Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Lifting Trade Restrictive Measures, 38030-38032 [2012-15582]
Download as PDF
38030
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THEFT RATES FOR MODEL YEAR 2010 PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES STOLEN IN CALENDAR
YEAR 2010—Continued
Thefts 2010
Manufacturer
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
PORSCHE ...............................
PORSCHE ...............................
ROLLS ROYCE .......................
ROLLS ROYCE .......................
ROUSH PERFORMANCE ......
SAAB .......................................
SPYKER ..................................
SUZUKI ...................................
TESLA .....................................
VOLVO ....................................
VOLVO ....................................
VOLVO ....................................
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Make/model (line)
Issued on: June 7, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012–15597 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 635
[Docket No. 120510051–2156–01]
RIN 0648–BC16
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Lifting Trade Restrictive Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to adjust the
regulations governing the trade of tuna
and tuna-like species in the North and
South Atlantic Ocean to implement
recommendations adopted at the 2011
meeting of the International
Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (Commission). The
proposed rule would lift the trade
restrictions on importing bigeye tuna
from Bolivia and Georgia. Additionally,
the proposed rule would make
administrative changes to the section
containing species-specific harmonized
tariff codes in support of the
International Trade Program.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘NMFS–NOAA–2012–
SUMMARY:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,421
955
604
281
766
644
5
1,230
278
1,536
1,496
6,379
BOXSTER .....................................................
CAYMAN .......................................................
GHOST ..........................................................
PHANTOM ....................................................
RPP MUSTANG ............................................
9–5 ................................................................
C8 ..................................................................
EQUATOR PICKUP ......................................
ROADSTER ..................................................
C30 ................................................................
V70 ................................................................
XC70 .............................................................
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102 and
33104; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Production
(Mfr’s) 2010
13:20 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
0117’’, by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://
www.regulations.gov. To submit
comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon,
then enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012–0117’’
in the keyword search. Locate the
document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right
of that line.
• Fax: 978–281–9347, Attn: Tom
Warren.
• Mail: Thomas Warren, Highly
Migratory Species Management
Division, NMFS, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
• Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered
by NMFS. Comments sent by any other
method, or to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to 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 (enter N/
A in the required fields, if you wish to
remain anonymous). You may submit
attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect,
or Adobe PDF file formats only. To be
considered, electronic comments must
be submitted via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2010 Theft rate
(per 1,000 vehicles produced)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
electronic comments to individual
NMFS staff.
Copies of the 2006 Consolidated
Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan (Consolidated HMS
FMP) and other relevant documents are
available from the Highly Migratory
Species Management Division Web site
at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Warren at 978–281–9260, or LeAnn
Hogan at 301–427–8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed
under the Consolidated HMS FMP and
regulations at 50 CFR part 635, pursuant
to the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act), and the Atlantic Tunas Convention
Act (ATCA). Under ATCA, the Secretary
shall promulgate such regulations as
may be necessary and appropriate to
carry out ICCAT Recommendations.
Trade Measures
In 2002 and 2003, the Commission
adopted binding measures for Parties to
prohibit the imports of Atlantic bigeye
tuna and its products from Bolivia and
Georgia, respectively. Specifically,
Recommendations 02–17 and 03–18
prohibited the imports to address
illegal, unreported, and unregulated
catches of tuna (especially bigeye tuna)
by large-scale Bolivian and Georgian
longline vessels that operated in a
manner that diminished the
effectiveness of the Commission
measures. Recommendation 02–17
expressed concern regarding the
overfished status of bigeye tuna in the
Atlantic Ocean and noted the
Commission had reviewed information
that Bolivian vessels fishing for Atlantic
bigeye tuna had continued to operate in
a manner that diminished the
effectiveness of the Commission
conservation and management
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
measures. Similarly, Recommendation
03–18 expressed concern regarding the
overfished status of bigeye tuna in the
Atlantic Ocean, and the Commission
had reviewed information that Georgian
vessels had continued to operate in a
manner that diminished the
effectiveness of Commission
conservation and management
measures. Therefore, in 2004, NMFS
published a final rule (69 FR 70396;
December 6, 2004) that implemented the
Commission recommendations. The
final rule stated that when Bolivia or
Georgia brought its fishing practices into
consistency with the Commission
conservation and management
measures, NMFS would take action to
remove the appropriate import
restrictions.
At its 2011 annual meeting, the
Commission examined recent actions of
Bolivia and Georgia, and determined
that the actions of their vessels no
longer diminish the effectiveness of the
Commission’s conservation and
management measures. Some of the
relevant considerations of the
Commission were as follows:
• Bolivia and Georgia have been
responsive to Commission requests for
information on actions taken to control
their vessels.
• Since 2006, Bolivia has not
registered any fishing vessels to carry
out fishing-related activities in the
Convention area, and information
available to the Commission has
indicated that Bolivia has not fished for
Commission species in recent years.
• Georgia has recently taken action to
de-register those of its vessels fishing
without authorization in the Convention
area and has considered increased
participation in the work of the
Commission.
Thus, the Commission adopted
Recommendation 11–19, which requires
Parties to lift import prohibitions on
Atlantic bigeye tuna from Bolivia and
Georgia as soon as possible in
accordance with domestic procedures.
When the import prohibitions were
implemented in the 2004 final rule,
neither Bolivia nor Georgia had
exported Atlantic bigeye tuna to the
United States in the past 10 years;
therefore, NMFS determined that the
import prohibitions would have no
socioeconomic impact on fishery
participants. Because there were no
imports of Atlantic bigeye tuna from
these countries prior to the
implementation of the prohibitions, and
because NMFS does not expect imports
in the future, NMFS does not expect
that lifting the prohibitions would result
in socioeconomic impacts on U.S.
entities. Thus, we consider lifting the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:20 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
Atlantic bigeye tuna import prohibitions
in this rule to be administrative in
nature.
Consistent with the regulations at 50
CFR 635.40(c), for 1 year after the date
of filing of the final rule lifting the
import restrictions, every shipment of
fish in any form that was subject to the
import restrictions will continue to be
denied entry, unless the shipment is
accompanied by a certification executed
by an authorized official of the country
of export and authenticated by a
consular officer or consular agent of the
United States certifying that no portion
of the shipment is composed of fish
taken prior to or during the import
restriction.
Harmonized Tariff Codes
NMFS also proposes administrative
changes in support of the International
Trade Permit program. Importers,
exporters, and re-exporters of Atlantic,
Pacific, and Southern bluefin tuna,
swordfish, frozen bigeye tuna, and shark
fins must obtain an International Trade
Permit consistent with regulations at 50
CFR part 300, subpart M. Permit holders
must include the species-specific
harmonized tariff codes on the
necessary trade documentation when
trading these species. The Harmonized
System is an international product
nomenclature system developed by the
World Customs Organization. It is
updated every 5 years, and the most
recent update occurred in 2012, with
subsequent modifications to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States. Thus, the section of the
regulations that include harmonized
tariff codes for highly migratory species
products located at 50 CFR 300.184
should be changed accordingly. The
proposed changes are not expected to
have economic impacts because they are
administrative in nature and do not alter
the permit holders’ substantive
obligations; rather, the proposed
changes would simply update the
harmonized tariff codes to ensure that
permit holders have the most recent
information in order to simplify
compliance with the regulations. The
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States is published by the U.S.
International Trade Commission. The
portion pertaining to fish, including
HMS species (chapter 3), is available at
the following Web site: https://
www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/
hts/bychapter/1202C03.pdf.
Request for Comments
Comments on this proposed rule may
be submitted via https://
www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38031
NMFS solicits comments on this
proposed rule by July 26, 2012.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined
that this proposed rule is consistent
with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP,
other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after
public comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Council for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule is necessary to
implement recommendations of the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(Commission), as required by the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA),
and to achieve domestic management
objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Under
ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate
such regulations as may be necessary
and appropriate to carry out
Commission recommendations.
In 2002 and 2003, the Commission
adopted binding measures to prohibit
the imports of Atlantic bigeye tuna and
its products from Bolivia and Georgia,
respectively. Specifically,
Recommendations 02–17 and 03–18
prohibited the imports to address the
issue of unreported and unregulated
catches of tuna (especially bigeye tuna)
by large-scale Bolivian and Georgian
longline vessels that operated in a
manner that diminished the
effectiveness of Commission measures.
In 2004, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) published a final rule
(69 FR 70396; December 6, 2004)
implementing the recommendations.
At its 2011 annual meeting, the
Commission determined that Bolivian
and Georgian vessels no longer diminish
the effectiveness of the Commission’s
conservation and management
measures. As a result, the Commission
adopted Recommendation 11–19, which
requires Parties to lift import
prohibitions on Atlantic bigeye tuna
from Bolivia and Georgia as soon as
possible in accordance with domestic
procedures. Prior to 2004, neither
Bolivia nor Georgia had exported
Atlantic bigeye tuna to the United States
in the past 10 years, so NMFS
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
38032
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
determined that the import prohibitions
would have no socioeconomic impact
on fishery participants. Because there
were no imports of Atlantic bigeye tuna
from these countries prior to the
implementation of the prohibitions, and
because NMFS does not anticipate
imports in the future, NMFS does not
expect that lifting the prohibitions
would result in socioeconomic impacts
on U.S. entities. Thus, we consider the
lifting of the Atlantic bigeye tuna import
prohibitions in this rule to be
administrative in nature.
In this rulemaking, we would also
consider administrative changes in
support of the International Trade
Permit (ITP) program. Importers,
exporters and re-exporters of Atlantic,
Pacific and Southern bluefin tuna,
swordfish, frozen bigeye tuna, and shark
fins must obtain an ITP consistent with
regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart
M. There are currently 241 small
entities that hold an ITP. Permit holders
must include the species-specific
harmonized tariff codes on the
necessary trade documentation when
trading these species. The Harmonized
System is an international product
nomenclature system developed by the
World Customs Organization. It is
updated every 5 years, and the most
recent update occurred in 2012, with
subsequent modifications to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States. Because 50 CFR 300.184
currently lists the previous harmonized
tariff codes for highly migratory species
products, the regulations need to be
changed to be consistent with the recent
changes to the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States. These
proposed administrative changes are not
expected to have economic impacts
because they do not create or alter any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:20 Jun 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
substantive obligations for ITP holders
or other regulated entities; rather, the
changes are necessary in order to
maintain consistency with current trade
regulations and to ensure that ITP
holders have the most recent
information in order to simplify
compliance with the regulations.
As described above, the proposed
changes in this rule are administrative
in nature and, if implemented, would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Because the proposed changes
would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required and none has been
prepared.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish,
Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians,
Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Russian Federation, Transportation,
Treaties, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels,
Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Treaties.
Dated: June 21, 2012.
Paul N. Doremus,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR parts 300 and 635 are
proposed to be amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
PART 300—INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C.
5501 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C.
9701 et seq.
2. Section 300.184 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 300.184 Species subject to permitting,
documentation, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Except as noted at (b), the
following fish or fish products are
subject to the requirements of this
subpart, regardless of ocean area of
catch, and must be accompanied by the
appropriate heading or subheading
numbers from the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTS).
(1) bluefin tuna,
(2) southern bluefin tuna,
(3) frozen bigeye tuna,
(4) swordfish, and
(5) shark fins.
(b) For bluefin tuna, southern bluefin
tuna, frozen bigeye tuna, and swordfish,
fish parts other than meat (e.g., heads,
eyes, roe, guts, and tails) may be
imported without documentation.
PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY
MIGRATORY SPECIES
3. The authority citation for part 635
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.
§ 635.41
[Amended]
4. In § 635.41, remove and reserve
paragraph (a).
[FR Doc. 2012–15582 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38030-38032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15582]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 635
[Docket No. 120510051-2156-01]
RIN 0648-BC16
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Lifting Trade Restrictive
Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to adjust the regulations governing the trade of
tuna and tuna-like species in the North and South Atlantic Ocean to
implement recommendations adopted at the 2011 meeting of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(Commission). The proposed rule would lift the trade restrictions on
importing bigeye tuna from Bolivia and Georgia. Additionally, the
proposed rule would make administrative changes to the section
containing species-specific harmonized tariff codes in support of the
International Trade Program.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``NMFS-NOAA-2012-
0117'', by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ``submit a comment'' icon, then enter ``NOAA-NMFS-2012-
0117'' in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment
on from the resulting list and click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon
on the right of that line.
Fax: 978-281-9347, Attn: Tom Warren.
Mail: Thomas Warren, Highly Migratory Species Management
Division, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the
above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and
considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, or to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public
record and will generally be posted to 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 (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to
remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
To be considered, electronic comments must be submitted via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit electronic
comments to individual NMFS staff.
Copies of the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP) and other relevant documents are
available from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division Web
site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Warren at 978-281-9260, or LeAnn
Hogan at 301-427-8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed
under the Consolidated HMS FMP and regulations at 50 CFR part 635,
pursuant to the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA). Under ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT
Recommendations.
Trade Measures
In 2002 and 2003, the Commission adopted binding measures for
Parties to prohibit the imports of Atlantic bigeye tuna and its
products from Bolivia and Georgia, respectively. Specifically,
Recommendations 02-17 and 03-18 prohibited the imports to address
illegal, unreported, and unregulated catches of tuna (especially bigeye
tuna) by large-scale Bolivian and Georgian longline vessels that
operated in a manner that diminished the effectiveness of the
Commission measures. Recommendation 02-17 expressed concern regarding
the overfished status of bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean and noted
the Commission had reviewed information that Bolivian vessels fishing
for Atlantic bigeye tuna had continued to operate in a manner that
diminished the effectiveness of the Commission conservation and
management
[[Page 38031]]
measures. Similarly, Recommendation 03-18 expressed concern regarding
the overfished status of bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, and the
Commission had reviewed information that Georgian vessels had continued
to operate in a manner that diminished the effectiveness of Commission
conservation and management measures. Therefore, in 2004, NMFS
published a final rule (69 FR 70396; December 6, 2004) that implemented
the Commission recommendations. The final rule stated that when Bolivia
or Georgia brought its fishing practices into consistency with the
Commission conservation and management measures, NMFS would take action
to remove the appropriate import restrictions.
At its 2011 annual meeting, the Commission examined recent actions
of Bolivia and Georgia, and determined that the actions of their
vessels no longer diminish the effectiveness of the Commission's
conservation and management measures. Some of the relevant
considerations of the Commission were as follows:
Bolivia and Georgia have been responsive to Commission
requests for information on actions taken to control their vessels.
Since 2006, Bolivia has not registered any fishing vessels
to carry out fishing-related activities in the Convention area, and
information available to the Commission has indicated that Bolivia has
not fished for Commission species in recent years.
Georgia has recently taken action to de-register those of
its vessels fishing without authorization in the Convention area and
has considered increased participation in the work of the Commission.
Thus, the Commission adopted Recommendation 11-19, which requires
Parties to lift import prohibitions on Atlantic bigeye tuna from
Bolivia and Georgia as soon as possible in accordance with domestic
procedures. When the import prohibitions were implemented in the 2004
final rule, neither Bolivia nor Georgia had exported Atlantic bigeye
tuna to the United States in the past 10 years; therefore, NMFS
determined that the import prohibitions would have no socioeconomic
impact on fishery participants. Because there were no imports of
Atlantic bigeye tuna from these countries prior to the implementation
of the prohibitions, and because NMFS does not expect imports in the
future, NMFS does not expect that lifting the prohibitions would result
in socioeconomic impacts on U.S. entities. Thus, we consider lifting
the Atlantic bigeye tuna import prohibitions in this rule to be
administrative in nature.
Consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 635.40(c), for 1 year
after the date of filing of the final rule lifting the import
restrictions, every shipment of fish in any form that was subject to
the import restrictions will continue to be denied entry, unless the
shipment is accompanied by a certification executed by an authorized
official of the country of export and authenticated by a consular
officer or consular agent of the United States certifying that no
portion of the shipment is composed of fish taken prior to or during
the import restriction.
Harmonized Tariff Codes
NMFS also proposes administrative changes in support of the
International Trade Permit program. Importers, exporters, and re-
exporters of Atlantic, Pacific, and Southern bluefin tuna, swordfish,
frozen bigeye tuna, and shark fins must obtain an International Trade
Permit consistent with regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart M.
Permit holders must include the species-specific harmonized tariff
codes on the necessary trade documentation when trading these species.
The Harmonized System is an international product nomenclature system
developed by the World Customs Organization. It is updated every 5
years, and the most recent update occurred in 2012, with subsequent
modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
Thus, the section of the regulations that include harmonized tariff
codes for highly migratory species products located at 50 CFR 300.184
should be changed accordingly. The proposed changes are not expected to
have economic impacts because they are administrative in nature and do
not alter the permit holders' substantive obligations; rather, the
proposed changes would simply update the harmonized tariff codes to
ensure that permit holders have the most recent information in order to
simplify compliance with the regulations. The Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States is published by the U.S. International
Trade Commission. The portion pertaining to fish, including HMS species
(chapter 3), is available at the following Web site: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/1202C03.pdf.
Request for Comments
Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via https://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax. NMFS solicits comments on this
proposed rule by July 26, 2012.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule is necessary to implement recommendations of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(Commission), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA),
and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Under ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out Commission recommendations.
In 2002 and 2003, the Commission adopted binding measures to
prohibit the imports of Atlantic bigeye tuna and its products from
Bolivia and Georgia, respectively. Specifically, Recommendations 02-17
and 03-18 prohibited the imports to address the issue of unreported and
unregulated catches of tuna (especially bigeye tuna) by large-scale
Bolivian and Georgian longline vessels that operated in a manner that
diminished the effectiveness of Commission measures. In 2004, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a final rule (69 FR
70396; December 6, 2004) implementing the recommendations.
At its 2011 annual meeting, the Commission determined that Bolivian
and Georgian vessels no longer diminish the effectiveness of the
Commission's conservation and management measures. As a result, the
Commission adopted Recommendation 11-19, which requires Parties to lift
import prohibitions on Atlantic bigeye tuna from Bolivia and Georgia as
soon as possible in accordance with domestic procedures. Prior to 2004,
neither Bolivia nor Georgia had exported Atlantic bigeye tuna to the
United States in the past 10 years, so NMFS
[[Page 38032]]
determined that the import prohibitions would have no socioeconomic
impact on fishery participants. Because there were no imports of
Atlantic bigeye tuna from these countries prior to the implementation
of the prohibitions, and because NMFS does not anticipate imports in
the future, NMFS does not expect that lifting the prohibitions would
result in socioeconomic impacts on U.S. entities. Thus, we consider the
lifting of the Atlantic bigeye tuna import prohibitions in this rule to
be administrative in nature.
In this rulemaking, we would also consider administrative changes
in support of the International Trade Permit (ITP) program. Importers,
exporters and re-exporters of Atlantic, Pacific and Southern bluefin
tuna, swordfish, frozen bigeye tuna, and shark fins must obtain an ITP
consistent with regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart M. There are
currently 241 small entities that hold an ITP. Permit holders must
include the species-specific harmonized tariff codes on the necessary
trade documentation when trading these species. The Harmonized System
is an international product nomenclature system developed by the World
Customs Organization. It is updated every 5 years, and the most recent
update occurred in 2012, with subsequent modifications to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Because 50 CFR 300.184
currently lists the previous harmonized tariff codes for highly
migratory species products, the regulations need to be changed to be
consistent with the recent changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States. These proposed administrative changes are not
expected to have economic impacts because they do not create or alter
any substantive obligations for ITP holders or other regulated
entities; rather, the changes are necessary in order to maintain
consistency with current trade regulations and to ensure that ITP
holders have the most recent information in order to simplify
compliance with the regulations.
As described above, the proposed changes in this rule are
administrative in nature and, if implemented, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Because the proposed changes would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports,
Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
Dated: June 21, 2012.
Paul N. Doremus,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300 and 635
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq., 16
U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.
2. Section 300.184 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.184 Species subject to permitting, documentation, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Except as noted at (b), the following fish or fish products are
subject to the requirements of this subpart, regardless of ocean area
of catch, and must be accompanied by the appropriate heading or
subheading numbers from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTS).
(1) bluefin tuna,
(2) southern bluefin tuna,
(3) frozen bigeye tuna,
(4) swordfish, and
(5) shark fins.
(b) For bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna, frozen bigeye tuna,
and swordfish, fish parts other than meat (e.g., heads, eyes, roe,
guts, and tails) may be imported without documentation.
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
3. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sec. 635.41 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 635.41, remove and reserve paragraph (a).
[FR Doc. 2012-15582 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P