International Fisheries; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species, 18473-18483 [E8-7068]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 66 (Friday, April 4, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18473-18483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7068]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 300 and 635

[Docket No. 080221247-8166-01]
RIN 0648-AU88


International Fisheries; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to modify permitting and reporting requirements 
for the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) International Trade Permit (ITP) 
to improve program efficacy and enforceability, and implement the 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 
bluefin tuna catch documentation (BCD) program. The modified 
regulations would also require that shark fin importers, exporters, and 
re-exporters obtain the HMS ITP to assist NMFS in monitoring trade of 
shark fins, and would implement the new definition of ``import'' 
contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents 
must be received on or before May 5, 2008. Comments sent to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) on the information collection 
requirements of the proposed rule must also be received on or before 
May 5, 2008.
    The public hearings will be held in April (see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for further details).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``A0648-AU88'', by 
any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 18474]]

     Fax: 978-281-9340, Attn: Dianne Stephan
     Mail: Dianne Stephan, Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn 
Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930
    Copies of the supporting documents including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis and Regulatory Impact Review are available by 
sending your request to Dianne Stephan at the mailing address specified 
above. This document is also available via the internet at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/breaking_news.htm.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to Portal https://www.regulations.gov 
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. NMFS will accept 
anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted 
in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, or may be 
submitted to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, by email to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-
7285.
    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for hearing locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne Stephan, 978-281-9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The United States, which includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and all other U.S. 
commonwealths, territories, or possessions, is a member of the 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 
and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The United 
States has implemented statistical document programs under the HMS ITP 
program regulations per recommendations of regional fishery management 
organizations (RFMOs), and U.S. authorizing legislation as outlined 
below. This rule replaces the ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document 
program with the initial implementation of the ICCAT BCD program 
recommended at the 2007 ICCAT annual meeting. Other objectives of the 
rule are to adjust the HMS ITP regulatory program, as informed by NMFS 
and industry experiences since the program was implemented, and to 
adopt the new definition of import contained in the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. Lastly, the rule proposes to require permitting of shark fin 
traders under the HMS international trade regulations to help NMFS 
monitor trade of shark fins.

Consignment Document Programs

    Several RFMOs have implemented consignment tracking such as 
statistical document trade tracking programs to combat illegal, 
unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing of internationally managed 
species, as well as to further understand trade and markets effects on 
commerce of these species. Statistical documents are required when a 
product is exported and include information on the shipped product such 
as product type, species, amount, and flag nation of the harvesting 
vessel. The documents must accompany the product until the product is 
sold to a consumer, and participating nations must collect the final 
statistical documents and submit summarized data to the relevant RFMO 
for use in fishery management.
    A statistical document program for Atlantic bluefin tuna was 
implemented in the United States (60 FR 14381; March 17, 1995) pursuant 
to ICCAT Recommendation 92-01 and set a precedent for tracking trade 
from all ocean areas for recommendations pertaining to a single 
geographic region. The 1992 ICCAT recommendation for tracking Atlantic 
bluefin tuna commerce only included statistical document requirements 
for imports and exports of frozen product. In 1993, the program was 
expanded to cover fresh products (ICCAT Recommendation 93-03), and in 
1997, ICCAT recommended the addition of a re-export certificate to the 
program (97-04). The Commission for the Conservation of Southern 
Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) implemented a statistical document program for SBT 
and requested non-members such as the United States to support this 
program. The United States implemented this program in 2005 (69 FR 
67268, November 17, 2004).
    Based on the experience gained with the Bluefin tuna statistical 
document program, ICCAT recommended statistical document programs for 
frozen bigeye tuna and swordfish in 2000 (00-22) and established these 
programs in 2001 (ICCAT Recommendations 01-21 and 22, respectively). 
The swordfish statistical document program replaced the previously 
required swordfish certificate of eligibility, which had been 
established to enforce a minimum size on imported product and monitor 
trade of Atlantic swordfish (64 FR 12903, March 16, 1999). The Indian 
Ocean Tuna Commission (Recommendation 01/06) and IATTC (Recommendation 
C-03-01) both adopted a statistical document program for frozen bigeye 
tuna similar to the ICCAT program. The United States implemented these 
statistical document programs for swordfish and frozen bigeye tuna in 
2005 (69 FR 67268, November 17, 2004).
    ICCAT adopted Recommendation 07-10 at its 2007 annual meeting. The 
recommendation implements the BCD program. The BCD program expands the 
ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document program to further track 
bluefin tuna consignments, beginning at the point of catch and 
including transit through Mediterranean farming operations, unlike the 
previous statistical document program, which only tracked consignments 
through trade to the final importer. As implemented in the previous 
statistical document program, the BCD program would continue to track 
bluefin tuna consignments through trade to the final importer. The 
intent of this program expansion is to further reduce IUU fishing, 
obtain better catch and farming data, and more effectively implement 
the Atlantic bluefin tuna recovery program.
    The United States implemented several statistical document programs 
in 2005 (69 FR 67268, November 17, 2004). The same rulemaking served to 
consolidate the new and previously existing statistical document 
programs into one place in the regulations (50 CFR part 300 subpart M), 
and unify parts of their administrative implementation. Under the 2005 
rulemaking, individuals who imported, exported, or re-exported any of 
the covered species (bluefin tuna, swordfish, SBT, frozen bigeye tuna) 
were required to obtain the HMS ITP. Associated reporting requirements 
included completion and filing of statistical documents, re-export 
certificates, and biweekly reports. Since implementation of the unified 
program, NMFS has identified a number of adjustments that are necessary 
to improve the program's effectiveness and enforceability. These 
adjustments, along with the initial implementation of the BCD program 
and several other proposed actions in this rule, are classified into 
three areas: permitting, reporting, and regulatory structure and 
clarifications.

