Federal Register Vol. 81, No.191,

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-857-6161, conference ID: 6681139. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Minnesota Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=256). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-455-2265, conference ID: 3309385. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office one week prior to the start of the meeting, by Tuesday November 8, 2016. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Indiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=247). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at the above email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-455-2265, conference ID: 3309385. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Indiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=247). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at the above email or street address.

In accordance with Ratings for Performance Appraisals, 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the Department of Commerce (DOC), announces the appointment of those individuals who have been selected to serve as members of the Departmental Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board is responsible for (1) reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service (SES) members and (2) making recommendations to the appointing authority on other performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards. The appointment of these members to the Performance Review Board will be for a period of twenty-four (24) months.

The name, position title, and type of appointment of each member of the Performance Review Board are set forth below:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce (DOC), announces the appointment of those individuals who have been selected to serve as members of the Office of the Secretary Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board is responsible for (1) reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) members and (2) making recommendations to the appointing authority on other performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards. The appointment of these members to the Performance Review Board will be for a period of twenty-four (24) months.

Background

In accordance with section 705(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on August 4, 2016, the Department made final determinations that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Korea.1 Pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act, the Department published the affirmative final determinations on August 12, 2016.2

On August 12, 2016, Hyundai Steel and POSCO timely filed ministerial error comments, alleging that the Department made errors in the final determination of the CVD investigation of hot-rolled steel from Korea. On August 17, 2016, Nucor Corporation (Petitioner) filed rebuttal comments. We analyzed the allegations submitted by Hyundai Steel and POSCO, and determined that one ministerial error exists, as defined by section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).3 See “Amendment to the Korea Final Determination” section below for further discussion.

On September 26, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from Brazil and Korea, within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Brazil.4

The products covered by these orders are certain hot-rolled steel flat products. For a complete description of the scope of the orders, see Appendix I.

As discussed above, after analyzing the comments received from Hyundai Steel and POSCO, we determined, in accordance with section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that we made a ministerial error with regard to certain calculations in the Korea CVD Final Determination with respect to POSCO. This amended final CVD determination corrects these errors and revises the ad valorem subsidy rate for POSCO to 58.68 percent (from 57.04 percent).5 There is no change to the “all others” rate because POSCO's rate was determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, and therefore, excluded from the “all others” rate calculation.

In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i), and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determinations that the industry in the United States producing hot-rolled steel is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Korea, and that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Brazil.6 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing these CVD orders.

As a result of the ITC's final determinations, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of hot-rolled steel from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 15, 2016, the date on which the Department published its preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determinations in the Federal Register,7 and before May 14, 2016, the date on which the Department instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Therefore, entries of hot-rolled steel from Brazil made on or after May 14, 2016, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register, are not liable for assessment of countervailing duties due to the Department's discontinuation, effective May 14, 2016, of the suspension of liquidation.

Because the Department's preliminary determination in the Korea CVD investigation was negative, we did not instruct CBP to suspend liquidation with regard to entries of hot-rolled steel from Korea.8 The Department's final determination was affirmative, and therefore, we directed CBP to suspend liquidation.9 Therefore, with regard to Korea, we will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of hot-rolled steel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 12, 2016, the date on which the Department published the Korea CVD Final Determination in the Federal Register.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of hot-rolled steel from Brazil effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the Federal Register, and to continue the suspension of liquidation of hot-rolled steel from Korea, effective on the date of publication of the Department's notice of final determination in the Federal Register. We will also direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise.

With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after October 17, 2015 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of the publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination), but before January 15, 2016 (i.e., the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determination).

On or after the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register, CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates noted below:

This notice constitutes the CVD orders with respect to hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Korea, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

In accordance with sections 735(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on August 4, 2016, the Department made affirmative final determinations in the LTFV investigations of certain hot-rolled steel flat from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, the Department published the affirmative final determinations on August 12, 2016. 1

On August 15, 2016, Petitioners 2 alleged that the Department made ministerial errors in the Australia Final. 3 A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.4 On August 10, 2016, Petitioners and Hyundai Steel Company alleged that the Department made ministerial errors in the Korea Final. On August 15, 2016, POSCO submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioners' allegation, and Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to Hyundai Steel Company's allegation.5 On August 11 and 12, 2016, mandatory respondent Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and its affiliates (collectively Colakoglu),6 and Petitioners 7 alleged that the Department made ministerial errors in the Turkey Final. See “Amendment to the Australia Final Determination,” “Amendment to the Korea Final Determination,” and “Amendment to the Turkey Final Determinations” sections below for further discussion.

On September 26, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of LTFV imports of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom and of its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Japan.8

The product covered by these orders is hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see Appendix I.

As discussed above, the Department reviewed the record and agrees that the two errors referenced in Petitioners' allegation constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).9 Specifically, the Department neglected to fully adjust BlueScope Steel Ltd.'s normal value for processing revenue and freight revenue.10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), the Department is amending the Australia Final to reflect the correction of the ministerial errors described above. Based on our correction, BlueScope Steel Ltd.'s weighted-average dumping margin increased from 29.37 percent to 29.58 percent. Because the Australian “all-others” rate is based solely on BlueScope Steel Ltd.'s dumping margin, the corrections noted above also increase the all-others rate determined in the Australia Final to 29.58 percent.11

The Department reviewed the record and agrees that the error referenced in Petitioners' allegation with respect to POSCO constitutes a ministerial error within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), whereas neither the errors alleged by Hyundai Steel Company, nor the error alleged by Petitioners with respect to Hyundai Steel Company, are ministerial errors.12 Specifically, the programming code used in POSCO's final margin calculation program did not correctly implement certain revised indirect selling expense figures.13 Additionally, we find that the alleged errors regarding our final Hyundai Steel Company margin calculation are methodological, rather than ministerial, in nature.14 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), the Department is amending the Korea Final to reflect the correction of the ministerial error in POSCO's final margin calculation described above. Based on our correction, POSCO's weighted-average dumping margin increased from 3.89 percent to 4.61 percent. Because the Korean “all-others” rate is based in part on POSCO's dumping margin, the correction noted above also increases the all-others rate determined in the Korea Final to 6.05 percent.15

The Department reviewed the record and agrees that the error referenced in Colakoglu's allegation and the errors referenced in Petitioners' allegation constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).16 Specifically, the Department utilized the incorrect denominator in its calculation of Colakoglu's indirect selling expenses ratio.17 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), the Department is amending the Turkey Final to reflect the correction of the ministerial error described above. Based on our correction, Colakoglu's weighted-average dumping margin decreased from 7.15 percent to 6.77 percent.18 In reference to the ministerial errors alleged by Petitioners, the Department inadvertently omitted direct credit expenses from the calculation of Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.Ş. and its Affiliates (collectively Erdemir) comparison market gross unit price adjustment.19 The Department also erred in inputting raw data into the comparison market program to account for the control numbers that were sold but not produced during the POI for Erdemir.20 Finally, the Department incorrectly applied the export subsidy adjustment to the U.S. net price for Erdemir.21 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), the Department is amending the Turkey Final to reflect the correction of the ministerial errors described above. However, because the ITC found imports subsidized by the government of Turkey to be negligible,22 thereby resulting in the termination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of hot-rolled steel from Turkey,23 we are further amending the Turkey Final to eliminate any adjustment to cash deposit rates for export subsidies.24 Based on our corrections, Erdemir's weighted-average dumping margin increased from 3.66 percent to 4.15 percent.25 Because the Turkish “all-others” rate is based on Colakoglu's and Erdemir's dumping margins, the corrections noted above also increases the all-others rate determined in the Turkey Final to 6.41 percent.26

In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the LTFV imports of certain hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.27 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from these countries, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of hot-rolled steel products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 22, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination, 28 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.29 The “all others” rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate. For the purpose of determining cash deposit rates, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for imports of subject merchandise from Brazil and Korea have been adjusted, as appropriate, for export subsidies found in the final determinations of the companion countervailing duty investigations of this merchandise imported from Brazil and Korea.30 For Turkey, as noted above, because of the ITC's finding of negligible subsidized imports, we have not made any adjustment to cash deposit rates for export subsidies for imports of subject merchandise from Turkey.31

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, the Department extended the four-month period to six months in each case.32 In the underlying investigations, the Department published the preliminary determinations on March 22, 2016. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination, ended on September 17, 2016. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice,33 we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after September 17, 2016, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Japan, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 23, 2015 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determinations), but before March 22, 2016 (i.e., the date of publication of the preliminary determinations).

The weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages are as follows:

Background

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in these segments.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.6

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after October 2016, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

Opportunity To Request a Review: Not later than the last day of October 2016,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in October for the following periods:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 4 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.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of October 2016. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of October 2016, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

Agenda

The Monkfish Committee will receive an update on Plan Development Team (PDT) analysis on Days-at-sea (DAS) allocation and trip limits. The will also receive an overview from the Monkfish PDT on draft alternatives and impacts for Framework 10 regarding specifications for FY 2017-19 and DAS allocation and/or possession limit alternatives. The Committee will select preferred alternatives for Framework 10 as well as review and discuss 5 year research priorities for monkfish. The will discuss other business, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Committee will review and discuss the draft scoping document for the upcoming limited access amendment to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. They will also develop recommendations for 2017 Council priorities as well as review and discuss 5 year research priorities for skates. Other business will be discussed. The Committee will also have a closed session to review Advisory Panel applications for 2018-20 and make recommendations for approval to the Council's Executive committee.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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 of a species or population stock, 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 for marine mammals 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 taking 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.”

The NDAA of 2004 (Public Law 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).

On May 12, 2016, NMFS received an application from 86 FWS for the taking of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the LRS WSEP within the PMRF in Kauai, Hawaii from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. 86 FWS submitted a revised version of the renewal request on June 9, 2016 and June 20, 2016, which we considered adequate and complete. After completion of the application, the planned LRS WSEP training activities were pushed back to October 2016.

86 FWS proposes actions that include LRS WSEP test missions of the Joint Air-To-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) and the Small Diameter Bomb-I/II (SDB-I/II) including detonations at the water surface. These activities qualify as military readiness activities under the MMPA.

The following aspects of the planned LRS WSEP training activities have the potential to take marine mammals: Munition strikes and detonation effects (overpressure and acoustic components). Take, by Level B harassment of individuals of dwarf sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale, Fraser's dolphin, and minke whale could potentially result from the specified activity. Additionally, 86 FWS has requested authorization for Level A Harassment of one individual dwarf sperm whale. 86 FWS's LRS WSEP training activities may potentially impact marine mammals at or near the water surface. In the absence of mitigation, marine mammals could potentially be injured or killed by exploding and non-exploding projectiles, falling debris, or ingestion of military expended materials. However, based on analyses provided in 86 FWS's 2016 application, 2016 Environmental Assessment (EA), and for reasons discussed later in this document, we do not anticipate that 86 FWS's LRS WSEP activities would result in any serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.

86 FWS plans to conduct an air-to-surface mission in the BSURE area of the PMRF. The LRS WSEP test objective is to conduct operational evaluations of long range strike weapons and other munitions as part of LRS WSEP operations to properly train units to execute requirements within Designed Operational Capability Statements, which describe units' real-world operational expectations in a time of war. Due to threats to national security, increased missions involving air-to-surface activities have been directed by the Department of Defense (DoD). Accordingly, the U.S. Air Force needs to conduct operational evaluations of all phases of long range strike weapons within the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range Complex (HRC). The actions will fulfill the Air Force's requirement to evaluate full-scale maneuvers for such weapons, including scoring capabilities under operationally realistic scenarios. LRS WSEP objectives are to evaluate air-to-surface and maritime weapon employment data, evaluate tactics, techniques, and procedures in an operationally realistic environment, and to determine the impact of tactics, techniques, and procedures on combat Air Force training. The munitions associated with the planned activities are not part of a typical unit's training allocations, and prior to attending a WSEP evaluation, most pilots and weapon systems officers have only dropped weapons in simulators or used the aircraft's simulation mode. Without WSEP operations, pilots would be using these weapons for the first time in combat. On average, half of the participants in each unit drop an actual weapon for the first time during a WSEP evaluation. Consequently, WSEP is a military readiness activity and is the last opportunity for squadrons to receive operational training and evaluations before they deploy.

86 FWS plans to schedule the LRS WSEP training missions over one day in October 2016. The planned missions would occur on a weekday during daytime hours only, with all missions occurring in one day. This IHA is valid from October 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016.

The specific planned impact area is approximately 44 nautical miles (nm) (81 kilometers (km)) offshore of Kauai, Hawaii, in a water depth of about 15,240 feet (ft) (4,645 meters (m)) (see Figure 2-2 of 86 FWS's application). All activities will take place within the PMRF, which is located in Hawaii off the western shores of the island of Kauai and includes broad ocean areas to the north, south, and west (see Figure 2-1 of 86 FWS's application). Within the PMRF, activities would occur in the BSURE area, which lies in Warning Area 188 (W-188).

NMFS provided detailed descriptions of the activity area in a previous notice for the proposed authorization (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016). The information has not changed between the notice of proposed authorization and this final notice announcing the issuance of the authorization.

The LRS WSEP training missions, classified as military readiness activities, refer to the deployment of live (containing explosive charges) missiles from aircraft toward the water surface. The actions include air-to-surface test missions of the JASSM and the SDB-I/II including detonations at the water surface.

Aircraft used for munition releases would include bombers and fighter aircraft. Additional airborne assets, such as the P-3 Orion or the P-8 Poseidon, would be used to relay telemetry (TM) and flight termination system (FTS) streams between the weapon and ground stations. Other support aircraft would be associated with range clearance activities before and during the mission and with air-to-air refueling operations. All weapon delivery aircraft would originate from an out base and fly into military-controlled airspace prior to employment. Due to long transit times between the out base and mission location, air-to-air refueling may be conducted in either W-188 or W-189. Bombers, such as the B-1, would deliver the weapons, conduct air-to-air refueling, and return to their originating base as part of one sortie. However, when fighter aircraft are used, the distance and corresponding transit time to the various potential originating bases would make return flights after each mission day impractical. In these cases, the aircraft would temporarily (less than one week) park overnight at Hickam Air Force Base (HAFB) and would return to their home base at the conclusion of each mission set. The LRS WSEP missions scheduled for 2016 are planned to occur in one day. Approximately 10 Air Force personnel would be on temporary duty to support the mission.

Aircraft flight maneuver operations and weapon release would be conducted in W-188A boundaries of PMRF. Chase aircraft may be used to evaluate weapon release and to track weapons. Flight operations and weapons delivery would be in accordance with published Air Force directives and weapon operational release parameters, as well as all applicable Navy safety regulations and criteria established specifically for PMRF. Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP missions would primarily operate at high altitudes—only flying below 3,000 feet (914.1 m) for a limited time as needed for escorting non-military vessels outside the hazard area or for monitoring the area for protected marine species (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles). Protected marine species aerial surveys would be temporary and would focus on an area surrounding the weapon impact point on the water. Post-mission surveys would focus on the area down current of the weapon impact location. Range clearance procedures for each mission would cover a much larger area for human safety. Weapon release parameters would be conducted as approved by PMRF Range Safety. Daily mission briefs would specify planned release conditions for each mission. Aircraft and weapons would be tracked for time, space, and position information. The 86 FWS test director would coordinate with the PMRF Range Safety Officer, Operations Conductor, Range Facility Control Officer, and other applicable mission control personnel for aircraft control, range clearance, and mission safety.

NMFS provided detailed descriptions of the components of the planned mission activities in a previous notice for the proposed authorization (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016). The information has not changed between the notice of proposed authorization and this final notice announcing the issuance of the authorization.

Initial phases of the LRS WSEP operational evaluations are planned for October 2016 and would consist of releasing only one live JASSM/JASSM-ER and up to eight SDB-Is in military controlled airspace (Table 1).

A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of multiple factors including, but not limited to: Adverse weather conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or presence of protected species in the impact area. If the mission is cancelled due to any of these, one back-up day has also been scheduled as a contingency. These standard operating procedures are usually done in the morning, and live range time may begin in late morning once all checks are complete and approval is granted from range control. The range would be closed to the public for a maximum of four hours per mission day.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an Authorization to 86 FWS published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2016 (81 FR 44277). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and one relevant comment from a private citizen. Following is the comment from the Commission and NMFS' response and the comment received from a private citizen and NMFS' response.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS and the Air Force assess practicable ways to supplement the Air Force's mitigation and monitoring measures with PAM (passive acoustic monitoring), including obtaining access to the Navy's hydrophone array data at PMRF.

Response: NMFS agrees that the use of PAM would be beneficial for monitoring and mitigation for mission activities. For this one-day mission, NMFS considered the use of PAM for mitigation and monitoring but, due to timing and logistical constraints, the use of PAM will not be required. For any future actions by the applicant in this area, the use of PAM for mitigation or monitoring purposes will be considered.

Comment 2: One private citizen requested notice of this military training exercise to be posted in the Kauai newspaper to help generate adequate public awareness and facilitate a healthy amount of discussion on this IHA prior to commencing activities.

Response: NMFS made the information available to the public during our 30-day public comment period by publishing the proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 7, 2016 (81 FR 44277) and by posting all of the documents to our Web site. In addition, the USAF posted their draft EA in The Garden Island and Honolulu Star Advertiser newspapers, as well as other places, describing the action and the potential impacts of the action on the environment. A 30-day public comment period was available for public input.

There are 25 marine mammal species with potential or confirmed occurrence in the activity area; however, not all of these species occur in this region during the project timeframe. Table 2 lists and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance of these species. Please see NMFS' 2015 Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.

Of these 25 species, five are listed as endangered under the ESA and as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. These are: Blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal. Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1973. NMFS evaluated the status of this population, and on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the globally listed humpback whale into 14 distinct population segment (DPS), removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed because it was determined that they are not threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Hawaiian DPS of humpback whales, which would be present in the action area, were not listed under the ESA in NMFS final rule.

Of the 25 species that may occur in Hawaiian waters, only certain stocks occur in the impact area, while others are island-associated or do not occur at the depths of the impact area (e.g. false killer whale insular stock, island-associated stocks of bottlenose, spinner, and spotted dolphins). Only five species are considered likely to be in the impact area during the one day of project activities. This number has increased from the proposed IHA based on changes to the project dates. Dates have moved back to October (from September), and the use of fall densities are now used. The species now modeled to have take exposures include dwarf sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale, Fraser's dolphin, minke whale, and humpback whale. Other species are seasonal and only occur in these waters later in the winter (blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, killer whale); some are rare in the area or unlikely to be impacted due to small density estimates (Longman's beaked whale, Bryde's whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed whale, bottlenose dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, spinner dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, Risso's dolphin, Cuvier's beaked whale, Blainville's beaked whale, and Hawaiian monk seal). Because these 19 species are unlikely to occur within the BSURE area based on modeling predictions, 86 FWS has not requested, and NMFS will not issue take authorizations for them. Thus, NMFS does not consider these species further in this notice.

We have reviewed 86 FWS's species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We refer the reader to Sections Three and Four of 86 FWS's application rather than reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts. We provided additional information for two of the marine mammals (dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) with potential for occurrence in the area of the specified activity in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016). Since that publication, the dates for the LRS WSEP activities changed to later in the year; therefore, different densities were used to calculate take. Because of this, two additional species were included in take exposures. Species descriptions for these three species are provided below.

Fraser's dolphin are distributed worldwide in tropical waters (Caretta et al., 2011). Very little is known about this species, which was first documented within Hawaiian waters in 2002. There is a single stock in Hawaii with a current population estimate of 16,992 animals and PBR at 102 animals (Caretta et al., 2016). Current population trends are not available for this species. This species is not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and is not considered strategic or designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (Caretta et al., 2016). The biggest threat to the species is fishery-related injuries (Caretta et al., 2011).

Minke whales are found worldwide in deep waters. There are three stocks in the Pacific: The Hawaiian stock, the California/Oregon/Washington stock, and the Alaskan stock. Only the Hawaiian stock is affected by the project activities. Minke whales occur seasonally in Hawaiian waters (October-April). Current abundance estimates, PBR, and population trends for this stock are unknown. This stock is not listed under the ESA, nor are they considered strategic, or designated as depleted under the MMPA. One of the suggested habitat concerns for this stock is the increasing levels of anthropogenic noise in the world's oceans (Caretta et al., 2014).

Humpback whales are found worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These wintering grounds are used for mating, giving birth, and nursing new calves. Humpback whales migrate nearly 3,000 mi (4,830 km) from their summer foraging grounds to these wintering grounds in Hawaii away. The average date of the first sighting of humpback whales in Hawaii is approximately the first week in October, with whales seen earlier and earlier in the past five years (E. Lyman, personal communication, August 2016).

Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and continued to list humpbacks as endangered. Because the recent rule by NMFS did not consider the Hawaii DPS of humpbacks to be threatened or endangered under the ESA, this DPS is not listed under the ESA. The current abundance estimate for this DPS is 11,398 individuals and its population trend estimate is 5.5-6 percent (81 FR 62259).

This section of the notice of the proposed Authorization (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016) included a summary and discussion of the ways that components (e.g., munition strikes and detonation effects) of the specified activity, including mitigation, may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that we expect 86 FWS to take during this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis section will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals, and will consider the content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section and the Mitigation section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

In summary, the LRS WSEP training exercises proposed for taking of marine mammals under an Authorization have the potential to take marine mammals by exposing them to overpressure and acoustic components generated by live ordnance detonation at or near the surface of the water. Exposure to energy or pressure resulting from these detonations could result in Level A harassment (physical injury and permanent threshold shift, or PTS) and Level B harassment (temporary threshold shift, or TTS and behavioral disturbances). Based on modeled predictions, LRS WSEP activities are not expected to result in serious injury or mortality.

NMFS provided detailed information on these potential effects in the notice of the proposed Authorization (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016). The information presented in that notice has not changed.

Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to the water environment. An explosion on the surface of the water from these weapons could send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. However, these effects would be temporary and not expected to last more than a few seconds. Similarly, 86 FWS does not expect any long-term impacts with regard to hazardous constituents to occur. 86 FWS considered the introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the water column within its EA and determined the potential effects of each to be insignificant. NMFS provided a summary of the analyses in the notice for the proposed Authorization (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016). The information presented in that notice has not changed.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

NMFS and 86 FWS have worked to identify potential practicable and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the “military-readiness activity.” We refer the reader to Section 11 of 86 FWS's application for more detailed information on the planned mitigation measures which are also described below.

Visual Aerial Surveys: For the LRS WSEP activities, mitigation procedures consist of visual aerial surveys of the impact area for the presence of protected marine species (including marine mammals). During aerial observation, Navy test range personnel may survey the area from an S-61N helicopter or C-62 aircraft that is based at the PMRF land facility (typically when missions are located relatively close to shore). Alternatively, when missions are located farther offshore, surveys may be conducted from mission aircraft (typically jet aircraft such as F-15E, F-16, or F-22) or a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft.

Protected species surveys will begin within one hour of weapon release and as close to the impact time as feasible, given human safety requirements. Survey personnel must depart the human hazard zone before weapon release, in accordance with Navy safety standards. Personnel conduct aerial surveys within an area defined by an approximately 2-nm (3,704 m) radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern. This survey distance is consistent with requirements already in place for similar actions at PMRF. Observers would consist of aircrew operating the C-26, S-61N, and C-130 aircraft from PMRF and the Coast Guard. These aircrew are trained and have had prior experience conducting aerial marine mammal surveys and have provided similar support for other missions at PMRF. Aerial surveys are typically conducted at an altitude of about 200 feet (61 m), but altitude may vary somewhat depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions. The C-26 and other aircraft would generally be operated at a slightly higher altitude than the S-61N helicopter. If adverse weather conditions preclude the ability for aircraft to safely operate, missions would either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day. For 2016 LRS WSEP missions, one day has been designated as a weather back-up day. The observers will be provided with the GPS location of the impact area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission surveys typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern. The fixed-wing aircraft are faster than the helicopter; and, therefore, protected species may be more difficult to spot. However, to compensate for the difference in speed, the aircraft may fly the survey pattern multiple times.

If a protected species is observed in the impact area, weapon release would be delayed until one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the impact area; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the impact area based on its course and speed; or (3) the impact area has been clear of any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes. All weapons will be tracked and their water entry points will be documented.

Post-mission surveys would begin immediately after the mission is complete and the Range Safety Officer declares the human safety area is reopened. Approximate transit time from the perimeter of the human safety area to the weapon impact area would depend on the size of the human safety area and vary between aircraft but is expected to be less than 30 minutes. Post-mission surveys would be conducted by the same aircraft and aircrew that conducted the pre-mission surveys and would follow the same patterns as pre-mission surveys but would focus on the area down current of the weapon impact area to determine if protected species were affected by the mission (observation of dead or injured animals). If physical injury or mortality occurs to a protected species due to LRS WSEP missions, NMFS would be notified immediately.

Based on the ranges presented in Table 5 and factoring operational limitations (e.g. fuel constraints) associated with the mission, 86 FWS estimates that during pre-mission surveys, the planned monitoring area would be approximately 2 nm (3,704 m) from the target area radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern, which is consistent with requirements already in place for similar actions at PMRF and encompasses the entire TTS threshold ranges (sound exposure level, or SEL) for mid-frequency cetaceans, half of the PTS SEL range for high-frequency cetaceans, the entire PTS ranges for low-frequency cetaceans, and half of the TTS range for LF cetaceans. Given operational constraints, surveying these larger areas would not be feasible.

We have carefully evaluated 86 FWS's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:

1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to stimuli that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of 86 FWS's proposed measures, as well as other measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have determined that the mitigation measures, including visual aerial surveys and mission delays if protected species are observed in the impact area, provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance (while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity).

In order to issue an Authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we 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 an authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the action area.

86 FWS submitted measures for marine mammal monitoring and reporting in their IHA application. Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (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 action; or (4) Biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).

• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.

• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

NMFS will include the following measures in the LRS WSEP Authorization. They are:

(1) 86 FWS will track the use of the PMRF for mission activities and protected species observations, through the use of mission reporting forms.

(2) 86 FWS will submit a summary report of marine mammal observations and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) and the Office of Protected Resources 90 days after expiration of the current Authorization. This report must include the following information: (i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP exercise; (ii) a complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP exercises on marine mammal populations; (iii) an accounting of the munitions use; and (iv) results of the LRS WSEP exercise monitoring, including number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.

(3) 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals in the proposed action area. If 86 FWS personnel observe or detect any dead or injured marine mammals prior to testing, or detects any injured or dead marine mammal during live fire exercises, 86 FWS must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.

(4) 86 FWS must immediately report any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) to NMFS and to the respective Pacific Islands Region stranding network representative. 86 FWS must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.

The NDAA amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).

NMFS previously described the physiological responses, and behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the potential effects to marine mammals from detonation of explosives to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment. This section will also quantify the effects that might occur from the planned military readiness activities in PMRF BSURE area.

86 FWS thresholds used for onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; Level B Harassment) and onset of permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A Harassment) are consistent with the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report titled, “Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis Technical Report,” which the Navy coordinated with NMFS. The report is available on the internet at: http://nwtteis.com/Portals/NWTT/DraftEIS2014/SupportingDocs/NWTT_NMSDD_Technical_Report_23_January%202014_reduced.pdf

In August 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing, which established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In the August 4, 2016, Federal Register Notice announcing the Guidance (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need to consider this new best available science with the fact that some applicants have already committed time and resources to the development of acoustic analyses based on our previous thresholds and have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well consideration of where the agency is in the decision-making pipeline. In that Notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most appropriate approach for considering the new guidance, including: How far in the MMPA process the applicant has progressed; the scope of the effects; when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the analysis; and the degree to which the Guidance is expected to affect our analysis.

In this case, the Air Force has requested an authorization for a one-day activity that would include one explosive release and two explosive bursts of four munitions timed a few seconds apart and occur in October. Our analysis in the proposed IHA for this action (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016) includes the consideration of, and we proposed to authorize, takes of small numbers of marine mammals by both Level A and Level B harassment. The extremely short duration of the activity (essentially three instantaneous events within a day) and the robust monitoring and mitigation measures we proposed minimize the likelihood that Level A harassment will occur. In short, although the new thresholds were not used in the calculation of take, we believe that the existing analysis, mitigation, and authorization adequately address the likely effects and protective measures.

Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the following are the types of effects that fall into the Level B harassment category:

Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral disturbance that rises to the level described in the above definition, when resulting from exposures to non-impulsive or impulsive sound, is Level B harassment. Some of the lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these responses are more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating these responses to specific received levels of sound. When predicting Level B harassment based on estimated behavioral responses, those takes may have a stress-related physiological component.

Temporary Threshold Shift—As discussed in the proposed Federal Register notice (81 FR 44277) (July 7, 2016), TTS can affect how an animal behaves in response to the environment, including conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS classifies TTS (when resulting from exposure to explosives and other impulsive sources) as Level B harassment, not Level A harassment (injury).

Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following are the types of effects that fall into the Level A Harassment category:

Permanent Threshold Shift—PTS (resulting from exposure to explosive detonations) is irreversible and NMFS considers this to be an injury.

Gastrointestinal (GI) Tract Injury—GI tract injury includes contusions and lacerations from blast exposures, particularly in air-containing regions of the tract.

Slight Lung Injury—These injuries may include slight blast injuries to the lungs but would be survivable.

Mortality may include injuries that lead to mortality including primary (moderate to severe) blast injuries and barotrauma. Thresholds are based on the level of impact that would cause extensive lung injury resulting in mortality to one percent of exposed animals (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).

Table 4 outlines the explosive thresholds used by NMFS for this Authorization when addressing noise impacts from explosives.

86 FWS completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances to NMFS's explosive thresholds from their explosive ordnance, which was then used with each species' density to determine number of exposure estimates. Below is a summary of those modeling efforts.

The zone of influence is defined as the area or volume of ocean in which marine mammals could be exposed to various pressure or acoustic energy levels caused by exploding ordnance. Refer to Appendix A of 86 FWS's application for a description of the method used to calculate impact areas for explosives. The pressure and energy levels considered to be of concern are defined in terms of metrics, criteria, and thresholds. A metric is a technical standard of measurement that describes the acoustic environment (e.g., frequency, duration, temporal pattern, and amplitude) and pressure at a given location. Criteria are the resulting types of possible impact and include mortality, injury, and harassment. A threshold is the level of pressure or noise above which the impact criteria are reached.

Standard impulsive and acoustic metrics were used for the analysis of underwater energy and pressure waves in this document. Several different metrics are important for understanding risk assessment analysis of impacts to marine mammals: SPL is the ratio of the absolute sound pressure to a reference level, SEL is measure of sound intensity and duration, and positive impulse is the time integral of the pressure over the initial positive phase of an arrival.

The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and acoustic impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and include mortality, injurious harassment (Level A), and non-injurious harassment (Level B). In some cases, separate thresholds have been developed for different species groups or functional hearing groups. Functional hearing groups included in the analysis are low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, and Phocid pinnipeds.

The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point to which the various thresholds extend for all munitions planned to be released in a 24-hour time period was calculated for each species based on explosive acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound transmission loss in the Study Area, which incorporates water depth, sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles (Table 5). The ranges were used to calculate the total area (circle) of the zones of influence for each criterion/threshold. To eliminate “double-counting” of animals, impact areas from higher impact categories (e.g., mortality) were subtracted from areas associated with lower impact categories (e.g., Level A harassment). The estimated number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various impact thresholds was then calculated as the product of the adjusted impact area, animal density, and number of events. Since the model accumulates the energy from all detonations within a 24-hour timeframe, it is assumed that the same population of animals is being impacted within that time period. The population would refresh after 24 hours. In this case, only one mission day is planned for 2016, and therefore, only one event is modeled that would impact the same population of animals. Details of the acoustic modeling method are provided in Appendix A of the application.

The resulting total number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various levels of thresholds is shown in Table 7. An animal is considered “exposed” to a sound if the received sound level at the animal's location is above the background ambient acoustic level within a similar frequency band. The exposure calculations from the model output resulted in decimal values, suggesting in most cases that a fraction of an animal was exposed. To eliminate this, the acoustic model results were rounded to the nearest whole animal to obtain the exposure estimates from 2016 missions. Furthermore, to eliminate “double-counting” of animals, exposure results from higher impact categories (e.g., mortality) were subtracted from lower impact categories (e.g., Level A harassment). For impact categories with multiple criteria and/or thresholds (e.g., three criteria and four thresholds associated with Level A harassment), numbers in the table are based on the threshold resulting in the greatest number of exposures. These exposure estimates do not take into account the required mitigation and monitoring measures, which may decrease the potential for impacts.

Density estimates for marine mammals were derived from the Navy's draft 2016 Technical Report of Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD). NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 of 86 FWS's application for detailed information on all equations used to calculate densities; also presented in Table 6.

Table 7 indicates the modeled potential for lethality, injury, and non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. All other species had zero takes modeled for each category. 86 FWS and NMFS estimate that one marine mammal species could be exposed to injurious Level A harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL) and five species could be exposed to Level B harassment (TTS and Behavioral) noise levels in the absence of mitigation measures.

Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the acoustic model, zero marine mammals are expected to be affected by pressure levels associated with mortality or serious injury. Zero marine mammals are expected to be exposed to pressure levels associated with slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury.

NMFS considers PTS to fall under the injury category (Level A Harassment). There are different degrees of PTS ranging from slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound. Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both ears is commonly referred to as deafness. In the case of authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that one dwarf sperm whale could experience permanent threshold shifts of hearing sensitivity (PTS).

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.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment 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 behavioral harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

To avoid repetition, the discussion below applies to all the species listed in Table 7 for which we propose to authorize incidental take for 86 FWS's activities.

In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:

• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;

• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment;

• The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data);

• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population);

• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and

• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.

For reasons stated previously in this document, including modeling predictions that estimated no serious injury or death for any species, the use of mitigation measures, and the short duration of the activities, 86 FWS's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death. The takes from Level B harassment would be due to behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment would be due to PTS. We anticipate that any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS and not total deafness.

While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the short duration of the LRS WSEP operations, NMFS has determined that there will not be a substantial impact on marine mammals or on the normal functioning of the nearshore or offshore waters off Kauai and its ecosystems. We do not expect that the planned activity would impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals since we do not expect mortality (which would remove individuals from the population) or serious injury to occur. In addition, the planned activity would not occur in areas (and/or times) of significance for the marine mammal populations potentially affected by the exercises (e.g., feeding or resting areas, reproductive areas), and the activities would only occur in a small part of their overall range, so the impact of any potential temporary displacement would be negligible and animals would be expected to return to the area after the cessations of activities. Although the planned activity could result in Level A (PTS only) and Level B (behavioral disturbance and TTS) harassment of marine mammals, the level of harassment is not anticipated to impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals because the number of exposed animals is expected to be low due to the short-term (i.e., four hours a day or less on one day) and site-specific nature of the activity. We do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental to rates of recruitment and survival because we do not expect serious or extended behavioral responses that would result in energetic effects at the level to impact fitness.

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 mitigation and monitoring measures, and the short duration of the activities, NMFS finds that 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations will result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, and that the taking from the LRS WSEP exercises will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

NMFS prepared an EA in accordance with the NEPA. NMFS determined that these activities will not have a significant effect on the human environment and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in September 2016.

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to 86 FWS for conducting LRS WSEP activities, for a period of one year from the date of issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

The following agenda items will be addressed by the SSC during this meeting:

1. NMFS Stock Assessment Prioritization tool application to selected South Atlantic stocks.

2. Receive an update on Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) activities.

3. Receive an update on 2015 Landings, Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) and Accountability Measures (AMs).

4. Discuss modifications to the ABC Control Rule.

5. Further consider the SEDAR stock assessment update and fishing level recommendations for Golden Tilefish.

6. Review Snapper Grouper Amendment 43, including Red Snapper reference points, consider fishing level recommendations, and reliability of NOAA Fisheries' Marine Recreational Information Program estimates.

7. Review a study on Black Sea Bass commercial pot mesh size.

8. Review the draft Council management analysis review process.

9. Consider fishing level recommendations for Spiny Lobster.

10. Review Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 for Mutton Snapper.

11. Discuss proposed topics for the next National SSC meeting.

12. Receive an update on the Council's work plan and current amendments.

13. Discuss revisions to the SSC Public Comment Policy.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Written comment on SSC agenda topics is to be distributed to the Committee through the Council office. Written comment to be considered by the SSC shall be provided to the Council office no later than one week prior to an SSC meeting. The deadline for submission of written comment is 12 p.m. Tuesday, October 11, 2016. Two opportunities for comment on agenda items will be provided during the SSC meeting and noted on the agenda. The first will be at the beginning of the meeting, and the second near the conclusion, when the SSC reviews its recommendations.

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

The purpose of the methodology review meeting is to discuss and review proposed changes to analytical methods used in salmon management. Recommendations from the methodology review meeting will be presented at the November 13-21, 2016 Council meeting in Garden Grove, CA where the Council is scheduled to take final action on the proposals. One topic, a forecast model for Sacramento River winter Chinook, was adopted by the Council at their September 12-20, 2016 meeting in Boise, ID for consideration at the methodology review meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.

On July 25, 2016, notice was published in the Federal Register (81 FR 48394) that a request for a permit to commercial and educational photography on California sea lions had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 20481 authorizes filming California sea lions along the California coast and offshore from Point Año Nuevo south to the Channel Islands. Up to 1000 California sea lions may be approached for filming from land, vessel, and underwater (snorkelers or scuba divers). In addition, up to1000 long-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus capensis) and 1000 short-beaked common dolphins (D. delphis) may be incidentally harassed and filmed during operations. The permit expires on August 31, 2017.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Agenda

The committee will review information provided by the Council's Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and recommend the overfishing levels (OFLs) and acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for Atlantic sea scallops for fishing years 2016 and 2017. They will discuss other issues related to improving control rules and ABC recommendations for groundfish and other stocks, including ecosystem information, how to deal with information from multiple stock assessment models and other information. Other business will be discussed as needed.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

I. Abstract

This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals unless otherwise authorized or exempted by law. Among the provisions that allow for lawful take of marine mammals, sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA 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, after notice and opportunity for public comment, we find that the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also must set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (mitigation); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Issuance of an incidental take authorization (Authorization) under section 101(a)(5)(A) or 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires three sets of information collection: (1) A complete application for an Authorization, as set forth in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104, which provides the information necessary for us to make the necessary statutory determinations, including estimates of take and an assessment of impacts on the affected species and stocks; (2) information relating to required monitoring; and (3) information related to required reporting. These collections of information enable us to: (1) Evaluate the proposed activity's impact on marine mammals; (2) arrive at the appropriate determinations required by the MMPA and other applicable laws prior to issuing the authorization; and (3) monitor impacts of activities for which we have issued Authorizations to determine if our predictions regarding impacts on marine mammals remain valid.

On August 4, 2016, NMFS published a Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694) notifying the public of its new Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment (a type of take) under the MMPA. In that Federal Register Notice we stated that we would consider the effect of the Guidance, specifically whether a revision in the burden hour estimates is appropriate, and invite public comment on its assessment.

Although NMFS has updated the acoustic thresholds and these changes may necessitate new methodologies for calculating impacts, NMFS does not anticipate that the new guidance will substantially add to the overall burden to applicants for incidental take authorizations. This is due to the fact that, recognizing that action proponents have varying abilities to model and estimate exposure, and that the new guidance may be more complex than some action proponents are able to incorporate, NMFS provided an alternative methodology with an associated spreadsheet for use as an aid. Action proponents already using more complex modeling capabilities would simply modify their modeling efforts using the new criteria, and action proponents without the ability to do more complex modeling may opt to use the alternative methodology spreadsheet. Therefore, the estimated time per response is not affected by the guidance.

Respondents have a choice of submitting either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email, mail, overnight delivery service, and/or facsimile transmissions.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0151.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; state, local, or tribal governments; businesses or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 95.

Estimated Time per Response: 255 hours for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) application; 11 hours for an IHA interim report (if applicable); 115 hours for an IHA draft annual report; 14 hours for an IHA final annual report (if applicable); 1,100 hours for the initial preparation of an application for new regulations; 70 hours for an annual Letter of Authorization (LOA) application; 220 hours for an LOA draft annual report; 65 hours for a LOA final annual report (if applicable); 625 hours for a LOA draft comprehensive report; and 300 hours for an LOA final comprehensive report. Response times will vary for the public based upon the complexity of the requested action.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 14,109.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $360 in recordkeeping/reporting costs and $0 in capital costs.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

An electronic copy of the Navy's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. A memorandum describing our adoption of the Navy's Environmental Assessment (2016) and our associated Finding of No Significant Impact, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, are also available at the same site. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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 by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.

The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an authorization.

The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof, requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The establishment of prescriptions through either specific regulations or an authorization requires notice and opportunity for public comment.

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, 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; 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.” The former is termed Level A harassment and the latter is termed Level B harassment.

On September 11, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving associated with the construction of a pier and support facilities at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station/Sector Field Office Port Angeles (AIRSTA/SFO Port Angeles), located in Port Angeles Harbor on the Ediz Hook peninsula, Port Angeles. The Navy submitted a revised version of the request on February 19, 2016, which we deemed adequate and complete on February 22, 2016.

The Navy will initiate this multi-year project, lasting up to 18 months, involving impact and vibratory pile driving conducted within the approved in-water work windows. In water work is expected to begin on November 1, 2016 in order to minimize impacts to an Atlantic Salmon net pen farm located in close proximity to the project area. In water work will conclude on February 15, 2017, and begin again from July 16 to October 31, 2017. If in-water work will extend beyond the effective dates of the IHA, a second IHA application will be submitted by the Navy.

The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Take, by Level B Harassment, may impact individuals of five species of marine mammals (harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus), and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)). As the next paragraph explains, we have also determined based on the best available information that there also may be a small number of take by Level A Harassment of harbor seals.

On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In the August 4, 2016, Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need to consider this new best available science with the fact that some applicants have already committed time and resources to the development of analyses based on our previous thresholds and have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well as consideration of where the action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In that Notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, including: the scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant has progressed; when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the analysis; and the degree to which the guidance is expected to affect our analysis.

In this case, the Navy initially submitted a request for authorization on September 11, 2015, followed by an adequate and complete request determination on February 22, 2016. The Navy requires issuance of the authorization in order to ensure that this critical national security infrastructure project is able to meet its necessary start date. The Guidance indicates that there is a greater likelihood of auditory injury for Phocid pinnipeds (i.e., harbor seals) and for high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise) than was considered in our notice of proposed authorization. In order to address this increased likelihood, we increased the shutdown zones required for harbor seals to 100 m and for harbor porpoise to 150 m. With these changes, and in addition to other required mitigation measures, the Navy has a robust monitoring and mitigation program that we believe is effective in minimizing impacts to the affected species or stocks.

In addition, to account for the potential that not all harbor seals may be observed, we authorize the taking by Level A harassment of one harbor seal per day of projected construction activity. In this analysis, we considered the potential for small numbers of harbor seals to incur auditory injury and found that it would not impact our preliminary determinations. In summary, we have considered the new Guidance and believe that the likelihood of injury is adequately addressed in the analysis contained herein and appropriate protective measures are in place in the IHA.

The Navy has increased security for in-transit Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) in inland marine waters of northern Washington by establishing a Transit Protection System (TPS) that relies on the use of multiple escort vessels. The purpose of the Pier and Support Facilities for TPS project is to provide a staging location for TPS vessels and crews that escort incoming and outgoing SSBNs between dive/surface points in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap Bangor.

Specific activities that can be expected to result in the incidental taking of marine mammals are limited to the driving of steel piles used for installation of the trestle/fixed pier/floating docks, and the removal of temporary indicator piles.

Vibratory pile driving is the preferred method for production piles and would be the initial starting point for each installation; however, impact pile driving methods may be necessary based on substrate conditions. Once a pile hits “refusal,” which is where hard solid or dense substrate (e.g., gravel, boulders) prevents further pile movement by vibratory methods, impact pile driving is used to drive the pile to depth.

All piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer for their initial embedment depths, while select piles may be finished with an impact hammer for proofing, as necessary. There will be no concurrent pile driving or multiple hammers operating simultaneously. Proofing involves striking a driven pile with an impact hammer to verify that it provides the required load-bearing capacity, as indicated by the number of hammer blows per foot of pile advancement. Sound attenuation measures (i.e., bubble curtain) would be used during all impact hammer operations.

Under the action, in-water construction is anticipated to begin in 2016 and require two in-water work window seasons. The allowable season for in-water work, including pile driving, at AIRSTA/SFO Port Angeles is November 1, 2016 through February 15, 2017, and July 16, 2017 through October 31, 2017, a window established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in coordination with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Overall, a maximum of 75 days of pile driving are anticipated within these in-water work windows. All in-water construction activities will occur during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) except from July 16 to September 23 when impact pile driving/removal will only occur starting 2 hours after sunrise and ending 2 hours before sunset, to protect foraging marbled murrelets (an Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed bird under the jurisdiction of USFWS) during nesting season (April1- September 23). Other construction (not in-water) may occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., year-round.

AIRSTA/SFO Port Angeles is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, approximately 62 miles (100 km) east of Cape Flattery, and 63 miles (102 km) northwest of Seattle, Washington on the Olympic Peninsula (see Figure 1-1 in the Navy's application). The Strait of Juan de Fuca is a wide waterway stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Salish Sea. The strait is 95 miles (153 km) long, 15.5 miles (25 km) wide, and has depths ranging from 180 m to 250 m on the pacific coast and 55 m at the sill. Please see Section 2 of the Navy's application for detailed information about the specific geographic region, including physical and oceanographic characteristics.

The purpose of the Pier and Support Facilities for TPS project (the project) is to provide a staging location for TPS vessels and crews that escort incoming and outgoing SSBNs between dive/surface points in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap Bangor. The Navy has increased security for in-transit Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) in inland marine waters of northern Washington by establishing a Transit Protection System (TPS) that relies on the use of multiple escort vessels. Construction of the pier and support facilities is grouped into three broad categories: (1) Site Work Activities (2) Construction of Upland Facilities (Alert Forces Facility (AFF) and Ready Service Armory (RSA)), and (3) Construction of Trestle/Fixed Pier/Floating Docks.

The trestle, fixed pier, and floating docks will result in a permanent increase in overwater coverage of 25,465 square feet (ft2) (2,366 square meters (m2)). An estimated 745 ft2 (69 m2) of benthic seafloor will be displaced from the installation of the 144 permanent steel piles. The fixed pier will lie approximately 354 ft (108 m) offshore at water depths between −40 ft (−12 m) and −63 ft (19 m) mean lower low water (MLLW). It will be constructed of precast concrete and be approximately 160 feet long and 42 feet wide (49 m by 13 m). The fixed pier will have two mooring dolphins that connect to the fixed pier via a catwalk, and will be supported by 87 steel piles and result in 10,025 ft2 (931 m2) of permanent overwater coverage. The floating docks including brows will be supported by 21 steel piles and result in 5,380 ft2 (500 m2) of permanent overwater coverage. The trestle will provide vehicle and pedestrian access to the pier and convey utilities to the pier. It will be installed between +7 ft (2 m) MLLW and −45 ft (−14 m) MLLW. The trestle will be approximately 355 feet long (108 m) long and 24 feet (7 m) wide and constructed of precast concrete. The trestle will be designed to support a 50 pound per square foot (psf) (244 kilograms (kg) per square m) live load or a utility trailer with a total load of 3,000 pounds (1,360 kg), and will be supported by 36 steel piles and result in 10,060 ft2 (935 m2) of permanent overwater coverage.

For the entire project, pile installation will include the installation and removal of 80 temporary indicator piles, installation of 60 permanent sheet piles, and installation of 144 permanent steel piles (Table 1). The indicator piles are required to determine if required bearing capacities will be achieved with the production piles, and to assess whether the correct vibratory and impact hammers are being used. The process will be to vibrate the piles to within 5 ft (1.5 m) of the target embedment depth required for the project, let the piles rest in place for a day, and then impact drive the piles the final 5 ft (1.5 m). If the indicator piles cannot be successfully vibrated in, then a larger hammer will be used for the production piles. The impact driving will also provide an indication of bearing capacity via proofing. Each indicator pile would then be vibratory extracted (removed) using a vibratory hammer.

A maximum of 75 days of pile driving may occur. Table 1 summarizes the number and nature of piles required for the entire project.

Pile installation will utilize vibratory pile drivers to the greatest extent possible, and the Navy anticipates that most piles will be able to be vibratory driven to within several feet of the required depth. Pile drivability is, to a large degree, a function of soil conditions and the type of pile hammer. Most piles should be able to be driven with a vibratory hammer to proper embedment depth. However, difficulties during pile driving may be encountered as a result of obstructions, such as rocks or boulders, which may exist throughout the project area. If difficult driving conditions occur, increased usage of an impact hammer will occur.

Pile production rates are dependent upon required embedment depths, the potential for encountering difficult driving conditions, and the ability to drive multiple piles without a need to relocate the driving rig. If difficult subsurface driving conditions (e.g., cobble/boulder zones) are encountered that cause refusal with the vibratory equipment, it may be necessary to use an impact hammer to drive some piles for the remaining portion of their required depth. The worst-case scenario is that a pile would be driven for its entire length using an impact hammer. Given the uncertainty regarding the types and quantities of boulders or cobbles that may be encountered, and the depth at which they may be encountered, the number of strikes necessary to drive a pile its entire length would vary. All piles driven or struck with an impact hammer would be surrounded by a bubble curtain over the full water column to minimize in-water sound. Pile production rate (number of piles driven per day) is affected by many factors: Size, type (vertical versus angled), and location of piles; weather; number of driver rigs operating; equipment reliability; geotechnical (subsurface) conditions; and work stoppages for security or environmental reasons (such as presence of marine mammals).

We published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on April 4, 2016 (81 FR 19326). We received one comment, a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission concurring with NMFS's preliminary findings.

Comment: The Commission recommends the issuance of the IHA, subject to the inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

Response: We appreciate the Commission's concurrence with our findings and appreciate their input and support. We look forward to working with them on similar issues in the future.

There are eleven marine mammal species with recorded occurrence in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Table 2), including seven cetaceans and four pinnipeds. Of these eleven species, only five are expected to have a reasonable potential to be in the vicinity of the project site. These species are harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus), and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Harbor seals occur year round throughout the nearshore inland waters of Washington. Harbor seals are expected to occur year round in Port Angeles Harbor, with a nearby haul-out site on a log boom located approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 km) west of the project site and another haul-out site 1.3 miles (2.1 km) south of the project. Steller sea lions and California sea lions may occur in the area, but there are no site-specific surveys on these species. Harbor porpoises and Northern elephant seal are rare through the project area. The Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli dalli), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and killer whales (Orcinus orca) are extremely rare in Port Angeles Harbor, and we do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood of their occurrence in the project area during the period of validity for this IHA.

We have reviewed the Navy's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application instead of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts and to the Navy's Marine Resource Assessment for the Pacific Northwest, which documents and describes the marine resources that occur in Navy operating areas of the Pacific Northwest, including Strait of Juan de Fuca (DoN, 2006). The document is publicly available at www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html (accessed February 1, 2016). We provided additional information for marine mammals with potential for occurrence in the area of the specified activity in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (April 4, 2016; 81 FR 19326).