66360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices 

9See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

10See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

11See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than five days after the date for filing 

case briefs.9 Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 

argument, and (3) a table of 

authorities.10 Case and rebuttal briefs 

must be filed electronically via IA 

ACCESS. An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, IA ACCESS, 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Time in order for it 

to have been submitted timely on that 

day. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, filed 

electronically via IA ACCESS within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice.11 Requests should contain: (1) 

The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

the issues raised by the parties in any 

written briefs, not later 120 days after 

the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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 double antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: October 31, 2014. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

1. Summary 

2. Background 

3. Scope of the Order 

4. Discussion of Methodology 

a. Universe of Sales 

b. Fair Value Comparisons 

c. Product Comparisons 

d. Date of Sale 

e. U.S. Price 

f. Normal Value 

g. Affiliated Respondents 

h. Cost of Production Analysis 

i. Currency Conversion 

5. Conclusion 

[FR Doc. 2014–26424 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD572 

Availability of Report: California 

Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and 

Implementing Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing this notice to 

provide the final California Eelgrass 

Mitigation Policy (CEMP) and 

Implementing Guidelines by NMFS 

West Coast Region (WCR) to agencies 

and the public to ensure there is a clear 

and transparent process for developing 

eelgrass mitigation recommendations. 

The intent of the CEMP is to help ensure 

consistent, effective, and appropriate 

mitigation of unavoidable impacts to 

eelgrass habitat throughout California. It 

is anticipated that the adoption and 

implementation of this policy will 

provide for enhanced success of eelgrass 

mitigation in California. The CEMP and 

Implementing Guidelines, responses to 

comments received on the draft CEMP, 

and other supporting documents are 

available at http://wcr.nmfs.noaa.gov/

habitat/ or by calling the contact person 

listed below or by sending a request to 

Korie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov. Please 

include appropriate contact information 

when requesting the documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Korie Schaeffer, at 707–575–6087. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Eelgrass 

species are seagrasses that occur in the 

temperate unconsolidated substrate of 

shallow coastal environments, enclosed 

bays, and estuaries. California supports 

dynamic eelgrass habitats that range in 

extent from less than 11,000 acres to 

possibly as much as 15,000 acres 

statewide. While among the most 

productive of habitats, the overall low 

statewide abundance makes eelgrass one 

of the rarest habitats in California. 

Seagrass habitat has been lost from 

temperate estuaries worldwide (Duarte 

2002, Lotze et al. 2006, Orth et al. 2006). 

While both natural and human-induced 

mechanisms have contributed to these 

losses, impacts from human population 

expansion and associated pollution and 

upland development is the primary 

cause (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria 

1996). Human activities that affect 

eelgrass habitat distribution and 

abundance, including, but not limited 

to, urban development, harbor 

development, aquaculture, agricultural 

runoff, effluent discharges, and upland 

land use associated sediment discharge 

(Duarte 2008) occur throughout 

California. The importance of eelgrass 

both ecologically and economically, 

coupled with ongoing human pressure 

and potentially increasing degradation 

and losses associated with climate 

change, highlight the need to protect, 

maintain, and where feasible, enhance 

eelgrass habitat. 

Eelgrass warrants a strong protection 

strategy because of the important 

biological, physical, and economic 

values it provides, as well as its 

importance to managed species under 

the Magnuson Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

NMFS developed the CEMP and 

Implementing Guidelines to establish 

and support a goal of protecting this 

resource and its habitat functions, 

including spatial coverage and density 

of eelgrass habitats. The CEMP includes 

NMFS’ policy to recommend no net loss 

of eelgrass habitat function in 

California. For all of California, 

compensatory mitigation should be 

recommended for the loss of existing 

eelgrass habitat function, but only after 

avoidance and minimization of effects 

to eelgrass have been pursued to the 

maximum extent practicable. Our 

approach is congruous with the 

approach taken in the federal Clean 

Water Act guidelines under section 

404(b)(1) (40 CFR part 230). In absence 

of a complete functional assessment, 

eelgrass distribution and density should 

serve as a proxy for eelgrass habitat 

function. Compensatory mitigation 

options include comprehensive 

management plans, in-kind mitigation, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Notices 66361 

mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee 

programs, and out-of-kind mitigation. 

Further, it is the intent of this policy 

to ensure that there is no net loss of 

habitat functions associated with delays 

in establishing compensatory 

mitigation. This is to be accomplished 

by creating a greater amount of eelgrass 

than is lost, if the mitigation is 

performed contemporaneously or after 

the impacts occur. To achieve this, 

NMFS, in most instances, should 

recommend compensatory mitigation 

for vegetated and unvegetated eelgrass 

habitat is successfully completed at a 

ratio of at least 1.2:1 mitigation area to 

impact area. 