[[Page 18475]]

Permitting

    Several possible adjustments in permitting requirements under the 
HMS ITP program were considered for the proposed rule. First, the 
proposed rule considers whether or not to maintain the current 
requirement that the entity responsible for obtaining the HMS ITP is 
the ``consignee'' as indicated on U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) entry documentation. Several alternative entities were considered 
for this responsibility, in order to clearly and appropriately identify 
the entity that would have the most consistent access to the records 
necessary for reporting. Ultimately, the ``consignee'' was identified 
as the individual who has the best access to necessary records; 
maintaining this requirement would also provide continuity with 
existing regulations.
    Second, the proposed rule would adjust the regulations to clarify 
that if a foreign entity is importing to, or exporting from, the United 
States, their U.S. resident agent or U.S. resident corporate surety 
provider would be required to obtain the HMS ITP. Further, a resident 
agent or corporate surety provider would be required to have a U.S. tax 
identification number to obtain an HMS ITP. These clarifications are 
necessary to provide consistency with CBP regulations, support 
regulatory enforcement, and clarify operational procedures for foreign 
companies wishing to trade product covered by the HMS ITP program in 
the United States.
    Third, the proposed rule would synchronize ITP regulations with the 
NMFS Southeast Region regulations by requiring permit holders to submit 
their application at least 30 days before the date upon which the 
applicant wants the permit to be in effect. It would also remove the 
regulatory language that requires NMFS to issue an ITP no later than 30 
days after a complete application is received. The proposal would 
provide consistency within NMFS regulations, and give the applicant 
more input over when the permit is issued.
    The fourth permitting issue addressed in the proposed rule would 
require that shark fin importers, exporters, and re-exporters (traders) 
obtain an HMS ITP for entry for consumption. Export of shark fins 
drives much of the Atlantic shark fishery and has contributed to the 
overfishing of several species and landing of prohibited species in the 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (72 FR 41392, July 27, 2007) states that 
dealers may receive up to $50 per pound for shark fins (dry weight). 
Several shark stock assessments were completed in 2005 and 2006 that 
determined that dusky sharks (landing of which is currently prohibited) 
and sandbar sharks are overfished with overfishing occurring, and that 
porbeagle sharks are overfished (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). Dusky 
sharks (before their landing was prohibited in 2000) and sandbar sharks 
have been heavily commercially exploited because of the high value of 
their fins. Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP proposes 
management measures to rebuild these overfished stocks and prevent 
overfishing (72 FR 41392, July 27, 2007), and NMFS has previously 
implemented regulations to control the shark fishery by limiting the 
amount of shark fins that can be landed relative to the total weight of 
sharks landed (67 FR 6194, February 11, 2002). Once shark fins pass 
beyond the first-receiver of the shark products, it is difficult to 
track compliance with the shark fishery regulations or trace shark fins 
to their eventual export. Through this proposed rule, NMFS is proposing 
to identify the individuals involved in the shark fin trade to gain a 
better understanding of shark fin commerce, as well as assist with 
domestic enforcement of shark fishery regulations. Although the shark 
fin trade appears to primarily drive the shark fisheries in the 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, limiting the permitting requirement to 
traders of shark fins from these areas could make it easier to 
circumvent the regulations. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to require an 
ITP for traders in shark fins from all ocean areas.

Reporting

    Three reporting issues are addressed in the proposed rule. The 
first proposed regulatory adjustment would clarify that reports must be 
received by NMFS by the 10th or 25th of each month (depending upon the 
reporting period), rather than postmarked by those dates, and would 
provide for the use of FAX for submitting HMS ITP reports. This 
adjustment was proposed to clarify the HMS ITP regulations regarding 
use of faxes, and to establish consistency within HMS regulations 
regarding the use of the date NMFS receives a document (received-by 
date) rather than postmark date, since it has also been proposed in 
Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP (72 FR 41392, July 27, 
2007). The use of a received-by date is preferred because postmark 
dates are not provided on a consistent basis. This adjustment is also 
proposed in this rule for biweekly reporting by Atlantic Tunas Dealer 
Permit holders. NMFS also considered removing the requirement for 
copies or originals of import statistical documents to be provided 
within 24 hours of consignment entry; however, the proposed rule would 
maintain the requirement to better support regulatory enforcement and 
provide continuity in the regulations.
    The second issue considered for the proposed rule includes the 
initial implementation of the Atlantic BCD program under ICCAT 
Recommendation 07-10. The BCD program would expand the ICCAT bluefin 
tuna statistical document program to incorporate consignment tracking 
beginning with documentation of vessel catch/harvest. The proposed rule 
would initially implement the BCD program for U.S. Atlantic bluefin 
tuna commercial fisheries, and all bluefin tuna imports, exports and 
re-exports. The United States has a sophisticated reporting program 
already in place that requires provision of commercial Atlantic bluefin 
tuna landings data to NMFS within 24 hours of landing, and identifies 
each landed fish with a unique, non-transferable tag assigned to the 
permitted dealer who receives the fish. The operational adjustments for 
implementing the BCD program for U.S. commercial fisheries and trade 
are expected to be relatively small and attainable by the international 
implementation date of July 1, 2008, which reflects the commitment 
under the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic 
Tunas.
    Third, the rule would provide HMS ITP holders that export 
domestically landed bluefin tuna with the option of reducing their 
reporting burden by coordinating with the Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit 
(ATDP) holder who first purchased the bluefin tuna (frequently these 
are the same individuals). The rule proposes to allow the HMS ITP 
holder to forgo biweekly reporting of domestically landed bluefin tuna 
exports as long as all information required for bluefin tuna exports on 
the International Trade biweekly is submitted on the biweekly report 
from the ATDP holder. The purpose of this regulatory adjustment is to 
clarify reporting responsibilities and reduce reporting burden.

Regulatory Structure and Clarifications

    The first regulatory change under this heading in the proposed rule 
would adopt the new definition of ``import'' included in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Magnuson-

[[Page 18476]]

Stevens Reauthorization Act), Pub. L. 109-479 (2007). This new 
definition could be interpreted more broadly than the current 
definition included in the HMS ITP regulations at 50 CFR part 300 
subpart M, and could result in an unintended interpretation of the HMS 
ITP regulations to require statistical documentation for products 
moving between the United States and its insular possessions with 
separate customs territories. Therefore, the proposed rule clarifies 
the new definition to ensure that the intent of the HMS ITP program to 
exclude products imported between the U.S. and insular possessions from 
this proposed rule's permitting and reporting requirements. The other 
alternatives would not adopt the definition included in the statute, or 
would adopt the definition without the additional clarification.
    Second under this category, the proposed rule addresses 
verification of the identity of foreign officials who validated 
statistical documents. ICCAT has established a password-protected 
website that identifies officials authorized to validate statistical 
documents. NMFS considered using this website to ensure that imports 
under the HMS ITP program were properly validated, including requiring 
importers to verify the applicable information included on the website. 
However, that alternative would compromise the privacy of the website 
by requiring release of the password to HMS ITP holders, and would 
increase the reporting burden on U.S. importers. Therefore, for this 
issue the proposed rule would not require any regulatory adjustments at 
this time, and multilateral discussions at ICCAT would be pursued to 
establish a consistent international approach for determining the 
validity of statistical document validation, including the possibility 
of allowing importer access to the ICCAT password-protected website.
    Third, the rule proposes that NMFS codify the new Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) codes implemented by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (ITC) in Publication 3898, published in December 2006 and 
made effective by Presidential Proclamation 80-97 (72 FR 453, January 
4, 2007) in February 2007. Since all products entering or exiting the 
United States must be identified by an HTS code, NMFS uses these codes 
to clearly identify the product to which trade related regulatory text 
applies. The rule proposes to update NMFS regulatory text at 50 CFR 
300.184 with the new HTS codes for swordfish products adopted by the 
ITC. NMFS also considered adopting a higher hierarchical level of HTS 
coding to minimize the potential for future regulatory adjustments, but 
selected the more consistent and clear method for product 
identification for inclusion in the proposed rule.
    Fourth, the proposed rule would clarify that all individuals who 
participate in activities that require an HMS ITP must abide by the 
reporting requirements, regardless of whether or not the individuals in 
fact obtain the HMS ITP, as required.

Authorities

    The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971 et 
seq.) authorizes the promulgation of regulations as may be necessary 
and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations. The Tuna 
Conventions Act of 1950 (TCA) (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) authorizes 
rulemaking to carry out IATTC recommendations. NMFS manages the 
Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries in accordance with the 
Consolidated HMS FMP (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). Regulations 
implementing the Consolidated HMS FMP at 50 CFR part 635 were 
promulgated under the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and ATCA. Regulations implementing international 
trade provisions for HMS at 50 CFR part 300 subpart M were promulgated 
under the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the TCA.
    NMFS manages swordfish and tuna in the Pacific Ocean under the 
Western Pacific Pelagics Fishery Management Plan that was prepared by 
the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. Regulations 
implementing that plan, at 50 CFR parts 300 and 660, were promulgated 
under the authorities of the ATCA, TCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
respectively. An FMP for U.S. West Coast HMS was developed by the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (69 FR 18444, April 7, 2004). Other 
authorities relevant to Pacific management include the South Pacific 
Tuna Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 973 et seq.), the High Seas Fishing 
Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.), the U.S.-Canada Albacore 
Treaty, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 
Implementation Act (Public Law 109-479).
    Customs requirements pertaining to the import and export of product 
harvested by national and international swordfish and tuna fisheries 
include those under 19 U.S.C. 1 et seq. and CBP regulations, under 
title 19 of the CFR.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this proposed 
rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ATCA, the TCA, and other applicable law, 
subject to further consideration after public comment. The AA has 
preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is necessary to 
implement the recommendations of ICCAT and IATTC, and is necessary for 
the management of bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, swordfish, and sharks.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impacts this proposed rule would have, if 
adopted, on small entities. A description of the action, why it is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at 
the beginning of the preamble and the SUMMARY section of the preamble. 
A summary of the economic analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    The proposed programs could affect approximately 406 ATDP holders, 
230 HMS ITP holders, and approximately 100 individuals who participate 
in international trade of shark fins, all of which are considered small 
entities. According to the RFA, a wholesale fish business is defined as 
a small entity if it employs 100 or fewer. Impacts to these entities 
could occur in two areas - permitting and reporting. NMFS expects only 
minor negative economic impacts from the proposed rule because the 
proposed measures only involve adjusting the permitting and reporting 
requirements. A description of the alternatives, associated 
requirements, and estimated costs follows.
    The issues addressed by the proposed rule are subdivided into three 
categories: ``permitting,'' ``reporting'' and ``regulatory structure 
and clarification.'' Only two of the issues under the category of 
``permitting'' include alternatives that could have economic impacts. 
For the issue of identification of the entity responsible for obtaining 
the HMS ITP in importing situations, and thus for fulfilling subsequent 
reporting requirements, the ``No Action'' alternative is included in 
the proposed rule. This would continue to require the consignee as 
indicated in CBP import documentation to be the

[[Page 18477]]

responsible party. The annual costs associated with this alternative 
are the costs associated with permitting (including the cost of the 
permit, mailing costs and time for filling out the application -- 
estimated at $26.75 per applicant) and the cost of reporting (including 
filling out and submitting the report forms -- estimated at $102 per 
dealer for biweekly reports and $94 per dealer for trade tracking 
documentation, for a total of $196 per dealer). Alternative Two would 
require that the consignee on the bill of lading obtain an HMS ITP in 
addition to the consignee on CBP entry documentation. The overall 
negative economic impact for this alternative would increase based on 
the number of consignees identified on import bills of lading that 
differ from consignees on CBP documentation. NMFS estimates the cost of 
this alternative to be twice that of the ``No Action'' Alternative 
included in the proposed rule, assuming that there is one additional 
permit holder for each current permit holder. Costs per dealer would be 
the same as for the ``No Action'' Alternative included in the proposed 
rule. For Alternative Three, which would require the importer of record 
to obtain the HMS ITP, economic impacts are estimated to be 
approximately the same as the ``No Action'' Alternative included in the 
proposed rule, using the assumption that there would be approximately 
the same number of importers of record identified on CBP entry 
documentation as consignees for consignments of products addressed 
under HMS ITP regulations.
    The second permitting issue with alternatives that could have 
economic impacts is shark fin trader permitting. The proposed rule 
would require that shark fin traders obtain an HMS ITP. NMFS 
anticipates that approximately 100 entities are expected to require the 
HMS ITP for shark fin trading. Since there would be no reporting 
requirements associated with this permit, the only costs are for 
obtaining the permit ($26.75 per dealer). The other alternative 
considered for this issue was the ``No Action'' Alternative. The 
permitting ($26.75) and reporting ($196) related costs of this 
alternative would apply for each current ITP holder.
    The second category of issues addressed in the proposed rule is 
under the heading of ``Reporting.'' None of the alternatives for these 
issues would change the number of entities required to obtain an HMS 
ITP, so there would be no permitting related costs for any of these 
issues.
    The first issue under the category of ``Reporting'' that has 
reporting-associated economic impacts includes alternatives that would 
adjust reporting requirements for when and how report submission would 
be required. Alternative One is the ``No Action'' alternative, and 
would not change any reporting regulations or associated annual costs, 
which are estimated at $196 per dealer. Alternative Two would rescind 
the requirement for copies of import statistical documents to be faxed 
to NMFS within 24 hours of receipt by an importer. This alternative 
would provide a slightly positive economic benefit in the form of a 
slightly reduced time burden for import reporting. Dealers would still 
be required to fill out and mail import statistical documents twice per 
month. The Preferred (third) Alternative would adjust HMS ITP and ATDP 
reporting regulations to use a ``received-by'' date rather than a 
postmark date for determining dealer compliance with required report 
submittal schedules. The ITP regulations would also be clarified to 
indicate when use of a fax machine would be an acceptable method for 
submitting a report. This alternative is expected to have no economic 
consequences, since it would not impact reporting frequency.
    The second reporting-related issue considers alternatives to 
initially implement ICCAT Recommendation 07-10 and the new BCD program. 
The proposed rule (Preferred Alternative) would implement preliminarily 
the program for commercial U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries and 
bluefin tuna imports, exports and re-exports as part of a program that 
will apply to all ICCAT member nations. The BCD program would require 
the use of new forms with fields similar to the ICCAT bluefin tuna 
statistical document that was in place before the BCD program was 
implemented. The change in reporting burden would only affect HMS ITP 
holders that re-export untagged bluefin tuna. When re-exporting an 
untagged bluefin tuna, the HMS ITP holder would be required to send a 
copy of the re-export certificate to the ICCAT Secretariat and 
importing nation within five working days via addresses and information 
provided by NMFS. The costs per transaction could range from zero for 
electronic transmission of the documents, to approximately $100 for 
mailing, for an average of $50 per transaction. In 2006, 17 
consignments would have been subject to this additional cost. In 
addition, a time burden of .25 hours per consignment would have 
resulted in an additional 4.25 aggregate hours for a total annual cost 
of $64, or $3.75 per transaction. There would be no additional costs 
for the No Action alternative, with current annual average costs for 
statistical document program reporting at $196 per dealer.
    The last issue under this category addresses reporting of Atlantic 
bluefin tuna exports. The Preferred Alternative would provide a 
positive economic impact, reducing the current reporting burden for 
individuals who hold both an ATDP and HMS ITP by clarifying that 
bluefin tuna exports would only need to be reported on one biweekly 
report. This action could positively affect the 64 individuals who 
concurrently hold an ATDP and HMS ITP and could save an estimated $51 
per dealer per year. In addition, this alternative could reduce the 
reporting burden for HMS ITP holders who purchase bluefin tuna from an 
ATDP holder, with an estimated savings similar to those for individuals 
holding both permits. Alternative One, the ``No Action'' alternative, 
would continue to require reporting for both permits, and is estimated 
to cost each impacted dealer approximately $102 per year. Alternative 
Two would require that operational procedures were adjusted to mirror 
the current regulations. The economic impact of Alternative Two would 
be the same as that estimated for the ``No Action'' alternative.
    The last category of issues addressed in the proposed rule is 
``Regulatory Structure and Clarification,'' and includes two issues 
that could have economic consequences. The first issue is the 
implementation of the new definition of ``import'' included in the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization 
Act. Both the ``No Action'' Alternative and the Preferred Alternative 
would have the same economic consequences, which would be the 
permitting and reporting costs associated with the current HMS ITP 
program, averaged at $222.75 per dealer per year. The second 
alternative would adopt the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of 
``import,'' without distinguishing that consignments between the United 
States and its insular possessions with separate customs territories 
would be considered domestic interactions, as intended by RFMO 
consignment programs. If such consignments did require permitting and 
reporting under the HMS ITP program, negative economic consequences 
would occur which are currently unknown but, based in part on the 
amount of product and number of participating dealers, are expected to 
be minor in nature. For example, an average of four consignments from 
Guam to ports under

[[Page 18478]]

