Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18359 

11See Preliminary Decision Memorandum for 

additional details. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of the issues raised in any 

written briefs, not later than 120 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department shall determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. If the preliminary results are 

unchanged for the final results we will 

instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem 

assessment rate of 55.60 percent to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR which were produced and/or 

exported by Messingwerk, and an ad 

valorem assessment rate of 22.61 

percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR which 

were produced and/or exported by the 

six aforementioned companies which 

were not selected for individual 

examination. 

We intend to issue liquidation 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of brass sheet 

and strip from Germany entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 

rates for the reviewed companies will be 

the rates established in the final results 

of this review; (2) for merchandise 

exported by manufacturers or exporters 

not covered in this review but covered 

in a prior segment of the proceeding, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the less-than-fair-value 

investigation but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter 

nor the manufacturer has its own rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be 7.30 

percent.11 These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notifications to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

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 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 31, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

A. Summary 

B. Background 

C. Scope of the Order 

D. Discussion of the Methodology 

1. Selection of Respondent 

2. No Shipment Preliminary Determination 

3. Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

a. Use of Facts Available 

b. Application of Facts Available With an 

Adverse Inference 

c. Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

4. Rate for Companies Not Selected for 

Individual Examination 

E. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2015–07844 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD815 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Seabird 

Monitoring and Research in Glacier 

Bay National Park, Alaska, 2015 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Glacier Bay National 

Park (Glacier Bay NP) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

conducting seabird research from May 

through September, 2015. The proposed 

dates for this action are May 15, 2015, 

through September 30, 2015. Per the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, we are 

requesting comments on our proposal to 

issue an Authorization to the Glacier 

Bay NP to incidentally take, by Level B 

harassment only, one species of marine 

mammal during the specified activity. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

and information on or before May 6, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the 

application to Jolie Harrison, Division 

Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is ITP.Cody@

noaa.gov. Please include 0648–XD815 

in the subject line. Comments sent via 

email to ITP.Cody@noaa.gov, including 

all attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. NMFS is not 

responsible for email comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. 

Instructions: All submitted comments 

are a part of the public record and 

NMFS will post them to http://www.

nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/

research.htm without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

To obtain an electronic copy of the 

application containing a list of the 

references used in this document, write 

to the previously mentioned address, 

telephone the contact listed here (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visit the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.

noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/

research.htm. 

Information in Glacier Bay NP’s 

application, NMFS’ 2014 Environmental 

Assessment titled, Environmental 

Assessment for the Issuance of an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization to 

Take Marine Mammals by Harassment 

Incidental to Conducting Seabird 

Research in Glacier Bay Alaska, and this 

notice collectively provide the 

environmental information related to 

proposed issuance of the Authorization 

for public review and comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427– 

8401. 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) directs 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, after NMFS provides a notice of a 

proposed authorization to the public for 

review and comment: (1) NMFS makes 

certain findings; and (2) the taking is 

limited to harassment. 

An Authorization shall be granted for 

the incidental taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals if NMFS finds that 

the taking will have a negligible impact 

on the species or stock(s), and will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of the species or stock(s) 

for subsistence uses (where relevant). 

The Authorization must also set forth 

the permissible methods of taking; other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat; and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. 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]. 

Summary of Request 

On January 15, 2015, NMFS received 

an application from Glacier Bay NP 

requesting that we issue an 

Authorization for the take of marine 

mammals, incidental to conducting 

monitoring and research studies on 

glaucus-winged gulls (Larus 

glaucescens) within Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve in Alaska. 

NMFS determined the application 

complete and adequate on February 27, 

2015. NMFS previously issued an 

Authorization to Glacier Bay NP for the 

same activities in 2014 (79 FR 56065, 

September 18, 2014). No seabird 

research activities occurred during the 

effective period of the prior 

Authorization. 

Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct 

ground-based and vessel-based surveys 

to collect data on the number and 

distribution of nesting gulls within five 

study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier 

Bay NP proposes to complete up to five 

visits per study site, from May through 

September, 2015. 

The proposed activities are within the 

vicinity of pinniped haulout sites and 

the following aspects of the proposed 

activities are likely to result in the take 

of marine mammals: Noise generated by 

motorboat approaches and departures; 

noise generated by researchers while 

conducting ground surveys; and human 

presence during the monitoring and 

research activities. NMFS anticipates 

that take by Level B harassment only, of 

individuals of harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) would result from the specified 

activity. Although Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) may be present in 

the action area, Glacier Bay NP has 

proposed to avoid any site used by 

Steller sea lions. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify 

the onset of gull nesting; conduct midseason surveys of adult gulls, and locate 

and document gull nest sites within the 

following study areas: Boulder, Lone, 

and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. 

Each of these study sites contains harbor 

seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP 

proposes to visit each study site up to 

five times during the research season. 

Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull 

monitoring studies to meet the 

requirements of a 2010 Record of 

Decision for a Legislative Environmental 

Impact Statement (NPS, 2010) which 

states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate 

a monitoring program for the gulls to 

inform future native egg harvests by the 

Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. 

Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor 

seals at breeding and molting sites to 

assess population trends over time (e.g., 

Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et 

al., 2010). Glacier Bay NP also 

coordinates pinniped monitoring 

programs with NMFS’ National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory and the Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game and plans 

to continue these collaborations and 

sharing of monitoring data and 

observations in the future. 

Dates and Duration 

Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct 

the proposed activities from the period 

of May 15 through September 30, 2015. 

Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct a 

maximum of three ground-based 

surveys per each study site and a 

maximum of two vessel-based surveys 

per each study site. 

Thus, the proposed Authorization, if 

issued, would be effective from May 15, 

2015 through September 30, 2015. 

NMFS refers the reader to the Detailed 

Description of Activities section later in 

this notice for more information on the 

scope of the proposed activities. 

Specified Geographic Region 

The proposed study sites would occur 

in the vicinity of the following 

locations: Boulder (58°33′18.08′′ N; 

136°1′13.36′′ W), Lone (58°43′17.67′′ N; 

136°17′41.32′′ W), and Flapjack 

(58°35′10.19′′ N; 135°58′50.78′′ W) 

Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75′′ 

N; 136°18′39.06′′ W) in Glacier Bay, 

Alaska. Glacier Bay NP will also 

conduct studies at Tlingit Point Islet 

located at 58°45′16.86′′ N; 136°10′41.74′′ 

W; however, there are no reported 

pinniped haulout sites at that location. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18361 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

Detailed Description of Activities 

Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: 

(1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum 

frequency of three visits per site; and (2) 

vessel-based surveys at a maximum 

frequency of two visits per site from the 

period of May 15 through September 30, 

2015. 

Ground-Based Surveys: These surveys 

involve two trained observers visiting 

the largest gull colony on each island to: 

(1) Obtain information on the numbers 

of nests, their location, and contents 

(i.e., eggs or chicks); (2) determine the 

onset of laying, distribution, abundance, 

and predation of gull nests and eggs; 

and (3) record the proximity of other 

species relative to colony locations. 

The observers would access each 

island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot 

(ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 

12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The 

landing craft’s transit speed would not 

exceed 4 knots (4.6 miles per hour 

(mph). Ground surveys generally last 

from 30 minutes to up to two hours 

depending on the size of the island and 

the number of nesting gulls. Glacier Bay 

NP will discontinue ground surveys 

after they detect the first hatchling to 

minimize disturbance to the gull 

colonies. 

Vessel-Based Surveys: These surveys 

involve two trained observers observing 

and counting the number of adult and 

fledgling gulls from the deck of a 

motorized vessel which would transit 

around each island at a distance of 

approximately 328 ft (100 m) to avoid 

flushing the birds from the colonies. 

Vessel-based surveys generally last from 

30 minutes to up to two hours 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN06AP15.000</GPH>
18362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

depending on the size of the island and 

the number of nesting gulls. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Table 1 in this notice provides the 

following information: All marine 

mammal species with possible or 

confirmed occurrence in the proposed 

survey areas on land; information on 

those species’ regulatory status under 

the MMPA and the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 

abundance; occurrence and seasonality 

in the activity area. 

TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAUL OUT IN THE PROPOSED STUDY

AREAS IN MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 2015 

Species Stock name Regulatory status 1 2 Stock/Species 

abundance 3

Occurrence and 

range Season 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) ................. Glacier Bay/Icy Strait MMPA–NC ESA–NL 5,042 .................... common coastal ... year-round 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ... Eastern U.S. ............. MMPA–D, S ESA–NL 63,160–78,198 ..... uncommon coastal year-round 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ... Western U.S. ............ MMPA–D, S ESA–T 52,200 .................. rare coastal ........... unknown 

1 MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified. 

2ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 

3 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Allen and Anglis, 2014). 

NMFS refers the public to the Glacier 

Bay NP’s application and the 2014 

NMFS Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessment Report available online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/

species.htm for further information on 

the biology and local distribution of 

these species. 

Other Marine Mammals in the 

Proposed Action Area 

Northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris 

kenyoni) and polar bears (Ursis 

maritimus) listed as threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act could occur 

in the proposed area. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service manages these species 

and NMFS does not consider them 

further in this notice. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activities on Marine Mammals 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that the types of 

stressors associated with the specified 

activity (e.g., personnel presence) have 

been observed to impact marine 

mammals. This discussion may also 

include reactions that NMFS considers 

to rise to the level of a take and those 

that we do not consider to rise to the 

level of a take. This section serves as a 

background of potential effects and does 

not consider either the specific manner 

in which the applicant will carry out the 

activity or the mitigation that will be 

implemented, and how either of those 

will shape the anticipated impacts from 

this specific activity. The ‘‘Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment’’ section 

later in this document will include a 

quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that NMFS expects Glacier 

Bay NP to take during this activity. The 

‘‘Negligible Impact Analysis’’ section 

will include the analysis of how this 

specific activity would impact marine 

mammals. NMFS will consider the 

content of the following sections: 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment; Proposed Mitigation; and 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat, to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of this activity on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals—and from that 

consideration—the likely impacts of this 

activity on the affected marine mammal 

populations or stocks. 

Potential Effects of Human Presence on 

Marine Mammals 

The appearance of Glacier Bay 

researchers has the potential to cause 

Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled 

out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack 

Islands, and Geikie Rock. Disturbance 

includes a variety of effects, including 

subtle to conspicuous changes in 

behavior, movement, and displacement. 

Disturbance may result in reactions 

ranging from an animal simply 

becoming alert to the presence of the 

surveyors (e.g., turning the head, 

assuming a more upright posture) to 

flushing from the haul-out site into the 

water. NMFS does not consider the 

lesser reactions to constitute behavioral 

harassment, or Level B harassment 

takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds 

that move greater than 1 meter (m) (3.3 

feet (ft)) or change the speed or direction 

of their movement in response to the 

presence of surveyors are behaviorally 

harassed, and thus subject to Level B 

taking. Animals that respond to the 

presence of researchers by becoming 

alert, but that do not move or change the 

nature of locomotion as described, are 

not considered to have been subject to 

behavioral harassment. 

Reactions to human presence, if any, 

depend on species, state of maturity, 

experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, time of day, and 

many other factors (Richardson et al., 

1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et 

al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). These 

behavioral reactions are often shown as: 

Changing durations of surfacing and 

dives, number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into the water from haul-outs 

or rookeries). If a marine mammal does 

react briefly to human presence by 

changing its behavior or moving a small 

distance, the impacts of the change are 

unlikely to be significant to the 

individual, let alone the stock or 

population. However, if visual stimuli 

from human presence displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 

Disturbances resulting from human 

activity can impact short- and long-term 

pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf et 

al., 1981; Schneider and Payne, 1983; 

Terhune and Almon, 1983; Allen et al., 

1984; Stewart, 1984; Suryan and 

Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et al., 2000; 

and Kucey and Trites, 2006). Numerous 

studies have shown that human activity 

can flush harbor seals off haulout sites 

(Allen et al., 1984; Calambokidis et al., 

1991; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; and 

Mortenson et al., 2000) or lead to 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi) avoidance of beach areas 

(Kenyon, 1972). In one case, human 

disturbance appeared to cause Steller 

sea lions to desert a breeding area at 

Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, 

Alaska (Kenyon, 1962). 

In cases where vessels actively 

approached marine mammals (e.g., 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18363 

whale watching or dolphin watching 

boats), scientists have documented that 

animals exhibit altered behavior such as 

increased swimming speed, erratic 

movement, and active avoidance 

behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; 

Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and 

Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; 

Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow 

interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption 

of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 

2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral 

activities which may increase energetic 

costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004). In 

1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) 

conducted a study to measure the 

impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, 

canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on 

harbor seal haulout behavior in Me ́tis 

Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, 

the authors noted that the most frequent 

disturbances (n=73) were caused by 

lower speed, lingering kayaks, and 

canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to 

motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting 

high speed passes. The seals’ flight 

reactions could be linked to a surprise 

factor by kayaks-canoes that approach 

slowly, quietly and low on water, 

making them look like predators. 

However, the authors note that once the 

animals were disturbed, there did not 

appear to be any significant lingering 

effect on the recovery of numbers to 

their pre-disturbance levels. In 

conclusion, the study showed that boat 

traffic at current levels has only a 

temporary effect on the haulout 

behavior of harbor seals in the Me ́tis 

Bay area. 

In 2004, Johnson and AcevedoGutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy 

of buffer zones for watercraft around 

harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow 

Island, Washington. The authors 

estimated the minimum distance 

between the vessels and the haul-out 

sites; categorized the vessel types; and 

evaluated seal responses to the 

disturbances. During the course of the 

seven-weekend study, the authors 

recorded 14 human-related disturbances 

which were associated with stopped 

powerboats and kayaks. During these 

events, hauled out seals became 

noticeably active and moved into the 

water. The flushing occurred when 

stopped kayaks and powerboats were at 

distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 

and 371 m) respectively. The authors 

note that the seals were unaffected by 

passing powerboats, even those 

approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), 

possibly indicating that the animals had 

become tolerant of the brief presence of 

the vessels and ignored them. The 

authors reported that on average, the 

seals quickly recovered from the 

disturbances and returned to the 

haulout site in less than or equal to 60 

minutes. Seal numbers did not return to 

pre-disturbance levels within 180 

minutes of the disturbance less than one 

quarter of the time observed. The study 

concluded that the return of seal 

numbers to pre-disturbance levels and 

the relatively regular seasonal cycle in 

abundance throughout the area counter 

the idea that disturbances from 

powerboats may result in site 

abandonment (Johnson and AcevedoGutierrez, 2007). As a general statement 

from the available information, 

pinnipeds exposed to intense 

(approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 

20 mPa) non-pulse sounds often leave 

haulout areas and seek refuge 

temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in 

the water (Southall et al., 2007). 

There are three ways in which 

disturbance, as described previously, 

could result in more than Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. All 

three are most likely to be consequences 

of stampeding, a potentially dangerous 

occurrence in which large numbers of 

animals succumb to mass panic and 

rush away from a stimulus. The three 

situations are: (1) Falling when entering 

the water at high-relief locations; (2) 

extended separation of mothers and 

pups; and (3) crushing of pups by large 

males during a stampede. However, 

NMFS does not expect any of these 

scenarios to occur at the proposed 

survey site. 

Because hauled-out animals may 

move towards the water when 

disturbed, there is the risk of injury if 

animals stampede towards shorelines 

with precipitous relief (e.g., cliffs). 

However, while high-elevation sites 

exist on the islands, the haulout sites 

consist of ridges with unimpeded and 

non-obstructive access to the water. If 

disturbed, the small number of hauledout adult animals may move toward the 

water without risk of encountering 

barriers or hazards that would otherwise 

prevent them from leaving the area. 

The probability of vessel and marine 

mammal interactions (i.e., motorboat 

strike) occurring during the proposed 

research activities is unlikely due to the 

motorboat’s slow operational speed, 

which is typically 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 

3.4 mph) and the researchers 

continually scanning the water for 

marine mammals presence during 

transit to the islands. Thus, NMFS does 

not anticipate that strikes or collisions 

would result from the movement of the 

motorboat. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

We do not anticipate that the 

proposed operations would result in any 

temporary or permanent effects on the 

habitats used by the marine mammals in 

the proposed area, including the food 

sources they use (i.e., fish and 

invertebrates). While NMFS anticipates 

that the specified activity may result in 

marine mammals avoiding certain areas 

due to motorboat operations or human 

presence, this impact to habitat is 

temporary and reversible. NMFS 

considered these as behavioral 

modification. The main impact 

associated with the proposed activity 

will be temporarily elevated noise levels 

and the associated direct effects on 

marine mammals, previously discussed 

in this notice. Based on the preceding 

discussion, NMFS does not anticipate 

that the proposed activity would have 

any habitat-related effects that could 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Proposed Mitigation 

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 on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). Applications for 

incidental take authorizations must 

include the availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected species or stock 

and their habitat 50 CFR 216.104(a)(11). 

The Glacier Bay NP has reviewed the 

following source documents and has 

incorporated a suite of proposed 

mitigation measures into their project 

description. 

(1) Recommended best practices in 

Womble et al. (2013); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Pierson et al. (1998); and Weir 

and Dolman, (2007). 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic and visual 

stimuli associated with the activities 

Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees has 

proposed to implement the following 

mitigation measures for marine 

mammals: 

• Perform pre-survey monitoring 

before deciding to access a study site; 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

• Avoid accessing a site based on a 

pre-determined threshold number of 

animals present; sites used by pinnipeds 

for pupping; or sites used by Steller sea 

lions; 

• Perform controlled and slow ingress 

to the study site to prevent a stampede 

and select a pathway of approach to 

minimize the number of marine 

mammals harassed; 

• Monitor for offshore predators at 

study sites. Avoid approaching the 

study site if killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

are present. If Glacier Bay NP and/or its 

designees see predators in the area, they 

must not disturb the pinnipeds until the 

area is free of predators. 

• Maintain a quiet research 

atmosphere in the visual presence of 

pinnipeds. 

Pre-Survey Monitoring: Prior to 

deciding to land onshore to conduct the 

study, the researchers would use highpowered image stabilizing binoculars 

from the watercraft to document the 

number, species, and location of hauled 

out marine mammals at each island. The 

vessels would maintain a distance of 

328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the 

shoreline to allow the researchers to 

conduct pre-survey monitoring. During 

every visit, the researchers will examine 

each study site closely using high 

powered image stabilizing binoculars 

before approaching at distances of 

greater than 500 m (1,640 ft) to 

determine and document the number, 

species, and location of hauled out 

marine mammals. 

Site Avoidance: Researchers would 

decide whether or not to approach the 

island based on the species present, 

number of individuals, and the presence 

of pups. If there are high numbers (more 

than 25) harbor seals hauled out (with 

or without young pups present), any 

time pups are present, or any time that 

Steller sea lions are present, the 

researchers will not approach the island 

and will not conduct gull monitoring 

research. 

Controlled Landings: The researchers 

would determine whether to approach 

the island based on the number and 

type of animals present. If the island has 

25 or fewer individuals without pups, 

the researchers would approach the 

island by motorboat at a speed of 

approximately 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 3.4 

mph). This would provide enough time 

for any marine mammals present to 

slowly enter the water without panic or 

stampede. The researchers would also 

select a pathway of approach farthest 

from the hauled out harbor seals to 

minimize disturbance. 

Minimize Predator Interactions: If the 

researchers visually observe marine 

predators (i.e. killer whales) present in 

the vicinity of hauled out marine 

mammals, the researchers would not 

approach the study site. 

Noise Reduction Protocols: While 

onshore at study sites, the researchers 

would remain vigilant for hauled out 

marine mammals. If marine mammals 

are present, the researchers would move 

slowly and use quiet voices to minimize 

disturbance to the animals present. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated Glacier 

Bay NP’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 motorboat 

operations or visual presence that we 

expect to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing harassment takes 

only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

exposed to motorboat operations or 

visual presence 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 motorboat operations or 

visual presence that we expect to result 

in the take of marine mammals (this 

goal may contribute to a, 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 the evaluation of Glacier 

Bay NP’s proposed measures, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures 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. 

Proposed Monitoring 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for Authorizations 

must include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that we 

expect to be present in the proposed 

action area. Glacier Bay NP submitted a 

marine mammal monitoring plan in 

section 13 of their Authorization 

application. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

1. An increase in our understanding 

of the likely occurrence of marine 

mammal species in the vicinity of the 

action, (i.e., presence, abundance, 

distribution, and/or density of species). 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of the nature, scope, or context of the 

likely exposure of marine mammal 

species to any of the potential stressor(s) 

associated with the action (e.g., sound 

or visual stimuli), through better 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: The action itself and its 

environment (e.g., sound source 

characterization, propagation, and 

ambient noise levels); the affected 

species (e.g., life history or dive 

pattern); the likely co-occurrence of 

marine mammal species with the action 

(in whole or part) associated with 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18365 

specific adverse effects; and/or the 

likely biological or behavioral context of 

exposure to the stressor for the marine 

mammal (e.g., age class of exposed 

animals or known pupping, calving or 

feeding areas). 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals 

respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to the specific stressors 

associated with the action (in specific 

contexts, where possible, e.g., at what 

distance or received level). 