Vegetated shallows that support 

eelgrass are also considered special 

aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) 

guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 

CFR 230.43). Pursuant to the MSA, 

eelgrass is designated as an essential 

fish habitat (EFH) habitat area of 

particular concern (HAPC) for various 

federally-managed fish species within 

the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) (PFMC 2008). 

An HAPC is a subset of EFH that is rare, 

particularly susceptible to humaninduced degradation, especially 

ecologically important, and/or located 

in an environmentally stressed area (See 

50 CFR 600. 815(a)(8)). 

This policy and guidelines support 

but do not expand upon existing NMFS 

authorities under the MSA, the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). Pursuant to the EFH provisions 

of the MSA, FWCA, and NEPA, NMFS 

annually reviews and provides 

recommendations on numerous actions 

that may affect eelgrass resources 

throughout California. Section 

305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA requires NMFS 

to coordinate with, and provide 

information to, other federal agencies 

regarding the conservation and 

enhancement of EFH. Section 305(b)(2) 

requires all federal agencies to consult 

with NMFS on all actions or proposed 

actions authorized, funded, or 

undertaken by the agency that may 

adversely affect EFH. Under section 

305(b)(4) of the MSA, NMFS is required 

to provide EFH Conservation 

Recommendations to federal and state 

agencies for actions that would 

adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.925). 

NMFS makes its recommendations with 

the goal of avoiding, minimizing, or 

otherwise compensating for adverse 

effects to NMFS trust resources. When 

impacts to NMFS trust resources are 

unavoidable, NMFS may recommend 

compensatory mitigation to offset those 

impacts. In order to fulfill its 

consultative role, NMFS may also 

recommend, among other things, the 

development of eelgrass habitat 

distribution maps, eelgrass surveys and 

survey reports, mitigation plans and 

implementation reports, and monitoring 

programs and reports. 

The CEMP and Implementing 

Guidelines will serve as the guidance 

for staff and managers within NMFS 

WCR for developing recommendations 

concerning eelgrass issues through EFH 

and FWCA consultations and NEPA 

reviews throughout California. It is also 

contemplated that this policy inform 

WCR’s position on eelgrass issues in 

other roles as a responsible, advisory, or 

funding agency or trustee. Finally, 

pursuant to NMFS obligation to provide 

information to federal agencies under 

section 305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA, this 

policy serves that role by providing 

information intended to further the 

conservation and enhancement of EFH. 

Should this policy be inconsistent with 

any formally-promulgated NMFS 

regulations, those formally-promulgated 

regulations will supplant any 

inconsistent provisions of this policy. 

As all mitigation will be decided on a 

case by case basis, circumstances may 

exist where NMFS WCR staff will need 

to modify or deviate from the 

recommendations discussed in the 

CEMP Implementing Guidelines. 

While many of the activities 

impacting eelgrass are similar across 

California, eelgrass stressors and growth 

characteristics differ between southern 

California (U.S./Mexico border to Pt. 

Conception), central California (Point 

Conception to San Francisco Bay 

entrance), San Francisco Bay, and 

northern California (San Francisco Bay 

to the California/Oregon border). The 

amount of scientific information 

available to base management decisions 

on also differs among areas within 

California, with considerably more 

information and history with eelgrass 

habitat management in southern 

California than the other regions. Gaps 

in region-specific scientific information 

do not override the need to be protective 

of all eelgrass while relying on the best 

information currently available from 

areas within and outside of California. 

Although the primary orientation of this 

policy is toward statewide use, specific 

elements of this policy may differ 

between southern California, central 

California, northern California and San 

Francisco Bay. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Sean Corson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Habitat 

Conservation, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26467 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD606 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Hearings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public hearings. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold twelve public hearings to solicit 

Public comments on Draft Omnibus 

Habitat Amendment 2 to the Habitat 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP). 

DATES: Written Public comments must 

be received on or before 5 p.m. EST, 

Thursday, January 8, 2015. These 

meetings will be held in November and 

December of 2014 as well as January, 

2015. For specific dates and times, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The Public hearing 

document can be obtained by contacting 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, 

Newburyport, MA 01950. 

Meeting addresses: The meetings will 

be held in Portsmouth, NH; Plymouth, 

MA; Warwick, RI; Riverhead, NY; Cape 

May, NJ; Baltimore, MD; New Bedford, 

MA; Gloucester, MA; Newport News, 

VA; Brewer, ME; Portland, ME and there 

will also be an opportunity for the 

public to participate in a Webinar. For 

specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

Public comments: Mail to John 

Bullard, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside 

of the envelope ‘‘OA2 DEIS Comments’’. 

Comments may also be sent via fax to 

978–281–9207 or submitted via email to 

nmfs.gar.OA2.DEIS@noaa.gov with 

‘‘OA2 DEIS Comments ’’ in the subject 

line. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES