1550 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2024 / Notices 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this POR. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in 

Commerce’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to an 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

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

which continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation subject to sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of administrative review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: January 3, 2024. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Application of Partial Adverse 

Facts Available to Tainai 

Comment 2: Deduction of Section 301 

Duties 

Comment 3: Capping Section 301 Duty 

Payments 

Comment 4: Differential Pricing Analysis 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2024–00304 Filed 1–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD580] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of letter of 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 

(Anadarko) for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activity in the GOM. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from 

January 15, 2024, through May 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: https://www.fisheries.

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

In case of problems accessing these 

documents, please call the contact listed 

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final 

rule with regulations to govern the 

unintentional taking of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activities conducted by oil and 

gas industry operators, and those 

persons authorized to conduct activities 

on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry 

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

over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, 

January 19, 2021). The rule was based 

on our findings that the total taking 

from the specified activities over the 5- 

year period will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or 

stock(s) of marine mammals and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of those species or 

stocks for subsistence uses. The rule 

became effective on April 19, 2021. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et 

seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to 

industry operators for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during 

geophysical survey activities and 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat (often referred to as 

mitigation), as well as requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 

217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations and a 

determination that the amount of take 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2024 / Notices 1551 

1For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the 

GOM was divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not 

included in the geographic scope of the rule. 

2For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, 

seasons include winter (December-March) and 

summer (April-November). 

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

(Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were 

subsequently described as a new species, Rice’s 

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

authorized under the LOA is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Summary of Request and Analysis 

Anadarko plans to conduct a onedimensional vertical seismic profile 

(VSP) within Mississippi Canyon Block 

MC–40. The survey area has water 

depths of approximately 1,070 meters 

(m). Anadarko plans to use either a 12- 

element, 2,400 cubic inch (in3) airgun 

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

array. The survey is planned to occur for 

up to 8 days in February 2024. Please 

see Anadarko’s application for 

additional detail. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

final rule, the survey effort proposed by 

Anadarko in its LOA request was used 

to develop LOA-specific take estimates 

based on the acoustic exposure 

modeling results described in the 

preamble (86 FR 5322, January 19, 

2021). In order to generate the 

appropriate take number for 

authorization, the following information 

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

location (by modeling zone); 1 (3) 

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

acoustic exposure modeling performed 

in support of the rule provides 24-hour 

exposure estimates for each species, 

specific to each modeled survey type in 

each zone and season. 

No VSP surveys were included in the 

modeled survey types, and use of 

existing proxies (i.e., two-dimensional 

(2D), three-dimensional narrow azimuth 

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

Coil) is generally conservative for use in 

evaluation of VSP survey effort. 

Summary descriptions of these modeled 

survey geometries are available in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 

29212, June 22, 2018). Coil was selected 

as the best available proxy survey type 

because the spatial coverage of the 

planned survey is most similar to that 

associated with the coil survey pattern. 

For the planned survey, the seismic 

source array will be deployed from a 

drilling rig at or near the borehole, with 

the seismic receivers (i.e., geophones) 

deployed in the borehole on wireline at 

specified depth intervals. The coil 

survey pattern in the model was 

assumed to cover approximately 144 

kilometers squared (km2) per day 

(compared with approximately 795 km2, 

199 km2, and 845 km2 per day for the 

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

patterns, respectively). Among the 

different parameters of the modeled 

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

spacing, number of sources, shot 

interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS 

considers area covered per day to be 

most influential on daily modeled 

exposures exceeding Level B 

harassment criteria. Because Anadarko’s 

planned survey is expected to cover no 

additional area as a stationary source, 

the coil proxy is most representative of 

the effort planned by Anadarko in terms 

of predicted Level B harassment. 

In addition, all available acoustic 

exposure modeling results assume use 

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

estimated take numbers for this LOA are 

considered conservative due to the 

differences in both the airgun array 

(maximum of 12 elements and 2,400 

in3), and in daily survey area planned 

by Anadarko (as mentioned above), as 

compared to those modeled for the rule. 

The survey is planned to occur in 

zone 5. The survey could take place in 

any season. Therefore, the take 

estimates for each species are based on 

the season that has the greater value for 

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

Additionally, for some species, take 

estimates based solely on the modeling 

yielded results that are not realistically 

likely to occur when considered in light 

of other relevant information available 

during the rulemaking process regarding 

marine mammal occurrence in the 

GOM. The approach used in the 

acoustic exposure modeling, in which 

seven modeling zones were defined over 

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

distribution over the large area of each 

modeling zone. This can result in 

unrealistic projections regarding the 

likelihood of encountering particularly 

rare species and/or species not expected 

to occur outside particular habitats. 

Thus, although the modeling conducted 

for the rule is a natural starting point for 

estimating take, our rule acknowledged 

that other information could be 

considered (see, e.g., 86 FR 5322 

(January 19, 2021), discussing the need 

to provide flexibility and make efficient 

use of previous public and agency 

review of other information and 

identifying that additional public 

review is not necessary unless the 

model or inputs used differ 

substantively from those that were 

previously reviewed by NMFS and the 

public). For this survey, NMFS has 

other relevant information reviewed 

during the rulemaking that indicates use 

of the acoustic exposure modeling to 

generate a take estimate for Rice’s 

whales and killer whales produces 

results inconsistent with what is known 

regarding their occurrence in the GOM. 

Accordingly, we have adjusted the 

calculated take estimates for those 

species as described below. 

NMFS’ final rule described a ‘‘core 

habitat area’’ for Rice’s whales (formerly 

known as GOM Bryde’s whales) 3

located in the northeastern GOM in 

waters between 100–400 m depth along 

the continental shelf break (Rosel et al., 

2016). However, whaling records 

suggest that Rice’s whales historically 

had a broader distribution within 

similar habitat parameters throughout 

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

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

similar habitat (i.e., approximately 100– 

400 m water depths along the 

continental shelf break) as being 

potential Rice’s whale habitat (Roberts 

et al., 2016), although the core habitat 

area contained approximately 92 

percent of the predicted abundance of 

Rice’s whales. See discussion provided 

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

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

(January 19, 2021). 

Although Rice’s whales may occur 

outside of the core habitat area, we 

expect that any such occurrence would 

be limited to the narrow band of 

suitable habitat described above (i.e., 

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

available records, these occurrences 

would be rare. Anadarko’s planned 

activities will occur in water depths of 

approximately 1,070 m in the central 

GOM. Thus, NMFS does not expect 

there to be the reasonable potential for 

take of Rice’s whale in association with 

this survey and, accordingly, does not 

authorize take of Rice’s whale through 

the LOA. 

Killer whales are the most rarely 

encountered species in the GOM, 

typically in deep waters of the central 

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

and Mullin, 2006). As discussed in the 

final rule, the density models produced 

by Roberts et al. (2016) provide the best 

available scientific information 

regarding predicted density patterns of 

cetaceans in the U.S. GOM. The 

predictions represent the output of 

models derived from multi-year 

observations and associated 

environmental parameters that 

incorporate corrections for detection 

bias. However, in the case of killer 

whales, the model is informed by few 

data, as indicated by the coefficient of 

variation associated with the abundance 

predicted by the model (0.41, the 

second-highest of any GOM species 

model; Roberts et al., 2016). The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
1552 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2024 / Notices 

4However, note that these species have been 

observed over a greater range of water depths in the 

GOM than have killer whales. 

model’s authors noted the expected 

non-uniform distribution of this rarelyencountered species (as discussed 

above) and expressed that, due to the 

limited data available to inform the 

model, it ‘‘should be viewed cautiously’’ 

(Roberts et al., 2015). 

NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992 

to 2009 reported only 16 sightings of 

killer whales, with an additional 3 

encounters during more recent survey 

effort from 2017 to 2018 (Waring et al., 

2013; https://www.boem.gov/ 

gommapps). Two other species were 

also observed on fewer than 20 

occasions during the 1992–2009 NOAA 

surveys (Fraser’s dolphin and false 

killer whale.4) However, observational 

data collected by protected species 

observers (PSOs) on industry 

geophysical survey vessels from 2002 to 

2015 distinguish the killer whale in 

terms of rarity. During this period, killer 

whales were encountered on only 10 

occasions, whereas the next most rarely 

encountered species (Fraser’s dolphin) 

was recorded on 69 occasions (Barkaszi 

and Kelly, 2019). The false killer whale 

and pygmy killer whale were the next 

most rarely encountered species, with 

110 records each. The killer whale was 

the species with the lowest detection 

frequency during each period over 

which PSO data were synthesized 

(2002–2008 and 2009–2015). This 

information qualitatively informed our 

rulemaking process, as discussed at 86 

FR 5322 (January 19, 2021) and 86 FR 

5334 (January 19, 2021), and similarly 

informs our analysis here. 

The rarity of encounter during seismic 

surveys is not likely to be the product 

of high bias on the probability of 

detection. Unlike certain cryptic species 

with high detection bias, such as Kogia 

spp. or beaked whales, or deep-diving 

species with high availability bias, such 

as beaked whales or sperm whales, 

killer whales are typically available for 

detection when present and are easily 

observed. Roberts et al. (2015) stated 

that availability is not a major factor 

affecting detectability of killer whales 

from shipboard surveys, as they are not 

a particularly long-diving species. Baird 

et al. (2005) reported that mean dive 

durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales 

for dives greater than or equal to 1 

minute in duration was 2.3–2.4 minutes, 

and Hooker et al. (2012) reported that 

killer whales spent 78 percent of their 

time at depths between 0–10 m. 

Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. (2012) 

reported data from a study of 4 killer 

whales, noting that the whales 

performed 20 times as many dives 1–30 

m in depth than to deeper waters, with 

an average depth during those most 

common dives of approximately 3 m. 

In summary, killer whales are the 

most rarely encountered species in the 

GOM and typically occur only in 

particularly deep water. This survey 

would take place in deep waters that 

would overlap with depths in which 

killer whales typically occur. While this 

information is reflected through the 

density model informing the acoustic 

exposure modeling results, there is 

relatively high uncertainty associated 

with the model for this species, and the 

acoustic exposure modeling applies 

mean distribution data over areas where 

the species is in fact less likely to occur. 

In addition, as noted above in relation 

to the general take estimation 

methodology, the assumed proxy source 

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

significant overestimate of the actual 

potential for take to occur. NMFS’ 

determination in reflection of the 

information discussed above, which 

informed the final rule, is that use of the 

generic acoustic exposure modeling 

results for killer whales will generally 

result in estimated take numbers that 

are inconsistent with the assumptions 

made in the rule regarding expected 

killer whale take (86 FR 5322, January 

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

In this case, use of the acoustic exposure 

modeling produces an estimate of three 

killer whale exposures. Given the 

foregoing, it is unlikely that any killer 

whales would be encountered during 

this at most 8-day survey, and 

accordingly no take of killer whales is 

authorized through this LOA. 

In addition, in this case, use of the 

exposure modeling produces results that 

are smaller than average GOM group 

sizes for one species (Maze-Foley and 

Mullin, 2006). NMFS’ typical practice in 

such a situation is to increase exposure 

estimates to the assumed average group 

size for a species in order to ensure that, 

if the species is encountered, exposures 

will not exceed the authorized take 

number. However, other relevant 

considerations here lead to a 

determination that increasing the 

estimated exposures to the average 

group size would likely lead to an 

overestimate of actual potential take. In 

this circumstance, the very short survey 

duration (maximum of 8 days) and 

relatively small Level B harassment 

isopleths produced through use of the 

(at most) 12-element, 2,400-in3 airgun 

array (compared with the modeled 72- 

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

unlikely that certain species would be 

encountered at all, much less that the 

encounter would result in exposure of a 

greater number of individuals than is 

estimated through use of the exposure 

modeling results. As a result, in this 

case NMFS has not increased the 

estimated exposure values to assumed 

average group sizes in authorizing take. 

Based on the results of our analysis, 

NMFS has determined that the level of 

taking expected for this survey and 

authorized through the LOA is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

regulations for the affected species or 

stocks of marine mammals. See table 1 

in this notice and table 9 of the rule (86 

FR 5322, January 19, 2021). 

Small Numbers Determination 

Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not 

authorize incidental take of marine 

mammals in an LOA if it will exceed 

‘‘small numbers.’’ In short, when an 

acceptable estimate of the individual 

marine mammals taken is available, if 

the estimated number of individual 

animals taken is up to, but not greater 

than, one-third of the best available 

abundance estimate, NMFS will 

determine that the numbers of marine 

mammals taken of a species or stock are 

small. For more information please see 

NMFS’ discussion of the MMPA’s small 

numbers requirement provided in the 

final rule (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021; 

86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021). 

The take numbers for authorization, 

which are determined as described 

above, are used by NMFS in making the 

necessary small numbers 

determinations through comparison 

with the best available abundance 

estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 

January 19, 2021 and 86 FR 5391, 

January 19, 2021). For this comparison, 

NMFS’ approach is to use the maximum 

theoretical population, determined 

through review of current stock 

assessment reports (SAR; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and modelpredicted abundance information 

(https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/ 

Duke/GOM). For the latter, for taxa 

where a density surface model could be 

produced, we use the maximum mean 

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

prediction for purposes of comparison 

as a precautionary smoothing of monthto-month fluctuations and in 

consideration of a corresponding lack of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2024 / Notices 1553 

data in the literature regarding seasonal 

distribution of marine mammals in the 

GOM. Information supporting the small 

numbers determinations is provided in 

table 1. 

TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS

Species Authorized 

take a Abundance b Percent 

abundance 

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

Sperm whale ................................................................................................................................ 210 2,207 9.5 

Kogia spp. .................................................................................................................................... c 89 4,373 1.8 

Beaked whales ............................................................................................................................ 929 3,768 24.6 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................................................................................................................ 160 4,853 3.3 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 757 176,108 0.4 

Clymene dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 449 11,895 3.8 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 302 74,785 0.4 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................................................................................................... 2,039 102,361 2 

Spinner dolphin ............................................................................................................................ 546 25,114 2.2 

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 176 5,229 3.4 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................... d 50 1,665 3 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 132 3,764 3.5 

Melon-headed whale ................................................................................................................... 295 7,003 4.2 

Pygmy killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 69 2,126 3.3 

False killer whale ......................................................................................................................... 111 3,204 3.5 

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

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................... 85 1,981 4.3 

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

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

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

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

abundance is available. For Rice’s whale and killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. c Includes 4 takes by Level A harassment and 76 takes by Level B harassment. 

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

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of Anadarko’s proposed survey 

activity described in its LOA 

application and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the affected species 

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

the best available abundance estimate) 

and therefore the taking is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Authorization 

NMFS has determined that the level 

of taking for this LOA request is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

incidental take regulations and that the 

amount of take authorized under the 

LOA is of no more than small numbers. 

Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to 

Anadarko authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: January 4, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00299 Filed 1–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD622] 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a meeting of the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s 

Law Enforcement Advisory Panel. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) will 

hold a meeting of the Law Enforcement 

Advisory Panel (AP) January 29–30, 

2024, in Charleston, SC. 

DATES: The Law Enforcement AP will 

meet from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on 

January 29, and from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. 

on January 30, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The 

meeting will be held at the Crowne 

Plaza, 4831 Tanger Outlet Blvd., North 

Charleston, SC 29418. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Iverson, Public Information Officer, 

SAFMC; phone: (843) 571–4366 or toll 

free: (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769– 

4520; email: kim.iverson@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting 

information, including the agenda, 

overview, briefing book materials, and 

an online public comment form will be 

posted on the Council’s website at: 

https://safmc.net/advisory-panelmeetings/ 2 weeks prior to the meeting. 

The meeting is open to the public and 

available via webinar as it occurs. The 

webinar registration link will be 

available from the Council’s website. 

Public comment will also be taken 

during the meeting. 

The agenda for the Law Enforcement 

AP meeting includes: an update on 

developing amendments; discussion of 

enforcement components of 

amendments for wreckfish management 

(Snapper Grouper Amendment 48), 

recreational permitting for the Snapper 

Grouper Fishery (Snapper Grouper 

Amendment 46), and on-demand gear 

for black sea bass pots (Snapper Grouper 

Regulatory Amendment 36). The AP 

will also receive an overview and 

discuss tournament sales of king 

mackerel; updates on compliance with 

for-hire reporting, descending devices, 

and protected areas; and general 

updates from Federal and state 

enforcement representatives. The AP 

will provide input and 

recommendations on agenda items for 

the Council’s consideration and address 

other items as needed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1