4. An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated individual 

responses, to individual stressors or 

anticipated combinations of stressors, 

may impact either: The long-term fitness 

and survival of an individual; or the 

population, species, or stock (e.g. 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival). 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of how the activity affects marine 

mammal habitat, such as through effects 

on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., 

through characterization of longer-term 

contributions of multiple sound sources 

to rising ambient noise levels and 

assessment of the potential chronic 

effects on marine mammals). 

6. An increase in understanding of the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals in combination with the 

impacts of other anthropogenic 

activities or natural factors occurring in 

the region. 

7. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of mitigation and 

monitoring measures. 

8. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals (through 

improved technology or methodology), 

both specifically within the safety zone 

(thus allowing for more effective 

implementation of the mitigation) and 

in general, to better achieve the above 

goals. 

As part of its Authorization 

application, Glacier Bay NP proposes to 

sponsor marine mammal monitoring 

during the project, in order to 

implement the mitigation measures that 

require real-time monitoring, and to 

satisfy the monitoring requirements of 

the MMPA. 

The Glacier Bay NP researchers will 

monitor the area for pinnipeds during 

all research activities. Monitoring 

activities will consist of conducting and 

recording observations on pinnipeds 

within the vicinity of the proposed 

research areas. The monitoring notes 

would provide dates and location of the 

researcher’s activities and the number 

and type of species present. The 

researchers would document the 

behavioral state of animals present, and 

any apparent disturbance reactions or 

lack thereof. 

Glacier Bay NP can add to the 

knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed 

action area by noting observations of: (1) 

Unusual behaviors, numbers, or 

distributions of pinnipeds, such that 

any potential follow-up research can be 

conducted by the appropriate personnel; 

(2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, 

allowing transmittal of the information 

to appropriate agencies and personnel; 

and (3) rare or unusual species of 

marine mammals for agency follow-up. 

If at any time injury, serious injury, or 

mortality of the species for which take 

is authorized should occur, or if take of 

any kind of any other marine mammal 

occurs, and such action may be a result 

of the proposed land survey, Glacier Bay 

NP would suspend research and 

monitoring activities and contact NMFS 

immediately to determine how best to 

proceed to ensure that another injury or 

death does not occur and to ensure that 

the applicant remains in compliance 

with the MMPA. 

Encouraging and Coordinating 

Research 

Glacier Bay NP actively monitors 

harbor seals at breeding and molting 

haul out locations to assess trends over 

time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; 

Womble et al. 2010, Womble and 

Gende, 2013b). This monitoring 

program involves collaborations with 

biologists from the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, and the National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory. Glacier Bay 

NP will continue these collaborations 

and encourage continued or renewed 

monitoring of marine mammal species. 

Additionally, they would report vesselbased counts of marine mammals, 

branded, or injured animals, and all 

observed disturbances to the 

appropriate state and federal agencies. 

Proposed Reporting 

Glacier Bay NP will submit a draft 

monitoring report to us no later than 90 

days after the expiration of the 

Incidental Harassment Authorization, if 

we issue it. The report will describe the 

operations conducted and sightings of 

marine mammals near the proposed 

project. The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The report will provide: 

1. A summary and table of the dates, 

times, and weather during all research 

activities. 

2. Species, number, location, and 

behavior of any marine mammals 

observed throughout all monitoring 

activities. 

3. An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals exposed to 

acoustic or visual stimuli associated 

with the research activities. 

4. A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures of 

the Authorization and full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the authorization, such as 

an injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, 

stampede, etc.), Glacier Bay NP shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Division Chief, Permits 

and Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Description and location of the 

incident (including water depth, if 

applicable); 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its 

activities until NMFS is able to review 

the circumstances of the prohibited 

take. We will work with Glacier Bay to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

us via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that Glacier Bay NP 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead researcher 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (i.e., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition as we 

describe in the next paragraph), Glacier 

Bay NP will immediately report the 

incident to the Division Chief, Permits 

and Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248. The report must include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

above this section. Activities may 

continue while we review the 

circumstances of the incident. We will 

work with Glacier Bay NP to determine 

whether modifications in the activities 

are appropriate. 

In the event that Glacier Bay NP 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

authorized activities (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Glacier Bay will 

report the incident to the incident to the 

Division Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. 

Glacier Bay NP researchers will provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier 

Bay NP can continue their research 

activities. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

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]. 

All anticipated takes would be by 

Level B harassment, involving 

temporary changes in behavior. NMFS 

expects that the proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures would 

minimize the possibility of injurious or 

lethal takes. NMFS considers the 

potential for take by injury, serious 

injury, or mortality as remote. NMFS 

expects that the presence of Glacier Bay 

NP personnel could disturb animals 

hauled out and that the animals may 

alter their behavior or attempt to move 

away from the researchers. 

As discussed earlier, NMFS considers 

an animal to have been harassed if it 

moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in 

response to the surveyors’ presence or if 

the animal was already moving and 

changed direction and/or speed, or if 

the animal flushed into the water. 

NMFS does not consider animals that 

became alert without such movements 

as harassed. 

Based on pinniped survey counts 

conducted by Glacier Bay NP (e.g., 

Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et 

al., 2010), NMFS estimates that the 

research activities could potentially 

affect by Level B behavioral harassment 

500 harbor seals over the course of the 

Authorization (Table 2). This estimate 

represents 9.9 percent of the Glacier 

Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals and 

accounts for a maximum disturbance of 

25 harbor seals each per visit at Boulder, 

Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie 

Rock, Alaska over a maximum level of 

five visits. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED TO ACOUSTIC AND VISUAL STIMULI

DURING THE PROPOSED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ON BOULDER, LONE, AND FLAPJACK ISLANDS, AND GEIKIE ROCK, 

ALASKA, MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 2015 

Species 

Estimated 

number of 

individuals 

exposed 

Proposed take 

authorization 

Percent of 

species or 

stock 1

Population 

trend 2

Harbor seal ......................................................................................................... 500 500 9.9 Declining. 

Steller sea lion ................................................................................................... 0 0 0 Increasing. 

1Table 1 in this notice lists the stock species abundance estimates that NMFS used to calculate the percentage of species/stock.

2The population trend information is from Allen and Angliss, 2014. No data = Insufficient data to determine population trend. 

Harbor seals tend to haul out in small 

numbers (on average, less than 50 

animals) at most sites with the 

exception of Flapjack Island (Womble, 

Pers. Comm.). Animals on Flapjack 

Boulder Islands generally haul out on 

the south side of the Islands and are not 

located near the research sites located 

on the northern side of the Islands. 

Aerial survey maximum counts show 

that harbor seals sometimes haul out in 

large numbers at all four locations (see 

Table 2 in Glacier Bays NP’s 

application), and sometimes individuals 

and mother/pup pairs occupy different 

terrestrial locations than the main 

haulout (J. Womble, personal 

observation). 

Considering the conservation status 

for the Western stock of the Steller sea 

lion, the Glacier Bay NP researchers 

would not conduct ground-based or 

vessel-based surveys if they observe 

Steller sea lions before accessing 

Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, 

and Geikie Rock. Thus, NMFS expects 

no takes to occur for this species during 

the proposed activities. 

NMFS does not propose to authorize 

any injury, serious injury, or mortality. 

NMFS expect all potential takes to fall 

under the category of Level B 

harassment only. 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact’ is ‘‘an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., population 

level effects) forms the basis of a 

negligible impact finding. 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, NMFS 

considers 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. 

Although Glacier Bay NP’s survey 

activities may disturb harbor seals 

hauled out at the survey sites, NMFS 

expects those impacts to occur to a 

small, localized group of animals for a 

limited duration (e.g., 30 minutes to two 

hours each visit). Pinnipeds would 

likely become alert or, at most, flush 

into the water in reaction to the 

presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel 

during the proposed activities. 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18367 

Disturbance will be limited to a short 

duration, allowing the animals to 

reoccupy the island within a short 

amount of time. Thus, the proposed 

action is unlikely to result in long-term 

impacts such as permanent 

abandonment of the haul-out. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document and based on the following 

factors, Glacier Bay NP’s specified 

activities are not likely to cause longterm behavioral disturbance, injury, 

serious injury, or death. These reasons 

include: 

1. The effects of the research activities 

would be limited to short-term 

responses and temporary behavioral 

changes due to the short and sporadic 

duration of the research activities. 

Minor and brief responses are not likely 

to constitute disruption of behavioral 

patterns, such as migration, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

2. The availability of alternate areas 

for pinnipeds to avoid the resultant 

disturbances from the research 

operations. Anecdotal reports from 

previous Glacier Bay NP activities have 

shown that the pinnipeds returned to 

the various sites and did not 

permanently abandon haul-out sites 

after Glacier Bay NP conducted their 

research activities. 

3. There is no potential for large-scale 

movements leading to injury, serious 

injury, or mortality because the 

researchers would delay ingress into the 

landing areas only after the pinnipeds 

have slowly entered the water. 

4. Glacier Bay NP will limit access to 

Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, 

and Geikie Rock when there are high 

numbers (more than 25) harbor seals 

hauled out (with or without young pups 

present), any time pups are present, or 

any time that Steller sea lions are 

present, the researchers will not 

approach the island and will not 

conduct gull monitoring research. 

NMFS does not anticipate that any 

injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities 

would occur as a result of Glacier Bay 

NP’s proposed activities with the 

mitigation and related monitoring, and 

NMFS does not propose to authorize 

injury, serious injury, or mortality at 

this time. In addition, the research 

activities would not take place in areas 

of significance for marine mammal 

feeding, resting, breeding, or calving 

and would not adversely impact marine 

mammal habitat. 

Due to the nature, degree, and context 

of Level B (behavioral) harassment 

anticipated and described (see 

‘‘Potential Effects on Marine Mammals’’ 

section in this notice), we do not expect 

the activity to impact annual rates of 

recruitment or survival for any affected 

species or stock. 

In summary, NMFS anticipates that 

impacts to hauled-out harbor seals 

during Glacier Bay NP’s research 

activities would be behavioral 

harassment of limited duration (i.e., up 

to two hours per visit) and limited 

intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at 

most). NMFS does not expect 

stampeding, and therefore injury or 

mortality, to occur (see ‘‘Mitigation’’ for 

more details). 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 proposed monitoring and 

mitigation measures, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that the total marine 

mammal take from Glacier Bay’s 

proposed research activities will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that Glacier Bay NP’s 

activities could potentially affect, by 

Level B harassment only, one species of 

marine mammal under our jurisdiction. 

For harbor seals, this estimate is small 

(9.9 percent) relative to the population 

size and we have provided the 

percentage of the harbor seal’s regional 

population estimate that the activities 

may take by Level B harassment in 

Table 2 in this notice. 

Based on the analysis contained in 

this notice 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, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that Glacier 

Bay NP’s proposed activities would take 

small numbers of marine mammals 

relative to the populations of the 

affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Glacier Bay National Park 

prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor 

seals within the Park (Catton, 1995). 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

NMFS does not expect that Glacier 

Bay NP’s proposed research activities 

(which includes mitigation measures to 

avoid harassment of Steller sea lions) 

would affect any species listed under 

the ESA. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that a section 7 consultation 

under the ESA is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In 2014, NMFS prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

analyzing the potential effects to the 

human environment from NMFS’ 

issuance of a Authorization to Glacier 

Bay NP for their seabird research 

activities. 

In September 2014, NMFS issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) on the issuance of an 

Authorization for Point Blue’s research 

activities in accordance with section 

6.01 of the NOAA Administrative Order 

216–6 (Environmental Review 

Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act, May 

20, 1999). Glacier Bay NP’s proposed 

activities and impacts for 2015 are 

within the scope of the 2014 EA and 

FONSI. NMFS provided relevant 

environmental information to the public 

through a previous notice for the 

proposed Authorization (79 FR 32226, 

June 4, 2014) and considered public 

comments received in response prior to 

finalizing the 2014 EA and deciding 

whether or not to issue a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). 

NMFS has reviewed the 2014 EA and 

determined that there are no new direct, 

indirect, or cumulative impacts to the 

human and natural environment 

associated with the Authorization 

requiring evaluation in a supplemental 

EA and NMFS, therefore, proposes to 

reaffirm the 2014 FONSI. NMFS’ EA 

and FONSI for this activity are available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes issuing 

an Incidental Harassment Authorization 

to Glacier Bay National Park for 

conducting seabird research May 

through September, 2015, provided they 

incorporate the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements. 

Draft Proposed Authorization 

This section contains the draft text for 

the proposed Authorization. NMFS 

proposes to include this language in the 

Authorization if issued. 

Proposed Authorization Language 

Glacier Bay National Park, P.O. Box 

140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826 and/or its 

designees (holders of the Authorization) 

are hereby authorized under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) 

to harass small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to conducting 

monitoring and research studies on 

glaucus-winged gulls (Larus 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

glaucescens) within Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve in Alaska. 

1. This Authorization is valid from 

May 15 through September 30, 2015. 

2. This Authorization is valid only for 

research activities that occur in the 

following specified geographic areas: 

Boulder (58°33′18.08′′ N; 136°1′13.36′′ 

W); Lone (58°43′17.67′′ N; 136°17′41.32′′ 

W), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19′′ N; 

135°58′50.78′′ W) Islands, and Geikie 

Rock (58°41′39.75′′ N; 136°18′39.06′′ W); 

and Tlingit Point Islet (58°45′16.86′′ N; 

136°10′41.74′′ W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. 

3. Species Authorized and Level of 

Takes 

a. The taking, by Level B harassment 

only, is limited to the following species: 

500 Pacific harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina). 

b. The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury or death of 

any of the species listed in Condition 

3(a) or the taking of any kind of any 

other species of marine mammal is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension or revocation 

of this Authorization. 

c. The taking of any marine mammal 

in a manner prohibited under this 

Authorization must be reported 

immediately to the Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 

427–8401. 

4. General Conditions 

A copy of this Authorization must be 

in the possession of Glacier Bay 

National Park, its designees, and field 

crew personnel (including research 

collaborators) operating under the 

authority of this Authorization at all 

times. 

5. Mitigation Measures 

The Holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

a. Conduct pre-survey monitoring 

before deciding to access a study site. 

Prior to deciding to land onshore of 

Boulder, Lone, or Flapjack Island or 

Geikie Rock, the Holder of this 

Authorization will use high-powered 

image stabilizing binoculars before 

approaching at distances of greater than 

500 m (1,640 ft) to determine and 

document the number, species, and 

location of hauled out marine 

mammals.. The vessels will maintain a 

distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 

m) from the shoreline. 

i. If the Holder of the Authorization 

determines that there are 25 or more 

harbor seals (with or without young 

pups present) hauled out on the 

shoreline, the holder will not access the 

island and will not conduct the study at 

that time. 

ii. If the Holder of the Authorization 

determines that any Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) are present at the 

study site, the Holder will not access the 

island and will not conduct the study at 

that time. 

iii. If the Holder of the Authorization 

determines that there are any pups 

hauled out on the shoreline and 

vulnerable to being separated from their 

mothers, the Holder will not access the 

island and will not conduct the study at 

that time. 

b. Minimize the potential for 

disturbance by: (1) Performing 

controlled and slow ingress to the study 

site to prevent a stampede; and (2) 

selecting a pathway of approach farthest 

from the hauled out harbor seals to 

minimize disturbance. 

c. Monitor for offshore predators at 

the study sites and avoid research 

activities when predators area present. 

Avoid approaching the study site if 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) are present. 

If the Holder of this Authorization 

observes predators in the area, they 

must not disturb the pinnipeds until the 

area is free of predators. 

d. Maintain a quiet working 

atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and use 

hushed voices in the presence of hauled 

out pinnipeds. 

