[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31380-31389]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-12]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 635
[Docket No. 080221247-8524-02]
RIN 0648-AU88
International Fisheries; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
International Trade Permit Program; Bluefin Tuna Catch Documentation
Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is modifying permitting and reporting requirements for
the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) International Trade Permit (ITP)
program 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 also implement the new definition of ``import'' contained
in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and require that shark fin importers,
exporters, and re-exporters obtain the HMS ITP to assist NMFS in
monitoring trade of shark fins. This action is necessary to implement
recommendations of ICCAT, as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention
Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
DATES: Effective July 2, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Supporting documents, including the Regulatory Impact
Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA), are available
from the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or
Dianne Stephan, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA
01930. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
final rule may be submitted to NMFS at the address above, and by email
to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
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). Under ATCA,
the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to implement ICCAT
recommendations, as necessary or appropriate. Likewise, the Tunas
Convention Act authorizes rulemaking to carry out recommendations of
the IATTC. The United States has implemented statistical document
programs under the HMS ITP program regulations per recommendations of
ICCAT, IATTC, and other regional fishery management organizations
(RFMOs). 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 requires permitting of shark fin traders under
the HMS international trade regulations to help NMFS monitor trade of
shark fins.
Background information about the need for the final rule was
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (73 FR 18473, April 4,
2008) and is not repeated here.
Changes from the Proposed Rule
A description of the alternatives for the actions in this final
rule was included in the preamble of the proposed rule, and is not
repeated here. Other than minor technical corrections, this final rule
does not include any changes from the proposed rule. Additional
information can be found in the RIR/FRFA available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
Comments and Responses
Five public hearings were announced in the proposed rule (73 FR
18473, April 4, 2008) and held during the public comment period, which
ended on May 5, 2008. The public hearings were held in the following
locations: Santa Rosa, CA (April 23, 2008), Long Beach, CA (April 24,
2008), Gloucester, MA (April 25, 2008), Miami, FL (April 28, 2008) and
Panama City, FL (April 29, 2008). In addition, the HMS Advisory Panel
[[Page 31381]]
was briefed about the proposed rule on April 16, 2008. The agency
received five written comments and many verbal comments at the public
hearings and Advisory Panel meeting. A summary of public comments,
followed by NMFS' responses to each comment, is provided below.
Comment 1: Several commentors stated that shark fin traders could
provide valuable information and should be required to report.
Response: The final rule requires permitting for shark fin traders
without additional reporting requirements at this time. NMFS considered
additional reporting requirements for shark fin traders beyond the
reporting already required by other state and/or Federal agencies, but
determined that permit requirements alone would be an effective initial
step in achieving the rule's objective to further understand the
international trade aspects of the industry. The Agency may consider
additional reporting requirements at a later date, with due notice and
opportunity for public comment.
Comment 2: One commenter stated that U.S. bluefin tuna re-exporters
are assigned an unfair reporting burden for re-export of untagged
bluefin tuna relative to the bluefin tuna trade industry in other
nations. The United States is one of the few countries that tags every
exported fish, which results in a reduced burden for re-exporters in
other nations. The U.S. industry carries more reporting burden than
industry members in other countries.
Response: The final rule requires that re-exporters of untagged
bluefin tuna provide copies of completed re-export certificates and
associated documentation to the ICCAT Secretariat and competent
authorities of importing nations at provided addresses. NMFS included
this requirement since ICCAT Recommendation 07-10 specifically requires
all nations, including the United States, to conduct such reporting.
However, the United States' sophisticated catch monitoring program,
which includes tagging every Atlantic bluefin tuna domestically and
commercially harvested, exempts U.S. industry members from certain
other parts of the ICCAT Recommendation 07-10 BCD program. NMFS will
continue to work with ICCAT to balance the burden of international
fisheries management fairly among participating nations. Overall, the
reporting requirements of the ICCAT BCD program that must be
implemented by the United States have been mitigated and reduced
because of the U.S. programs currently in place.
Comment 3: A commentor stated that the proposed rule and regulatory
program are complex, and the public comment period should be extended
and more public hearings should be held on the east coast.
Response: NMFS did not extend the public comment period for this
rulemaking or add public hearings to those announced with the proposed
rule. NMFS worked to balance its obligations of meeting the
international implementation deadline for the ICCAT BCD program while
also conducting extensive public outreach with email, direct mail, and
public hearings on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. NMFS undertook
mailings to current permit holders and shark fin importers, and held
public hearings in five locations that were chosen based on industry
participation during the previous ITP rulemaking (69 FR 67268, November
17, 2004). The Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel was briefed on April 16,
2008. Further, documentation associated with this rulemaking was
available on NMFS websites and www.regulations.gov. ICCAT adopted the
BCD recommendation at the end of November 2007 and required its
implementation by July 1, 2008. U.S. businesses desiring to export
bluefin tuna to foreign markets could be negatively impacted if the BCD
program was not in place by the required implementation date.
Comment 4: One ITP holder asked what type of document would be
necessary for bluefin tuna imports into the United States originating
from South Africa.
Response: The type of documentation required would depend upon the
species of bluefin tuna traded. Southern bluefin tuna are found through
the Southern Ocean, south of 30? South latitude. The final rule
requires that an ICCAT BCD accompany any shipment of Atlantic bluefin
tuna into the United States. The Commission for the Conservation of
Southern Bluefin Tuna's statistical document continues to be required
for imports of southern bluefin tuna into the United States.
Comment 5: One commentor noted that there are ``transfer houses''
in Boston that receive product from Canadian importers, but do not
appear to be required to report any information to NMFS. One permit
holder stated that they had experienced a greater degree of enforcement
attention from NMFS. Several permit holders requested that the
``playing field between businesses be level'' regarding reporting
burden and enforcement activity. One of these permit holders stated
that NMFS enforcement personnel may pay more attention to their company
because of its large size.
Response: The final rule maintains the previous requirement that
the importer, which is defined as the consignee as listed on entry
documentation required by Customs and Border Protection, must hold an
ITP and abide by reporting requirements. If a non-resident corporation
is listed as the consignee, then a resident agent is required to hold
the permit and fulfill reporting requirements. All permit holders are
equally responsible for abiding by applicable regulations. The NOAA
Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) investigates violations of
the regulations promulgated by NOAA, based on the individual facts and
circumstances of each case.
Comment 6: Several ITP holders expressed concern that they would be
held responsible for imports from other countries that appeared to be
legal, but were later determined to be illegal, unregulated, unreported
(IUU) product, or product that came with falsified statistical
documents that appeared to be legal upon import.
Response: HMS ITP holders are responsible for the reporting
requirements and administrative recordkeeping articulated in the ITP
regulations. Violations of the regulations promulgated by NOAA,
including instances of ITP dealer non-compliance, will be examined by
OLE on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual facts and
circumstances of each case.
Comment 7: One commentor requested that there be internationally
agreed upon methods for numbering consignment documents and for format
of documents to assist importers in identifying illegal product.
Response: ICCAT Recommendation 07-10 requires that each BCD have a
unique document identification number specific to the flag state. A
circular from ICCAT (Circular 569/08) dated April 14, 2008,
recommended a numbering convention for BCDs that would use 8 digits
which include the country code and year of capture, followed by a
unique, sequentially assigned number. The final rule states at Sec.
300.186(b): ``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.''
Comment 8: Several permit holders stated that they were supportive
of the increasing international role the United States is taking in
reducing IUU fishing.
Response: One of the purposes of ICCAT's BCD program is to more
[[Page 31382]]
accurately account for stock landings and help reduce IUU fishing. In
addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes several provisions to
reduce IUU fishing. NMFS published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on June 11, 2007 (72 FR 32052) and is currently drafting a
proposed rule to implement these provisions.
Comment 9: Current ITP holders commented on several operational
aspects of the trade monitoring program which were not addressed in
this rulemaking, in reference to swordfish imports. The issues raised
included the following: 1) most swordfish import statistical documents
are received by fax rather than original documents, and some arrive
three days after the consignment has been accepted in the United
States; 2) because of the amount of swordfish imported into the United
States, the trade monitoring requirements as written for swordfish are
overly burdensome; and 3) flexibility is needed in the format of
biweekly report forms. In addition, several comments were provided on
shark and shark fin fishery management.
Response: These issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking and
amendment to the ITP regulations. However, the current ITP regulations
require that imports of swordfish, bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna,
and frozen bigeye tuna be accompanied by original statistical documents
which are provided to NMFS if the United States is the final point of
import. Biweekly reports are required to be submitted to NMFS on forms
provided by NMFS. NMFS may consider future modifications of the HMS ITP
regulations, including further consideration of these comments. NMFS is
in the process of coordinating with Customs and Border Protection to
implement the International Trade Data System which is expected to
modify NMFS import and trade-monitoring programs. An advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking on this issue is expected to be published in the
Federal Register during 2008.
Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this
final rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the ATCA, the TCA, and other applicable law. The AA has
determined that this final 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 final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The
FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
summary of the significant issues raised by the public, and NMFS
responses to those comments. The FRFA describes the economic impacts
this final rule could have 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 analysis follows. A copy of this
analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The actions in this final rule could affect approximately 406
Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit (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 final rule because the final measures only
involve adjusting the permitting and reporting requirements. A
description of the alternatives, associated requirements, and estimated
costs follows.
The issues addressed in the final 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 the final
action. The final rule continues to require the consignee as indicated
in CBP import documentation to be the responsible party for obtaining
the ITP. This alternative was chosen to for enforcement purposes since
the consignee would be the actual receiver of the consignment, and
would have an address within the United States. The annual costs
associated with this action 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, and was not chosen because it would have resulted in
duplicative reporting. 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 final action, assuming that there is one additional permit
holder for each current permit holder. Costs per dealer would be the
same as for the final action. 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 final action, 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. This
alternative was not selected because importers of record can be
foreign-based companies, which could impede enforcement.
The second permitting issue with alternatives that could have
economic impacts is shark fin trader permitting. The final action
requires that shark fin traders obtain an HMS ITP. This alternative was
chosen to obtain information on the shark fin trade industry and
support regulatory enforcement. 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 annual costs are for obtaining the permit ($26.75 per
dealer). The other alternative considered for this issue was the ``No
Action'' Alternative, with neither permitting nor reporting costs for
shark traders. This alternative was not selected because it would not
provide the information needed on shark fin trading or support
regulatory enforcement.
The second category of issues addressed in the final 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
[[Page 31383]]
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. This
alternative was not chosen because the current use of a postmark does
not ensure that NMFS has received the report in a timely fashion.
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 was not selected because NMFS requires
the opportunity to review import statistical documents as close to the
time of import as possible. The regulation requiring the permit holder
to fax the document to NMFS within 24 hours balances the need for NMFS
to be promptly notified of the import with providing the permit holder
a reasonable amount of time to complete the document.
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 final action (Alternative 3) 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 was chosen because it
establishes consistency within HMS regulations by using the ``received-
by'' date to ensure NMFS receives the report by a date certain, and
provides for all report submission alternatives, including faxes. It
also retains the 24-hour reporting requirement for enforcement
purposes. 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 final action implements 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. This
alternative was chosen to keep the United States in compliance with the
ICCAT Recommendation, and ensure that U.S. product would be accepted
for import by other ICCAT member nations. The BCD program requires 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 will only affect HMS ITP
holders that re-export untagged bluefin tuna. When re-exporting an
untagged bluefin tuna, the HMS ITP holder is 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 No Action alternative was not
selected because it would result in the United States being out of
compliance with ICCAT recommendations, and would hinder export of U.S.
product to ICCAT member nations.
The last issue under this category addresses reporting of Atlantic
bluefin tuna exports. The final action provides 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 alternative was
chosen because it ensures the reporting burden for export of
domestically landed Atlantic bluefin tuna is not duplicative with
landing reporting requirements. 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, the final action
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. Neither of
these alternatives were selected because each had a higher overall
reporting burden than the final action. 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 final 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 final action 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 final action was selected because
it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and continues to
clearly articulate the applicability of HMS ITP program regulations to
shipments between the United States and its insular possessions. The
``No Action'' Alternative was not selected because it is not consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 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. This
alternative was not selected because it would unnecessarily increase
reporting burdens. If such consignments required 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 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 final rule that could have
economic impacts addresses the verification of foreign validating
officials for imports. The final 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. This alternative was selected to
mitigate reporting burden for U.S. businesses and further coordinate
international
[[Page 31384]]
action for this issue. Likewise, the ``No Action'' Alternative would
not have economic consequences since it does not require any current or
additional action. This alternative was not selected because it would
not provide a way to verify validating authorities. 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. Alternative Two was not selected because
it is unclear whether it is consistent with the intent of the ICCAT
statistical document program.