U.S. Customs authority have occurred each year from 2002 through 2007. 
The estimated annual impact per dealer (approximately four dealers) 
would be $223.
    The last issue considered in this proposed rule that could have 
economic impacts addresses the verification of foreign validating 
officials for imports. The proposed rule includes no regulatory changes 
for this issue. Under the Preferred Alternative, NMFS would pursue 
further international coordination on this issue, and there would be no 
economic related consequences. Likewise, the ``No Action'' Alternative 
would not have economic consequences since it does not require any 
current or additional action. Alternative Two could have considerable 
negative economic consequences since it would require that importers 
check the password-protected ICCAT website to determine whether 
validating officials are authorized government representatives. This 
alternative would require computer hardware and software with Internet 
access.
    Fishermen, fish dealer permit holders, and fishery managers 
involved in these fisheries must comply with a number of international 
agreements, domestic laws, regulations and FMPs. These include, but are 
not limited to, the International Convention for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention 
Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS 
strives to ensure consistency among the regulations with Fishery 
Management Councils and other relevant agencies. NMFS does not believe 
that the proposed alternatives would conflict with any relevant 
regulations, federal or other.
    One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any alternatives 
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which 
minimize any significant economic impacts. Economic impacts are 
discussed above and below. Additionally, the RFA Section 603(c)(1)-(4)) 
lists four categories of options which should be discussed. These 
categories are: (1) establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or 
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule 
for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design 
standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small 
entities.
    Under the first and fourth categories listed above, NMFS considers 
all dealers to be ``small entities.'' Thus, in order to meet the 
objectives of this proposed rule and address management concerns, NMFS 
cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements for 
small entities.
    Category Two includes options for clarifying, simplifying, and 
consolidating compliance and reporting requirements for small entities. 
Many of the measures proposed in this rule satisfy the goal of Category 
Two by simplifying or clarifying the existing dealer permitting or 
reporting structure in several instances, and by seeking further 
international clarity for several issues that cannot be implemented 
under the current program. Specifically, the proposed rule would 
clarify who is the entity responsible for obtaining the HMS ITP in 
cases involving foreign importers and would synchronize requirements 
between HMS ITPs and NMFS regional permits. Although alternatives are 
considered for modifying the entity responsible for obtaining a permit 
based on CBP entry documentation, the proposed rule does not modify the 
current regulations, which is in effect the simplest of the 
alternatives considered.
    The proposed rule would reduce and simplify reporting requirements 
so that reporting may be combined in certain instances when an 
individual holds both the HMS ITP and the ATDP, which have similar 
reporting requirements. A dealer holding one of these permits can also 
coordinate with a dealer who handles the same individual bluefin tuna 
but holds the other corresponding permit. The proposed rule would also 
clarify the use of faxes for report submission and would further 
consistency with other HMS regulations by establishing the ``received 
by'' date as the date used for compliance determinations. There would 
be some increase in reporting burden and cost because of the 
requirement for international communication of consignment documents 
directly to the ICCAT secretariat and importing nation's government 
agency, however costs should be minimized since affected businesses are 
encouraged to submit the required documentation electronically.
    The proposed rule also directly addresses issues of regulatory 
structure and clarification. The proposed rule would update certain HTS 
codes which would serve in part to clarify reporting. The proposed rule 
would also adopt the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of import, with a 
clarifying caveat that consignments of affected product between insular 
possessions and the United States are not considered imports. Finally, 
the proposed rule would clarify that the regulatory requirements in 50 
CFR part 300 subpart M would apply to all entities engaging in covered 
activities, rather than just those who obtain the required permit. 
Alternatives for verification of validating authorities are also 
considered, but because of technical difficulties, no action requiring 
verification of validation is included in the proposed rule.
    The third category identified in the RFA, ``use of performance 
rather than design standards,'' is not applicable, since ICCAT has very 
specific requirements for implementation of the trade tracking programs 
addressed in this action. Although the shark fin trade is not currently 
covered by an ICCAT recommendation, in order to address category two 
and maintain a simple structure for HMS trade permits, shark fin 
traders would be required to obtain an HMS ITP under the proposed rule.
    This proposed rule contains revisions to collection-of-information 
requirements previously approved by OMB under the HMS Permitting Family 
of Forms (0648-0327) and the HMS Dealer Reporting Family of Forms 
(0648-0040). The revisions are subject to review and approval by OMB 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and have been submitted to OMB for 
approval. In the HMS Permitting Family of Forms, the instrument being 
revised is the application for the HMS ITP for Atlantic coast dealers 
that import, export, or re-export bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna, 
frozen bigeye tuna, and swordfish, the public reporting burden for 
which is estimated at 0.08 hours (5 minutes) per response. In the HMS 
Dealer Reporting Family of Forms, the instruments being revised are the 
bluefin tuna statistical document and re-export certificate, the public 
reporting burden for which is estimated at .08 hours (5 minutes) per 
form. The statistical document will be replaced by a catch document 
with an equivalent reporting burden. The reporting burden for re-
exports of untagged bluefin tuna is estimated to be an additional .25 
hours (15 minutes) per form. These estimates include the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether each of these proposed

[[Page 18479]]

information collections is necessary for the proper performance of the 
functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other 
aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES 
above, and e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-
7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

Public Hearings

    Public hearings will be held as follows:
    1. April 23, 2008, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., NMFS Southwest Regional 
Office, Santa Rosa Field Office, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 
95404.
    2. April 24, 2008, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., NMFS Southwest Regional 
Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
    3. April 25, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., NMFS Northeast Regional 
Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
    4. April 28, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Embassy Suites Hotel, 3974 
Northwest South River Drive, Miami, FL 33142.
    5. April 29, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., NMFS, Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408.
    The hearing locations are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Dianne Stephan at (978) 281-9260, 
at least 7 business days prior to the meeting.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: March 31, 2008.
James W. Balsiger
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 subpart M and 
part 635 are proposed to be amended as follows:

CHAPTER III

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

Subpart M--International Trade Documentation and Tracking Programs 
for Highly Migratory Species

    1. The authority citation for subpart M of part 300 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.
    2. In Sec.  300.181, the definitions for ``Fish or fish products 
regulated under this subpart'', ``Import'', and ``Tag'' are revised, 
and the definitions of ``BCD'', ``BCD tag'', ``Consignment document'', 
``Consignment documentation programs'', and ``Shark fin'' are added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  300.181  Definitions.

* * * * *
    BCD tag means a numbered tag affixed to a bluefin tuna issued by 
any country in conjunction with a catch statistics information program 
and recorded on a (BCD).
* * * * *
    Bluefin Tuna Catch Document (BCD) means an ICCAT bluefin tuna catch 
document.
* * * * *
    Consignment document means either an ICCAT Atlantic BCD or a catch 
document issued by a nation to comply with the ICCAT BCD program; or an 
ICCAT, IATTC, IOTC, or CCSBT statistical document or a statistical 
document issued by a nation to comply with such statistical document 
programs.
    Consignment documentation programs means the ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC or 
CCSBT catch document or statistical document programs.
* * * * *
    Fish or fish products regulated under this subpart means bluefin 
tuna, frozen bigeye tuna, southern bluefin tuna and swordfish and all 
such products of these species, except parts other than meat (e.g., 
heads, eyes, roe, guts, and tails), and shark fins.
* * * * *
    Import means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt 
to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, 
bringing or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning 
of the customs laws of the United States. Import, for purposes of this 
subpart, does not include any activity described in the previous 
sentence with respect to fish caught in the exclusive economic zone or 
by a vessel of the United States. For purposes of this subpart, goods 
brought into the United States from a U.S. insular possession, or vice-
versa, are not considered imports.
* * * * *
    Shark fin, for purposes of this subpart, means any fin removed from 
a shark, which is an animal of the Linnaean taxonomic superorder 
Selachimorpha, subclass Elasmobranchii, class Chondrichthyes.
* * * * *
    Statistical document means an ICCAT, IATTC, IOTC, or CCSBT 
statistical document, or a statistical document issued by a nation to 
comply with such statistical document programs.
    Statistical document program means either the ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC or 
CCSBT statistical document program.
* * * * *
    Tag means either a dealer tag or a BCD tag.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  300.182, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  300.182  HMS international trade permit.

    (a) General. An importer, entering for consumption fish or fish 
products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area into the 
United States, or an exporter exporting or re-exporting such product, 
must possess a valid trade permit issued under this section. 
Importation of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart by 
nonresident corporations is restricted to those entities authorized 
under 19 CFR 141.18. A resident agent or resident corporate surety 
provider, as specified under 19 CFR 141.18, must possess a valid trade 
permit when acting on behalf of a nonresident corporation when entering 
for consumption, exporting, or re-exporting fish or fish products 
regulated under this subpart from any ocean area.
    (b) Application. A person must apply for a permit in writing on an 
appropriate form obtained from NMFS. The application must be completed, 
signed by the applicant, and submitted with required supporting 
documents, at least 30 days before the date on which the applicant 
wants to have the permit made effective. Application forms and 
instructions for their completion are available from NMFS.

[[Page 18480]]

    (c) Issuance. NMFS will notify the applicant of any deficiency in 
the application, including failure to provide information or reports 
required under this subpart. If the applicant fails to correct the 
deficiency within 30 days following the date of notification, the 
application will be considered abandoned.
* * * * *
    4. Section 300.183 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  300.183  Permit holder reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Biweekly reports. Any person required to obtain a trade permit 
under Sec.  300.182 must submit to NMFS, on forms supplied by NMFS, a 
biweekly report of entries for consumption, exports and re-exports of 
fish and fish products regulated under this subpart except shark fins.
    (1) The report required to be submitted under this paragraph (a) 
must be received within 10 days after the end of each biweekly 
reporting period in which fish or fish products regulated under this 
subpart except shark fins were entered for consumption, exported, or 
re-exported. The bi-weekly reporting periods are the first day to the 
15\th\ day of each month, and the 16\th\ day to the last day of each 
month.
    (2) Each report must specify accurately and completely the 
requested information for each consignment of fish or fish products 
regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that is entered for 
consumption, exported, or re-exported.
    (3) A biweekly report is not required for export consignments of 
bluefin tuna when the information required on the biweekly report has 
been previously supplied on a biweekly report submitted under Sec.  
635.5(b)(2)(i)(B) of this title, provided the person required to obtain 
a trade permit under Sec.  300.182 retains, at his/her principal place 
of business for a period of 2 years from the date on which each report 
was submitted to NMFS, a copy of the biweekly report which includes the 
required information and is submitted under Sec.  635.5(b)(2)(i)(B) of 
this title.
    (b) Recordkeeping. Any person required to obtain a trade permit 
under Sec.  300.182 must retain, at his/her principal place of 
business, a copy of each biweekly report and all supporting records for 
a period of 2 years from the date on which each report was submitted to 
NMFS.
    (c) Other requirements and recordkeeping requirements. Any person 
required to obtain a trade permit under Sec.  300.182 is also subject 
to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements identified in Sec.  
300.185.
    (d) Inspection. Any person authorized to carry out the enforcement 
activities under the regulations in this subpart (authorized person) 
has the authority, without warrant or other process, to inspect, at any 
reasonable time: fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, 
biweekly reports, statistical documents, catch documents, re-export 
certificates, relevant sales receipts, import and export documentation, 
or other records or reports made, retained, or submitted pursuant to 
this subpart. A permit holder must allow NMFS or an authorized person 
to inspect and copy, for any fish or fish products regulated under this 
subpart, any import and export documentation and any reports required 
under this subpart, and the records, in any form, on which the 
completed reports are based, wherever they exist. Any agent of a person 
issued a trade permit under this part, or anyone responsible for 
importing, exporting, storing, packing, or selling fish or fish 
products regulated under this subpart, shall be subject to the 
inspection provisions of this section.
    (e) Applicability of reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements in this subpart apply to any 
person engaging in activities that require a trade permit, as set forth 
in Sec.  300.182(a), regardless of whether a trade permit has been 
issued to that person.
    5. In Sec.  300.184, the section heading, introductory text, and 
paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (b)(1) introductory text, (c)(1) 
introductory text, and (d)(1) are revised and paragraph (e) is added to 
read as follows:


Sec.  300.184  Species subject to permitting, documentation, reporting, 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    The following fish or fish products are subject to the requirements 
of this subpart, regardless of ocean area of catch.
    (a) * * *
    (1) The requirements of this subpart apply to bluefin tuna products 
including those identified by the following subheading numbers from the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS):
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The requirements of this subpart apply to southern bluefin tuna 
products including those identified by the following subheading numbers 
from the HTS:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The requirements of this subpart apply to frozen bigeye tuna 
products including those identified by the following subheading numbers 
from the HTS:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The requirements of this subpart apply to swordfish products 
including those identified by the following subheading numbers from the 
HTS:
    (i) Fresh or chilled swordfish, steaks (No. 0302.67.00.10).
    (ii) Fresh or chilled swordfish (No. 0302.67.00.90), excluding fish 
fillets, steaks, and other fish meat of HTS heading 0304.
    (iii) Frozen swordfish, steaks (No. 0303.61.00.10).
    (iv) Frozen swordfish (No. 0303.61.00.90), excluding fillets, 
steaks and other fish meat of HTS heading 0304.
    (v) Fresh, or chilled swordfish, fillets and other fish meat (No. 
0304.11.00.00).
    (vi) Frozen swordfish, fillets (No. 0304.21.00.00).
    (vii) Swordfish in bulk or in immediate containers weighing with 
their contents over 6.8 kg each (No. 0304.91.10.00).
    (viii) Swordfish, other (No. 0304.91.90.00).
* * * * *
    (e) Shark fin. The permitting requirements of this subpart apply to 
shark fin products including those identified by the following 
subheading number from HTS: No. 0305.59.20.00.
    6. In Sec.  300.185:
    A. The section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2(i) through 
(iv), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), 
(c)(3) and (d) are revised.
    B. Paragraph (e) is redesignated as paragraph (f).
    C. New paragraphs (a)(2)(v) through (a)(2)(ix) and (e) are added.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  300.185  Documentation, reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
for consignment documents and re-export certificates.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Applicability of requirements. The documentation requirements 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply to all imports of fish or 
fish products regulated under this subpart, into the Customs territory 
of the United States, except shark fins, or except when entered as a 
product of an American fishery landed overseas (HTS heading 9815). For 
insular possessions with customs territories separate from the Customs 
territory of the United States, documentation requirements in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section apply only to entries for consumption. The 
reporting requirements of paragraph

[[Page 18481]]

(a)(3) of this section do not apply to fish products destined from one 
foreign country to another which transit the United States or a U.S. 
insular possession and are designated as an entry type other than entry 
for consumption as defined in Sec.  300.181.
    (2) * * *
    (i) All fish or fish products except for shark fins, regulated 
under this subpart, imported into the Customs territory of the United 
States or entered for consumption into a separate customs territory of 
a U.S. insular possession, must, at the time of presenting entry 
documentation for clearance by customs authorities (e.g., CBP Forms 
7533 or 3461 or other documentation required by the port director) be 
accompanied by an original, completed, approved, validated, species-
specific consignment document.
    (ii) Imports of bluefin tuna which were re-exported from another 
nation, must also be accompanied by an original, completed, approved, 
validated, species-specific re-export certificate.
    (iii) Imports of fish or fish products regulated under this 
subpart, other than shark fins, that were previously re-exported and 
were subdivided or consolidated with another consignment before re-
export, must also be accompanied by an original, completed, approved, 
validated, species-specific re-export certificate.
    (iv) All other imports of fish or fish products regulated under 
this subpart, except shark fins, that have been previously re-exported 
from another nation, should have the intermediate importers 
certification of the original statistical document completed.
    (v) Consignment documents must be validated as specified in Sec.  
300.187 by a responsible government official of the flag country whose 
vessel caught the fish (regardless of where the fish are first landed). 
Re-export certificates must be validated by a responsible government 
official of the re-exporting country.
    (vi) A permit holder may not accept an import without the completed 
consignment document or re-export certificate as described in 
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(v) of this section.
    (vii) For fish or fish products except shark fins regulated under 
this subpart that are entered for consumption, the permit holder must 
provide on the original consignment document that accompanied the 
consignment the correct information and importer's certification 
specified in Sec.  300.186, and must note on the top of the consignment 
document the entry number assigned at the time of filing an entry 
summary (e.g., CBP Form 7501 or electronic equivalent) with customs 
authorities.
    (viii) Bluefin tuna, imported into the Customs territory of the 
United States or entered for consumption into the separate customs 
territory of a U.S. insular possession, from a country requiring a BCD 
tag on all such bluefin tuna available for sale, must be accompanied by 
the appropriate BCD tag issued by that country, and said BCD tag must 
remain on any bluefin tuna until it reaches its final destination. If 
the final import destination is the United States, which includes U.S. 
insular possessions, the BCD tag must remain on the bluefin tuna until 
it is cut into portions. If the bluefin tuna portions are subsequently 
packaged for domestic commercial use or re-export, the BCD tag number 
and the issuing country must be written legibly and indelibly on the 
outside of the package.
    (ix) Customs forms can be obtained by contacting the local CBP port 
office; contact information is available at www.cbp.gov. For a U.S. 
insular possession, contact the local customs office for any forms 
required for entry.
    (3) Reporting requirements. For fish or fish products regulated 
under this subpart, except shark fins, that are entered for consumption 
and whose final destination is within the United States, which includes 
U.S. insular possessions, a permit holder must submit to NMFS the 
original consignment document that accompanied the fish product as 
completed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to be received by 
NMFS along with the biweekly report as required under Sec.  300.183(a). 
A copy of the original completed consignment document must be submitted 
by said permit holder, to be received by NMFS, at an address designated 
by NMFS, within 24 hours of the time the fish product was entered for 
consumption into the Customs territory of the United States, or the 
separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Applicability of requirements. The documentation and reporting 
requirements of this paragraph (b) apply to exports of fish or fish 
products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that were 
harvested by U.S. vessels and first landed in the United States, or 
harvested by vessels of a U.S. insular possession and first landed in 
that possession. This paragraph (b) also applies to products of 
American fisheries landed overseas.
    (2) Documentation requirements. A permit holder must complete an 
original, approved, numbered, species-specific consignment document 
issued to that permit holder by NMFS for each export referenced under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Such an individually numbered 
document is not transferable and may be used only once by the permit 
holder to which it was issued to report on a specific export 
consignment. A permit holder must provide on the consignment document 
the correct information and exporter certification. The consignment 
document must be validated, as specified in Sec.  300.187, by NMFS, or 
another official authorized by NMFS. A list of such officials may be 
obtained by contacting NMFS. A permit holder requesting U.S. validation 
for exports should notify NMFS as soon as possible after arrival of the 
vessel to avoid delays in inspection and validation of the export 
consignment.
    (3) Reporting requirements. A permit holder must ensure that the 
original, approved, consignment document as completed under paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section accompanies the export of such products to their 
export destination. A copy of the consignment document must be received 
by NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, within 24 hours of the time 
the fish product was exported from the United States or a U.S. insular 
possession.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Applicability of requirements. The documentation and reporting 
requirements of this paragraph (c) apply to exports of fish or fish 
products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that were 
previously entered for consumption into the Customs territory of the 
United States or the separate customs territory of a U.S. insular 
possession, through filing the documentation specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section. The requirements of this paragraph (c) do not apply to 
fish or fish products destined from one foreign country to another 
which transit the United States or a U.S. insular possession and which 
are designated as an entry type other than entry for consumption as 
defined in Sec.  300.181.
    (2) * * *
    (i) If a permit holder re-exports a consignment of bluefin tuna, or 
subdivides or consolidates a consignment of fish or fish products 
regulated under this subpart, other than shark fins, that was 
previously entered for consumption as described in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the permit holder must complete an original, approved, 
individually numbered, species-specific re-export certificate issued to 
that permit holder by NMFS for each such re-export consignment. Such an 
individually numbered document is not transferable and may be used only 
once by the

[[Page 18482]]

permit holder to which it was issued to report on a specific re-export 
consignment. A permit holder must provide on the re-export certificate 
the correct information and re-exporter certification. The permit 
holder must also attach the original consignment document that 
accompanied the import consignment or a copy of that document, and must 
note on the top of both the consignment documents and the re-export 
certificates the entry number assigned by CBP authorities at the time 
of filing the entry summary.
    (ii) If a consignment of fish or fish products regulated under this 
subpart, except bluefin tuna or shark fins, that was previously entered 
for consumption as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not 
subdivided into sub-consignments or consolidated, for each re-export 
consignment, a permit holder must complete the intermediate importer's 
certification on the original statistical document and note the entry 
number on the top of the statistical document. Such re-exports do not 
need a re-export certificate and the re-export does not require 
validation.
* * * * *
    (3) Reporting requirements. For each re-export, a permit holder 
must submit the original of the completed re-export certificate (if 
applicable) and the original or a copy of the original consignment 
document completed as specified under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
to accompany the consignment of such products to their re-export 
destination. A copy of the completed consignment document and re-export 
certificate (if applicable) must be submitted to NMFS, at an address 
designated by NMFS, and received by NMFS within 24 hours of the time 
the consignment was re-exported from the United States. Within five 
days of re-export of untagged Atlantic bluefin tuna, the permit holder 
must email, fax, or mail a copy of the completed consignment document 
and re-export certificate to the ICCAT Secretariat and the importing 
nation, at addresses designated by NMFS.
    (d) Document completion. To be deemed complete, a consignment 
document or re-export certificate must be filled out according to the 
corresponding instructions for each document with all requested 
information provided.
    (e) Recordkeeping. A permit holder must retain at his or her 
principal place of business, a copy of each consignment document and 
re-export certificate required to be submitted to NMFS pursuant to this 
section, and supporting records for a period of 2 years from the date 
on which it was submitted to NMFS.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec.  300.186 the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b) 
are revised and paragraphs (c) through (h) are removed to read as 
follows:


Sec.  300.186  Completed and approved documents.

    (a) NMFS-approved consignment documents and re-export certificates. 
A NMFS-approved consignment document or re-export certificate may be 
obtained from NMFS to accompany exports of fish or fish products 
regulated under this subpart from the Customs territory of the United 
States or the separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession.
    (b) Nationally approved forms from other countries. A nationally 
approved form from another country may be used for exports to the 
United States if that document strictly conforms to the information 
requirements and format of the applicable RFMO documents. An approved 
consignment document or re-export certificate for use in countries 
without a nationally approved form to accompany consignments to the 
United States may be obtained from the following websites, as 
appropriate: www.iccat.org, www.iattc.org, www.ccsbt.org, or 
www.iotc.org.
* * * * *
    8. In Sec.  300.187, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) through (f) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  300.187  Validation requirements.

    (a) Imports. The approved consignment document accompanying any 
import of any fish or fish product regulated under this subpart must be 
validated by a government official from the issuing country, unless 
NMFS waives this requirement pursuant to an applicable RFMO 
recommendation. NMFS will furnish a list of countries for which 
government validation requirement