6. Monitoring 

Glacier Bay NP is required to record 

the following: 

a. BLM and/or its designees shall 

record the following: 

i. Species counts (with numbers of 

adults/juveniles); and: 

ii. Numbers of disturbances, by 

species and age, according to a threepoint scale of intensity including: (1) 

Head orientation in response to 

disturbance, which may include turning 

head towards the disturbance, craning 

head and neck while holding the body 

rigid in a u-shaped position, or changing 

from a lying to a sitting position and/or 

slight movement of less than 1 meter; 

‘‘alert’’; (2) Movements in response to or 

away from disturbance, typically over 

short distances (1–3 meters) and 

including dramatic changes in direction 

or speed of locomotion for animals 

already in motion; ‘‘movement’’; and (3) 

All flushes to the water as well as 

lengthier retreats (>3 meters); ‘‘flight’’. 

iii. Information on the weather, 

including the tidal state and horizontal 

visibility. 

b. If applicable, the observer shall 

note observations of marked or tagbearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well 

as any rare or unusual species of marine 

mammal. 

c. If applicable, the observer shall 

note the presence of any offshore 

predators (date, time, number, and 

species). 

7. Reporting 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

a. Draft Report: Submit a draft 

monitoring report to the Division Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service within 90 days 

after the Authorization expires. NMFS 

will review the Draft Report which is 

subject to review and comment by 

NMFS. Glacier Bay NP must address 

any recommendations made by NMFS 

in the Final Report prior to submission 

to NMFS. If NMFS decides that the draft 

final report needs no comments, NMFS 

will consider the draft report as the 

Final Report. 

b. Final Report: Glacier Bay shall 

prepare and submit a Final Report to 

NMFS within 30 days following 

resolution of any comments on the draft 

report from NMFS. 

8. Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the authorization, such as 

an injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, 

stampede, etc.), BLM and/or its 

designees shall immediately cease the 

specified activities and immediately 

report the incident to the Division Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Description and location of the 

incident (including water depth, if 

applicable); 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its 

activities until NMFS is able to review 

the circumstances of the prohibited 

take. NMFS will work with Glacier Bay 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18369 

1See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, The 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman and Countervailing Duties on Imports from 

The People’s Republic of China, India, and the 

Sultanate of Oman,’’ dated March 10, 2015 

(Petitions). 

2See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 and Exhibit 

I–2. 

3See Letter from the Department to Petitioners 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated March 13, 2015 (PRC Deficiency 

Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated March 13, 2015 

(India Deficiency Questionnaire); Letter from the 

Department to Petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 

Sultanate of Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated March 13, 2015 (Oman Deficiency 

Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated March 

13, 2015 (General Issues Supplement). 

4See Letter from Petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From The 

People’s Republic Of China—Petitioners’ Response 

To Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated March 17, 

2015 (PRC CVD Supplement); Letter from 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin From India—Petitioners’ 

Response To Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated 

March 17, 2015 (India CVD Supplement); Letter 

from Petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin From the Sultanate of Oman— 

Petitioners’ Response To Supplemental 

Questionnaire,’’ dated March 17, 2015 (Oman CVD 

Supplement); and Letter from Petitioners entitled 

‘‘Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From 

The People’s Republic Of China, India, and the 

Sultanate of Oman—Petitioner’s Response to 

Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated March 19, 

2015 (General Issues Supplement). 

5See Scope Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

March 24, 2015 (Scope Supplement). 

6See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

7 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

NP to determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

us via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that Glacier Bay NP 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the marine mammal 

observer determines that the cause of 

the injury or death is unknown and the 

death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition 

as we describe in the next paragraph), 

Glacier Bay NP will immediately report 

the incident to the Division Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248. The report must include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above this section. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Glacier Bay NP to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Glacier Bay NP 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

authorized activities (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Glacier Bay NP will 

report the incident to the Division Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. 

Glacier Bay NP personnel will provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier 

Bay NP can continue their survey 

activities while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. 

Request for Public Comments 

NMFS invites comments on our 

analysis, the draft authorization, and 

any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed Authorization for Glacier Bay 

NP’s activities. Please include any 

supporting data or literature citations 

with your comments to help inform our 

final decision on Glacier Bay NP’s 

request for an Authorization. 

Dated: March 31, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07734 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–025, C–533–862, C–523–811] 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Resin From the People’s Republic of 

China, India, and the Sultanate of 

Oman: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813 or Ilissa 

Shefferman at (202) 482–4684, AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On March 10, 2015, the Department of 

Commerce (Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) petitions 

concerning imports of certain 

polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET 

resin) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC), India, and the Sultanate of 

Oman (Oman) filed in proper form on 

behalf of DAK Americas, LLC; M&G 

Chemicals; and Nan Ya Plastic 

Corporation, America (collectively, 

Petitioners). The CVD petitions were 

accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) 

petitions also concerning imports of 

PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, 

and Oman.1 Petitioners are domestic 

producers of PET resin.2

On March 13, 2015, the Department 

requested information and clarification 

for certain areas of the Petitions.3

Petitioners filed responses to these 

requests on March 17 and 19, 2015.4

Petitioners filed a revised scope on 

March 24, 2015.5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), Petitioners allege that the 

Government of the PRC (GOC), the 

Government of India (GOI), and the 

Government of the Sultanate of Oman 

(GSO) are providing countervailable 

subsidies (within the meaning of 

sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to 

imports of certain PET resin from the 

PRC, India and Oman, respectively, and 

that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Act, the Petitions are 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to Petitioners supporting their 

allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. 

The Department also finds that 

Petitioners demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

initiation of the CVD investigations that 

Petitioners are requesting.6

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation for the 

PRC, India and Oman is January 1, 2014, 

through December 31, 2014.7

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is PET resin from the 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES