS-approved observers in 

accordance with section 5 of the IHA. 

Trained observers shall be placed from 

the best vantage point(s) practicable to 

monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown or delay 

procedures when applicable through 

communication with the equipment 

operator. Observer training must be 

provided prior to project start, and shall 

include instruction on species 

identification (sufficient to distinguish 

the species in the project area), 

description and categorization of 

observed behaviors and interpretation of 

behaviors that may be construed as 

being reactions to the specified activity, 

proper completion of data forms, and 

other basic components of biological 

monitoring, including tracking of 

observed animals or groups of animals 

such that repeat sound exposures may 

be attributed to individuals (to the 

extent possible). 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after pile driving/removal activities. In 

addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving/removal activities 

include the time to install or remove a 

single pile or series of piles, as long as 

the time elapsed between uses of the 

pile driving equipment is no more than 

30 minutes. 

A minimum of two PSO will be on 

duty during all in-water construction 

activities. Locations from which PSOs 

will be able to monitor for marine 

mammals are readily available from the 

shore of Sand Island. PSOs will monitor 

for marine mammals entering the 

harassment zones. 

PSOs will scan the waters using 

binoculars or spotting scopes and will 

use a handheld range-finder device to 

verify the distance to each sighting from 

the project site. PSOs will be placed at 

the best vantage point(s) practicable to 

monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

when applicable by calling for the 

shutdown to the hammer operator via a 

radio. 

The ACOE will adhere to the 

following observer qualifications: 

(i) PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor) and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 

(ii) At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

(iii) Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field), or 

training for prior experience performing 

the duties of a PSO during construction 

activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued 

incidental take authorization; 

(iv) Where a team of three or more 

PSOs is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; and 

(v) PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this IHA. 

Additional recommended observer 

qualifications include: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates and 

times when in-water construction 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

activities were suspended to avoid 

potential incidental injury from 

construction sound of marine mammals 

observed within a defined shutdown 

zone; and marine mammal behavior; 

and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

will include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, 

the report must include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact driving) and for each pile or 

total number of strikes for each pile 

(impact driving). 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring. 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance. 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; time of sighting; identification 

of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, 

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

etc.); animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling), including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 

resulted from the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching). 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species. 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Holder must report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS and to the West Coast regional 

stranding network as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the Holder 

must immediately cease the activities 

until NMFS OPR is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this IHA. 

The Holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

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 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 7, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving and removal activities 

associated with the project as outlined 

previously, have the potential to disturb 

or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

from underwater sounds generated from 

pile driving and removal. Potential takes 

could occur if individuals of these 

species are present in zones ensonified 

above the thresholds for Level A or 

Level B harassment identified above 

when these activities are underway. 

Take by Level A and Level B 

harassment will be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized given the 

nature of the activity and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals. Take by 

Level A harassment is only anticipated 

for harbor seals. The potential for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79567 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method (i.e., use of direct 

pull removal or vibratory methods to the 

extent practical) and the 

implementation of the mitigation 

measures (see Mitigation section). 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving and removal at 

the project site, if any, are expected to 

be mild and temporary. Marine 

mammals within the Level B 

harassment zone may not show any 

visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities or could become alert, avoid 

the area, leave the area, or display other 

mild responses that are not observable 

such as changes in vocalization 

patterns. Given the limited number of 

piles to be installed or extracted per day 

and that pile driving and removal will 

occur across a maximum of 12 days 

within the 12-month authorization 

period, any harassment will be 

temporary. 

In addition to the expected effects 

resulting from Level B harassment, we 

anticipate that harbor seals may sustain 

some limited Level A harassment in the 

form of PTS. However, any PTS is 

expected to be of a small degree (i.e., 

minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by pile driving (below 

2 kHz)) because animals would need to 

be exposed to higher levels and/or 

longer duration than are expected to 

occur here in order to incur any more 

than a small degree of PTS. If hearing 

impairment occurs, it is most likely that 

the affected animal would lose a few 

decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which 

in most cases is not likely to 

meaningfully affect its ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics, as 

it would be minor and not in the region 

of greatest hearing sensitivity. 

Additionally, and as noted 

previously, some subset of the 

individuals that are behaviorally 

harassed could also simultaneously 

incur some small degree of TTS for a 

short duration of time. Because of the 

small degree anticipated, though, any 

PTS or TTS potentially incurred here 

would not be expected to adversely 

impact individual fitness, let alone 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The project also is not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitat. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish or 

invertebrates to leave the area of 

disturbance, thus temporarily impacting 

marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities, the relatively 

small area of the habitat that may be 

affected, and the availability of nearby 

habitat of similar or higher value, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. 

A large portion of the west coast, 

including the mouth of the Columbia 

River, has been identified as a 

biologically important area (BIA) for 

gray whale feeding (Calambokidis et al. 

2024). As described above, the presence 

of gray whales in the project area is rare, 

and the area of overlap of the project 

with the feeding BIA affected is small 

compared to the overall size of the BIA. 

The gray whale feeding BIA is active 

from June through November while the 

project is scheduled to occur between 

August and October, resulting in only 

three months of overlap with the project 

and 3 months when the BIA is active 

but ACOE will not be conducting work. 

Additionally, pile driving associated 

with the project is expected to take only 

12 days, further reducing the temporal 

overlap with the BIA. Therefore, take of 

gray whales using this feeding BIA, 

given both the small footprint of the 

activity relative to the BIA, and the 

scope and nature of the anticipated 

impacts of pile driving exposure, is not 

anticipated to impact the reproduction 

or survival of any individuals. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect any of the 

species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Any take by Level A harassment 

(harbor seals, only) is anticipated to 

result in slight PTS within the lower 

frequencies associated with pile driving; 

• The anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment will consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior 

that would not result in fitness impacts 

to individuals; 

• The area impacted by the specified 

activity is very small relative to the 

overall habitat ranges of all stocks, and 

does not overlap ESA-designated critical 

habitat. While impacts will occur within 

an area that is important for gray whale 

feeding, because of the small footprint 

of the activity relative to the feeding 

area, the limited temporal overlap of the 

activity and the feeding period, and the 

scope and nature of the anticipated 

impacts of pile driving exposure, we do 

not expect impacts to the reproduction 

or survival of any individuals; and 

• ACOE will implement mitigation 

measures, such as soft-starts for impact 

pile driving and shut downs, to 

minimize the numbers of marine 

mammals exposed to injurious levels of 

sound, and to ensure that take by Level 

A harassment, is at most, a small degree 

of PTS. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Table 7 demonstrates the number of 

animals that NMFS anticipates could be 

taken by Level A and Level B 

harassment for the work. Our analysis 

shows that at most 2.4 percent of each 

affected stock could be taken by 

harassment. The numbers of animals to 

be taken for these stocks will be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stock’s abundances, even if each 

estimated taking occurred to a new 

individual, which is an unlikely 

scenario. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the West Coast Regional 

Office. 

Two DPSs of humpback whale 

(Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/ 

OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/ 

WA) occur in the project area and are 

listed as endangered and threatened, 

respectively, under the ESA. The NMFS 

West Coast Regional OPR Division 

issued a Biological Opinion on 

September 11, 2025 under section 7 of 

the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to 

the ACOE under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and 

Conservation Division. The Biological 

Opinion concluded that the action is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Central America/Southern 

Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland 

Mexico-CA/OR/WA humpback whales 

and is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify their critical habitat. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must evaluate our 

proposed action the issuance of an IHA 

and alternatives with respect to 

potential impacts on the human 

environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NAO 216– 

6A, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of this IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the ACOE 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of eight marine mammal 

species incidental to the pile dike repair 

project in Baker Bay, Oregon, that 

includes the previously explained 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements. 

Dated: September 25, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22394 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Limitations of Duty- and Quota-Free 

Imports of Apparel Articles Assembled 

in Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African 

Countries From Regional and ThirdCountry Fabric 

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA). 

ACTION: Publishing the new 12-month 

cap on duty- and quota-free benefits. 

DATES: The new limitations become 

applicable October 1, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Newberg, International Trade 

Specialist, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202)–482–7578. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Title I, section 112(b)(3) of 

the Trade and Development Act of 2000 

(TDA 2000), Public Law (Pub. L.) 106– 

200, as amended by Division B, Title 

XXI, section 3108 of the Trade Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–210; Section 

7(b)(2) of the AGOA Acceleration Act of 

2004, Public Law 108–274; Division D, 

title VI, section 6002 of the Tax Relief 

and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA 

2006), Public Law 109–432, and section 

1 of The African Growth and 

Opportunity Amendments (Public Law 

112–163), August 10, 2012; Presidential 

Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000 

(65 FR 59321); Presidential 

Proclamation 7626 of November 13, 

2002 (67 FR 69459); and title I, section 

103(b)(2) and (3) of the Trade 

Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114–27, June 29, 2015. 

Title I of TDA 2000 provides for dutyand quota-free treatment for certain 

textile and apparel articles imported 

from designated beneficiary subSaharan African countries. Section 

112(b)(3) of TDA 2000 provides dutyand quota-free treatment for apparel 

articles wholly assembled in one or 

more beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries from fabric wholly formed in 

one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan 

African countries from yarn originating 

in the United States or one or more 

beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries. This preferential treatment is 

also available for apparel articles 

assembled in one or more lesserdeveloped beneficiary sub-Saharan 

African countries, regardless of the 

country of origin of the fabric used to 

make such articles, subject to 

quantitative limitation. Public Law 114– 

27 extended this special rule for lesserdeveloped countries through September 

30, 2025. 

The AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 

provides that the quantitative limitation 

for the 12-month period beginning 

October 1, 2024 will be an amount not 

to exceed 7 percent of the aggregate 

square meter equivalents of all apparel 

articles imported into the United States 

in the preceding 12-month period for 

which data are available. See section 

112(b)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of TDA 2000, as 

amended by section 7(b)(2)(B) of the 

AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004. Of this 

overall amount, apparel imported under 

the special rule for lesser-developed 

countries is limited to an amount not to 

exceed 3.5 percent of all apparel articles 

imported into the United States in the 

preceding 12-month period. See section 

112(b)(3)(B)(ii)(II) of TDA 2000, as 

amended by section 6002(a)(3) of 

TRHCA 2006. The Annex to Presidential 

Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000 

directed CITA to publish the aggregate 

quantity of imports allowed during each 

12-month period in the Federal 

Register. 

For the one-year period, beginning on 

October 1, 2024, and extending through 

September 30, 2025, the aggregate 

quantity of imports eligible for 

preferential treatment under these 

provisions is 1,757,888,503 square 

meters equivalent. Of this amount, 

878,944,252 square meters equivalent is 

available to apparel articles imported 

under the special rule for lesserdeveloped countries. Apparel articles 

entered in excess of these quantities will 

be subject to otherwise applicable 

tariffs. 

These quantities are calculated using 

the aggregate square meter equivalents 

of all apparel articles imported into the 

United States, derived from the set of 

Harmonized System lines listed in the 

Annex to the World Trade Organization 

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 

(ATC), and the conversion factors for 

units of measure into square meter 

equivalents used by the United States in 

implementing the ATC. 

Tyler Beckelman, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22397 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1