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, ICCAT, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, 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 Regional
Fishery Management Councils and other relevant agencies. NMFS does not
believe that the final rule would conflict with any relevant
regulations, federal or other.
One of the requirements of FRFA 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 final 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 in this final 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 final rule clarifies 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 final rule does not modify the current
regulations, which is the simplest of the alternatives considered.
The final rule reduces and simplifies 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 final rule also clarifies 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 final rule also directly addresses issues of regulatory
structure and clarification. The final rule updates certain HTS codes
and serves in part to clarify reporting. The final rule also adopts 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 final rule
clarifies that the regulatory requirements in 50 CFR part 300 subpart M
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 final 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 are required to obtain an HMS ITP under the final rule.
This final rule contains revisions to collection-of-information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act which have been
previously approved by OMB under the HMS Permitting Family of Forms
(0648-0327) and the HMS Dealer Reporting Family of Forms (0648-0040).
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.
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect
of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden
to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email 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.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Fisheries,
[[Page 31385]]
Fishing, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
Dated: May 27, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 subpart M and part
635 are amended as follows:
Chapter III
PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS
Subpart M--International Trade Documentation and Tracking Programs
for Highly Migratory Species
0
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.
0
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 tag'', ``Bluefin Tuna Catch Document
(BCD)'', ``Consignment document'', ``Consignment documentation
programs'', ``Shark fin'', ``Statistical document'', and ``Statistical
document program'' 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 a bluefin tuna catch
document issued by a nation implementing the ICCAT bluefin tuna catch
documentation program.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
0
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.
(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.
* * * * *
0
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.
[[Page 31386]]
(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,
and any 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.
0
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.
0
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 (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
[[Page 31387]]
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 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. For re-exports
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, to be received by the ICCAT
[[Page 31388]]
Secretariat and the importing nation, within five days of export.
(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.
0
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.
0
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 requirements are waived to the appropriate
customs officials. Such list will indicate the circumstances of
exemption for each issuing country and the non-government institutions,
if any, accredited to validate statistical documents and re-export
certificates for that country.
(b) Exports. The approved consignment document accompanying any
export of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart must be
validated, except pursuant to a waiver described in paragraph (d) of
this section. Validation must be made by NMFS or another official
authorized by NMFS.
* * * * *
(d) Validation waiver. Any waiver of government validation will be
consistent with applicable RFMO recommendations concerning validation
of consignment documents and re-export certificates. If authorized,
such waiver of government validation may include exemptions from
government validation for Pacific bluefin tuna with individual BCD tags
affixed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section or for Atlantic
bluefin tuna with tags affixed pursuant to Sec. 635.5(b) of this
title. Waivers will be specified on consignment documents and re-export
certificates or accompanying instructions, or in a letter to permit
holders from NMFS.
(e) Authorization for non-NMFS validation. An official from an
organization or government agency seeking authorization to validate
consignment documents or re-export certificates accompanying exports or
re-exports from the United States, which includes U.S. commonwealths,
territories, and possessions, must apply in writing, to NMFS, at an
address designated by NMFS for such authorization. The application must
indicate the procedures to be used for verification of information to
be validated; list the names, addresses, and telephone/fax numbers of
individuals to perform validation; procedures to be used to notify NMFS
of validations; and an example of the stamp or seal to be applied to
the consignment document or re-export certificate. NMFS, upon finding
the applicant capable of verifying the information required on the
consignment document or re-export certificate, will issue, within 30
days, a letter specifying the duration of effectiveness and conditions
of authority to validate consignment documents or re-export
certificates accompanying exports or re-exports from the United States.
The effective date of such authorization will be delayed as necessary
for NMFS to notify the appropriate RFMO of other officials authorized
to validate consignment document or re-export certificates. Non-
government organizations given authorization to validate consignment
documents or re-export certificates must renew such authorization on a
yearly basis.
(f) BCD tags--(1) Issuance. NMFS will issue numbered BCD tags for
use on Pacific bluefin tuna upon request to each permit holder.
(2) Transfer. BCD tags issued under this section are not
transferable and are usable only by the permit holder to whom they are
issued.
(3) Affixing BCD tags. At the discretion of permit holders, a tag
issued under this section may be affixed to each Pacific bluefin tuna
purchased or received by the permit holder. If so tagged, the tag must
be affixed to the tuna between the fifth dorsal finlet and the keel.
(4) Removal of tags. A tag, as defined in this subpart and affixed
to any bluefin tuna, must remain on the tuna until it is cut into
portions. If the bluefin tuna or bluefin tuna parts are subsequently
packaged for transport for domestic commercial use or for export, the
number of each dealer tag or BCD tag must be written legibly and
indelibly on the outside of any package containing the bluefin tuna or
bluefin tuna parts. Such tag number also must be recorded on any
document accompanying the consignment of bluefin tuna or bluefin tuna
parts for commercial use or export.
(5) Labeling. The number of a BCD tag affixed to each Pacific
bluefin tuna under this section must be recorded on NMFS reports
required by Sec. 300.183, on any documents accompanying the
consignment of Pacific bluefin tuna for domestic commercial use or
export as indicated in Sec. 300.185, and on any additional documents
that accompany the consignment (e.g., bill of lading, customs manifest,
etc.) of the tuna for commercial use or for export.
(6) Reuse. BCD tags issued under this section are separately
numbered and may be used only once, one tag per Pacific bluefin tuna,
to distinguish the purchase of one Pacific bluefin tuna. Once affixed
to a tuna or recorded on any package, container or report, a BCD tag
and associated number may not be reused.
0
9. Section 300.188 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.188 Ports of entry.
NMFS shall monitor the importation of fish or fish products
regulated under this subpart into the United States. If NMFS determines
that the diversity of handling practices at certain ports at which fish
or fish products regulated under this subpart are being imported
[[Page 31389]]
into the United States allows for circumvention of the consignment
document requirement, NMFS may undertake a rulemaking to designate,
after consultation with the CBP, those ports at which fish or fish
products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area may be
imported into the United States.
0
10. In Sec. 300.189, paragraphs (h) through (j), and (m) are revised
and paragraph (n) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 300.189 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(h) Validate consignment documents or re-export certificates
without authorization as specified in Sec. 300.187.
(i) Validate consignment documents or re-export certificates as
provided for in Sec. 300.187 with false information.
(j) Remove any NMFS-issued numbered tag affixed to any Pacific
bluefin tuna or any tag affixed to a bluefin tuna imported from a
country with a BCD tag program before removal is allowed under Sec.
300.187; fail to write the tag number on the shipping package or
container as specified in Sec. 300.187; or reuse any NMFS-issued
numbered tag affixed to any Pacific bluefin tuna, or any tag affixed to
a bluefin tuna imported from a country with a BCD tag program, or any
tag number previously written on a shipping package or container as
prescribed by Sec. 300.187.
* * * * *
(m) Fail to provide a validated consignment document for imports at
time of entry into the Customs territory of the United States of fish
or fish products regulated under this subpart except shark fins,
regardless of whether the importer, exporter, or re-exporter holds a
valid trade permit issued pursuant to Sec. 300.182 or whether the fish
products are imported as an entry for consumption.
(n) Import or accept an imported consignment of fish or fish
products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, without an
original, completed, approved, validated, species-specific consignment
document and re-export certificate (if applicable) with the required
information and exporter's certification completed.
Chapter VI
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
0
11. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 635, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sec. 635.2 [Amended]
0
12. In Sec. 635.2, the definition of ``Import'' is removed.
0
13. In Sec. 635.5, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Bi-weekly reports. Each dealer with a valid Atlantic tunas
permit under Sec. 635.4 must submit a complete bi-weekly report on
forms available from NMFS for BFT received from U.S. vessels. For BFT
received from U.S. vessels on the 1\st\ through the 15\th\ of each
month, the dealer must submit the bi-weekly report form to NMFS, to be
received by NMFS, not later than the 25\th\ of that month. Reports of
BFT received on the 16\th\ through the last day of each month must be
received by NMFS not later than the 10\th\ of the following month.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-12232 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S