DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

 Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce is one of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies 

in the Federal Government. The Department’s mission is to create the conditions for economic 

growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and 

environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which are responsible for 

managing a diverse portfolio of programs and services, ranging from trade promotion and 

economic development assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service. 

 The Department touches Americans daily, in many ways--making possible the daily weather 

reports and survey research; facilitating technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the 

home each day; supporting the development, gathering, and transmission of information essential 

to competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies and goods found in America's and 

the world's marketplace; and supporting environmental and economic health for the communities 

in which Americans live. 

 Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role in the Federal Government, 

and for its roles supporting the American people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, 

the Department works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers to: 

 Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge science and technology from advances 

in nanotechnology, to ocean exploration, to broadband deployment, and by protecting 

American innovations through the patent and trademark system; 

 Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling community development 

and strengthening minority businesses and small manufacturers; 

 Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global marketplace by promoting exports, 

ensuring a level playing field for U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is 

consistent with our Nation’s economic and security interests; 

1

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 Provide effective management and stewardship of our Nation's resources and assets to 

ensure sustainable economic opportunities; and 

 Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding of the economy by providing 

accurate economic and demographic data. 

 The Department is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and Cabinet-level voice for job 

creation. 

 The Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that implement these policy and 

program priorities, several of which involve regulation of the private sector by the Department. 

Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

 The vast majority of the Department's programs and activities do not involve regulation. Of the 

Department's 12 primary operating units, only the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) will be planning actions that are considered the "most important" 

significant preregulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2012. During the next year, NOAA plans to 

publish four rulemaking actions that are designated as regulatory plan actions. The Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) will also publish rulemaking actions designated as regulatory plan 

actions. Further information on these actions is provided below. 

 The Department has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any regulation that 

discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, or any other suspect category and requires 

that all regulations be written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The 

Secretary also requires that the Department afford the public the maximum possible opportunity 

to participate in departmental rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of 

the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential 

environmental and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's economy, such as 

weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm warnings. It is a source of objective information 

2

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
on the state of the environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving the Departmental goal of 

promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global environment. 

 Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship, the 

Department, through NOAA, conducts programs designed to provide a better understanding of 

the connections between environmental health, economics, and national security. Commerce's 

emphasis on "sustainable fisheries" is designed to boost long-term economic growth in a vital 

sector of the U.S. economy while conserving the resources in the public trust and minimizing any 

economic dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. The Department is where 

business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic debate on the use of natural 

resources is transformed into a "win-win" situation for the environment and the economy. 

 Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the 

National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

Service (NESDIS), exercise regulatory authority. 

 NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine fisheries, protects 

threatened and endangered marine and anadromous species and marine mammals, and 

promotes economic development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal States in 

their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones, including estuarine 

research reserves; manages the national marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and 

directs the national program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS 

administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private organizations to operate 

commercial land-remote sensing satellite systems. 

 The Department, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship of the global 

environment through effective management of the Nation's marine and coastal resources and in 

monitoring and predicting changes in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, 

and technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal responsibility for 

providing sound scientific observations, assessments, and forecasts of environmental 

phenomena on which resource management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be 

made. 

3

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: Rebuilding and maintaining 

strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based tools and ecosystem approaches to management; 

increasing the populations of depleted, threatened, or endangered species and marine mammals 

by implementing recovery plans that provide for their recovery while still allowing for economic 

and recreational opportunities; promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic 

development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for 

sustained use; and modernizing navigation and positioning services. In the environmental 

assessment and prediction area, goals include: Understanding climate change science and 

impacts, and communicating that understanding to government and private sector stakeholders 

enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National Weather Service; implementing 

reliable seasonal and interannual climate forecasts to guide economic planning; providing 

science-based policy advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial) 

changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term warning and forecast 

services for the entire environment. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 

rulemakings concern the conservation and management of fishery resources in the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 nautical miles). Among the several hundred 

rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue in FY 2012, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory 

actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is unknown, since they are 

usually initiated by the actions of eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are 

responsible for preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for 

drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues regulations to 

implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its 

rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory species, 

such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed directly by NOAA, not by FMCs. 

4

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing opportunities on healthy stocks, 

rebuilding overfished stocks, and addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may 

address is preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries. This 

may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch shares, which permit shareholders to 

harvest a quantity of fish and which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on 

the best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit for a species in a fishery or 

as a share assigned to each vessel participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other 

measures include staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the 

fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area closures to protect fishery stocks. 

 The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best scientific information 

available, make the judgments needed to determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. 

Optional management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the national 

standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, including the selection of the 

preferred management measures, constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. 

The FMP, together with draft implementing regulations and supporting documentation, is 

submitted to NMFS for review against the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, in other provisions of the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to 

amending an existing approved FMP. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act

 The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority for the 

conservation and management of marine mammals under U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, 

with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals. Exceptions allow for permitting the 

collection of wild animals for scientific research or public display or to enhance the survival of a 

species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under the MMPA to establish a management 

regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries. 

The MMPA also established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes recommendations to 

the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and the Interior and other Federal officials on 

protecting and conserving marine mammals. The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to 

5

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
allow for takings incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide certain exemptions for 

subsistence and scientific uses, and to require the preparation of stock assessments for all 

marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. 

Endangered Species Act

 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the conservation of species that are 

determined to be "endangered" or "threatened," and the conservation of the ecosystems on which 

these species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

to jointly administer the provisions of the MMPA. NMFS manages marine and "anadromous" 

species, and FWS manages land and freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to 

protect critically imperiled species from extinction. Of the 1,310 listed species found in part or 

entirely in the United States and its waters, NMFS has jurisdiction over approximately 60 species. 

NMFS' rulemaking actions are focused on determining whether any species under its 

responsibility is an endangered or threatened species and whether those species must be added 

to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for designating, reviewing, and revising 

critical habitat for any listed species. In addition, under the ESA's procedural framework, Federal 

agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that 

agency that may affect one of the listed species or designated critical habitat, or is likely to 

jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat that is under NMFS' 

jurisdiction. 

NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions 

 While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the level necessary to be 

included in the Department's regulatory plan, NMFS is undertaking four actions that rise to the 

level of "most important" of the Department’s significant regulatory actions and thus are included 

in this year's regulatory plan. The four actions implement provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as reauthorized in 2006. The third action may be of 

particular interest to international trading partners as it concerns the Certification of Nations 

Whose Fishing Vessels are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch 

6

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
of Protected Living Marine Resources. A description of the four regulatory plan actions is 

provided below. 

1. Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico 

(0648-AS65): In January 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council approved the 

Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan, which authorizes NMFS to issue permits to culture 

species managed by the Council (except shrimp and corals). This was the first time a regional 

Fishery Management Council approved a comprehensive regulatory program for offshore 

aquaculture in U.S. Federal waters. On September 3, 2009, the Aquaculture Fishery 

Management Plan entered into effect by operation of law and Dr. Lubchenco announced that 

NOAA would develop a new National Aquaculture Policy, which would provide context for the 

Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan. On June 9, 2011, NOAA released the final National 

Aquaculture Policy and announced that the Agency will move forward with the rulemaking to 

implement the Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan. The Aquaculture Plan has received 

regional and national media attention and was challenged in two lawsuits. Although the lawsuits 

were dismissed, additional legal challenges are anticipated when the final rule is issued. A vocal 

coalition of environmental, non-governmental organizations and fishermen’s groups opposed to 

marine aquaculture has been actively following the process. Others, including some fishing and 

seafood groups, support the Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan. 

2. Amend the Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Under the High Seas 

Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to Include International Provisions of the Shark 

Conservation Act (0648-BA89): As required under the international provisions of the Shark 

Conservation Act, the rule would amend the identification and certification procedures under the 

High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection to include the identification of a foreign nation 

whose fishing vessels engaged during the preceding calendar year in fishing activities in areas 

beyond any national jurisdiction that target or incidentally catch sharks if that nation has not 

adopted a regulatory program to provide for the conservation of sharks that is comparable to that 

of the United States, taking into account different conditions. NMFS also intends to amend the 

7

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
regulatory definition of “illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing” for purposes of the 

identification and certification procedures under the Moratorium Protection Act. 

3. Critical Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whale (0648-AY54): In 1994, NMFS designated critical 

habitat for the northern right whale in the North Atlantic Ocean. This critical habitat designation 

includes portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank, the Great South Channel, and waters 

adjacent to the coasts of Georgia and Florida. In 2008, NMFS published final determinations 

listing right whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific as separate endangered species under 

the ESA and initiated work on new critical habitat designations triggered by these 2008 listings. 

On October 1, 2009, NMFS received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, Ocean Conservancy, and the Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation Society to revise the designated critical habitat of the North Atlantic right 

whale. The petition seeks an expansion of the areas designated as critical feeding and calving 

habitats and also seeks to include a migratory corridor as part of the critical habitat designation. 

On October 6, 2010, NMFS published a 90-day finding and 12-month determination stating the 

intent to proceed with publishing a proposed rule to revise critical habitat. 

4. Reduce Disturbance to Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins from Human Interactions (0648-AU02): 

Spinner dolphins are being disturbed in their natural resting habitats by human activities, which 

may be altering the dolphins’ normal behavioral patterns. NMFS is proposing time-area closures 

to protect the essential resting habitat of spinner dolphins and to reduce the human activities that 

cause unauthorized taking of these dolphins under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and its 

implementing regulations. The proposed rule lists time-area closures including four bays on the 

island of Hawaii, and one on the island of Maui. Adaptive management strategies will be used to 

monitor the effectiveness of the proposed rule and allow for necessary improvements. This 

proposed action will set a precedent for NMFS' management of wildlife viewing activities. This 

proposed action represents the first proposal by NMFS to use regulated area closures to reduce 

8

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
harassment of non-ESA listed marine mammals resulting from activities aimed at viewing and 

interacting with these animals. 

 At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the identified Regulatory Plan 

actions as several of these actions are currently under development. 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

 The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national security, foreign policy, and 

economic objectives by maintaining and strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export 

control and treaty compliance systems, as well as by administering programs to prioritize certain 

contracts to promote the national defense and to protect and enhance the defense industrial 

base. 

 In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency review of the U.S. export 

control system with the goal of strengthening national security and the competitiveness of key 

U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors by focusing on the current threats and adapting to the 

changing economic and technological landscape. In August 2010, the President outlined an 

approach under which agencies that administer export controls will apply new criteria for 

determining what items need to be controlled and a common set of policies for determining when 

an export license is required. The control list criteria are to be based on transparent rules, which 

will reduce the uncertainty faced by our Allies, U.S. industry and its foreign customers, and will 

allow the Government to erect higher walls around the most sensitive export items in order to 

enhance national security. 

 Under the President's approach, agencies will apply the criteria and revise the lists of 

munitions and dual use items that are controlled for export so that they: 

 Are "tiered" to distinguish the types of items that should be subject to stricter or more 

permissive levels of control for different destinations, end-uses, and end-users; 

 Create a "bright line" between the two current control lists to clarify jurisdictional 

determinations and reduce government and industry uncertainty about whether particular items 

are subject to the control of the State Department or the Commerce Department; and 

9

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 Are structurally aligned so that they potentially can be combined into a single list of controlled 

items. 

 BIS' current regulatory plan action is designed to implement the initial phase of the President's 

directive. 

Major Programs and Activities 

 BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) 

regulate exports and reexports to protect national security, foreign policy, and short supply 

interests. The EAR also regulates participation of U.S. persons in certain boycotts administered 

by foreign governments. The National Defense Industrial Base Regulations provide for 

prioritization of certain contracts and allocations of resources to promote the national defense, 

require reporting of foreign government-imposed offsets in defense sales, and address the effect 

of imports on the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations 

implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector 

necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention 

treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with respect to an 

agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

 BIS also has an enforcement component with eight field offices in the United States. BIS 

export control officers are also stationed at several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS 

works with other U.S. Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in 

export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government efforts to strengthen 

multilateral export control regimes and to promote effective export controls through cooperation 

with other governments. 

BIS' Regulatory Plan Actions 

 As the agency responsible for leading the administration and enforcement of the U.S. dual-use 

export control system, BIS plays a central role in the Administration's efforts to fundamentally 

reform the export control system. Changing what we control, how we control it, and how we 

enforce and manage our controls will help strengthen our national security by focusing our efforts 

10

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
on controlling the most critical products and technologies, and by enhancing the competitiveness 

of key U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors. 

 In FY 2011, BIS took several steps to implement the President’s Export Control Reform 

Initiative. BIS published a final rule (76 FR 35276, June 16, 2011) implementing a license 

exception that authorizes exports, reexports, and transfers to destinations that do not pose a 

national security concern, provided certain safeguards against diversion to other destinations are 

taken. BIS also proposed a rule that provides a framework for controlling militarily less significant 

defense articles, largely generic parts and components, on the Commerce Control List (CCL) 

rather than the United States Munitions List. In the immediate future, BIS will work with other 

agencies to implement transfers of such items to the CCL and to make the CCL a more positive 

list. Looking further ahead BIS will work with other agencies to place items on the CCL into one 

of three tiers, corresponding to different levels of sensitivity. 

 Tier 1 will include the most sensitive items. These are items that provide a critical military or 

intelligence advantage to the United States and are available almost exclusively from the United 

States, or are items that are a weapon of mass destruction. 

 Tier 2 will include items that are sensitive but not as sensitive, as those in Tier 1. These are 

items that provide a substantial military or intelligence advantage to the United States and are 

available almost exclusively from either the United States or our partners and allies. 

 Tier 3 will include items that are less sensitive than those in Tier 2. These items will be those 

that provide a significant military or intelligence advantage but are available more broadly. BIS 

will also be developing other rules to implement additional aspects of the export control reform as 

those aspects are identified and decided. 

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

 Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review" (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified 

as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department’s final retrospective 

review of regulations plan. Accordingly, the Agency is reviewing these rules to determine whether 

11

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
action under E.O. 13563 is appropriate. Some of these entries on this list may be completed 

actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found 

about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in 

the Completed Actions section for the Agency. These rulemakings can also be found 

on Regulations.gov. The final Agency retrospective analysis plan can be found at: 

http://open.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/Commerce%20Plan%20for%20Retrospective%20An

alysis%20of%20Existing%20Rules%20-%202011-08-22%20Final.pdf 

RIN TITLE Expected To Significantly 

Reduce Burdens on Small 

Businesses? 

0610-AA66 Revisions to EDA’s 

Regulations 

Yes 

0625–AA81 Foreign Trade Zones Yes 

0648-AN55 Amendments 61/61/13/8 to 

Implement Major Provisions of 

the American Fisheries Act 

0648-AL92 Western Alaska Community 

Development Quota Program 

0648-AP12 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and 

Butterfish Fisheries; 

Framework Adjustment 2 

Yes 

0648-AO62 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf 

of Mexico: Charter Vessel and 

Headboat Permit Moratorium 

Yes 

0648-AL41 Nearshore Area Closures 

Around American Samoa by 

Vessels More Than 50 Feet in 

12

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Length 

0648-AP78 Fisheries of the Northeastern 

United States: Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery 

0648-AN75 Pelagic Longline Gear 

Restrictions, Seasonal Area 

Closure, and Other Sea Turtle 

Mitigation Measures 

0648-AP37 Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2002 

Specifications 

0648-AO35 Measures To Reduce the 

Incidental Catch of Seabirds in 

the Hawaii Pelagic Longline 

Fishery 

0648-AP76 Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab 

Fishery Management Plan 

0648-AP39 Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery: Experimental Setnet 

Sablefish Landings To Qualify 

Limited Entry SablefishEndorsed permits for Tier 

Assignment 

0648-AO20 Fisheries of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone off Alaska: 

Revisions to Recordkeeping 

and Reporting Requirements 

Yes 

0648-AQ05 Extend the Interim Groundfish 

13

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Observer Program Through 

December 31, 2007, and 

Amend Regulations for the 

North pacific Groundfish 

Observer Program 

0648-AN88 Taking of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Commercial 

Fishing Operations: Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan Regulations 

0648-AK23 Fisheries Off West Coast 

States and in the Western 

Pacific: Precious Corals 

Fisheries; Harvest Quotas, 

Definitions, Size Limits, Gear 

Restrictions, and Bed 

Classification 

0648-AP21 Implementation of the Shark 

Finning Prohibition Act 

0648-AP49 Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species; Pelagic Longline 

Fishery; Shark Gillnet Fishery: 

Sea Turtle and Whale 

Protection Measures 

0648-AM40 License Limitation Program for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Area 

0648-AP79 Prohibition of Non-pelagic 

14

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Trawl Gear in Cook Inlet in the 

Gulf of Alaska 

0648-AO69 Fisheries Off the West Coast 

States and in the Western 

Pacific; Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery: Annual 

Specifications and 

Management Measures 

0648-AK70 Fisheries of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone Off Alaska: 

Individual Fishing Quota 

Program 

0648-AP81 Sea Turtle Conservation 

Measures of the Pound Net 

Fishery in Virginia Waters 

0648-AP17 Take of Four Threatened 

Evolutionarily Significant Units 

of West Coast Salmon 

0648-AP68 Atlantic Large Whale Seasonal 

Area Management Program 

0648-AN29 Regulations Governing the 

Approach to Humpback 

Whales in Alaska 

0648-AK50 Fisheries of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone Off Alaska: 

Improved Individual Fishing 

Quota Program 

15

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
0648-AM72 Western Alaska Community 

Development Quota Program 

0648-AN23 Fisheries of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone Off Alaska: 

Revisions to Definition of 

Length Overall of a Vessel 

0648-AL95 Fisheries of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone Off Alaska: 

License Limitation Program 

0648-AO02 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries 

Cooperative Management Act 

Provisions: Horseshoe Crab 

Fishery – Closed Area 

0648-AF87 Fisheries of the Northeastern 

United States: Fishery 

Management Plan for Tilefish 

0648-AN27 Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery: Groundfish Observer 

Program 

0648-AL51 West Coast Salmon Fisheries: 

Amendment 14 

0648-AO41 Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery: Amendment 13 

0648-AO97 Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery: Amendment 14 

0648-AO42 International Fisheries 

Regulations: Pacific Tuna 

16

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Fisheries 

0648-BA42 Fisheries of the Northeastern 

United States; Tilefish Cost 

Recovery Regulatory 

Amendment 

0648-BA06 Fisheries of the Caribbean, 

Gulf of Mexico, and South 

Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of 

the Gulf of Mexico; Emergency 

Rule To Authorize Re-Opening 

the Recreational Red Snapper 

Season 

Yes 

0694-AF03 Export Control Reform 

Initiative: Strategic Trade 

Authorization License 

Exception 

0694-AF17 Revisions to the Export 

Administration Regulations 

(EAR): Control of Items the 

President Determines No 

Longer Warrant Control Under 

the United States Munitions 

List (USML) 

Yes 

17

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
The 5 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Rulemaking 

Stage

Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of

Mexico 0648-AS65 Proposed Rule Stage

Reducing Disturbances to Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins From Human Interactions 0648-AU02 Proposed Rule Stage

Designation of Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale 0648-AY54 Proposed Rule Stage

Regulatory Amendments To Implement the Shark Conservation Act and Revise the

Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing 0648-BA89 Proposed Rule Stage

Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Military Vehicles and

Related Items that the President Determines do not Warrant Control on the United States

Munitions List

0694-AF17 Final Rule Stage

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) RIN: 0648-AS65

 View Related Documents

Title: Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico

Abstract: The purpose of this fishery management plan (FMP) is to develop a regional permitting process for regulating and

promoting environmentally sound and economically sustainable aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic

zone. This FMP consists of ten actions, each with an associated range of management alternatives, which would facilitate the

permitting of an estimated 5 to 20 offshore aquaculture operations in the Gulf over the next 10 years, with an estimated annual

production of up to 64 million pounds. By establishing a regional permitting process for aquaculture, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council will be positioned to achieve their primary goal of increasing maximum sustainable yield and optimum

yield of federal fisheries in the Gulf by supplementing harvest of wild caught species with cultured product.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 622 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 16 USC 1801 et seq

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Demand for protein is increasing in the United States and commercial wild-capture fisheries will not

likely be adequate to meet this growing demand. Aquaculture is one method to meet current and future demands for seafood.

Supplementing the harvest of domestic fisheries with cultured product will help the U.S. meet consumers' growing demand for

seafood and may reduce the Nation's dependence on seafood imports. Currently, the U.S. imports over 80 percent of the

seafood consumed in the country, and the annual U.S. seafood trade deficit is at an all time high of over $9 billion.

Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Alternatives: The Council's Aquaculture FMP includes 10 actions, each with an associated range of alternatives. These

actions and alternatives are collectively intended to establish a regional permitting process for offshore aquaculture.

Management actions in the FMP include: (1) Aquaculture permit requirements, eligibility, and transferability; (2) duration

aquaculture permits are effective; (3) aquaculture application requirements, operational requirements, and restrictions; (4)

species allowed for aquaculture; (5) allowable aquaculture systems; (6) marine aquaculture siting requirements and conditions;

(7) restricted access zones for aquaculture facilities; (8) recordkeeping and reporting requirements; (9) biological reference

points and status determination criteria; and (10) framework procedures for modifying biological reference points and regulatory

measures.

Costs and Benefits: Environmental and social/economic costs and benefits are described in detail in the Council's

Aquaculture FMP. Potential benefits include: establishing a rigorous review process for reviewing and approving/denying

aquaculture permits; increasing optimum yield by supplementing the harvest of wild domestic fisheries with cultured products;

and reducing the nation's dependence on imported seafood. Anticipated costs include increased administration and oversight of

an aquaculture permitting process, and potential negative environmental impacts to wild marine resources. Approval of an

18

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
aquaculture permitting system may also benefit fishing communities by creating new jobs or impact fishing communities if

cultured products economically displace domestic seafood.

Risks: National offshore aquaculture legislation has also been previously proposed by the Administration. This action may

reduce the need for uniform national legislation and allow aquaculture regulations to vary by region.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice of Availability (NOA) 06/04/2009 74 FR 26829 

NOA Comment Period End 08/03/2009 

NPRM 12/00/2011 

Final Action 03/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Roy E. Crabtree

Southeast Regional Administrator

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

263 13th Avenue South

St. Petersburg , FL 33701 

Phone: 727 824-5305 

FAX: 727 824-5308

E-Mail: roy.crabtree@noaa.gov

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) RIN: 0648-AU02

 View Related Documents

Title: Reducing Disturbances to Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins From Human Interactions

Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes regulations to protect the essential resting habitat of wild spinner

dolphins (Stenella longirostris) in the main Hawaiian Islands, and to reduce the human activities that may cause "take," as

defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its implementing regulations, or from other actions that otherwise

adversely affect the dolphins, by proposing time-area closures in four bays on the island of Hawaii, and one on the island of

Maui.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 216 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 16 USC 1361 et seq

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: NMFS is concerned about the cumulative impacts on Hawaiian spinner dolphin populations from

human interactions. Human interactions with dolphins in their resting habitats has increased over the past decade, with spinner

dolphins now being the target of viewing or swim-with-wild-dolphins tours on a daily basis. Because spinner dolphins routinely

use the same habitats, and stay in the bays for most of the day to rest, these same animals may be disturbed multiple times per

day from the multiple tours that seek these animals daily. The unauthorized taking of spinner dolphins is occurring at these

bays, with many adverse impacts as a result including: behavioral changes, shorter resting periods, and displacement from

primary resting habitats. By protecting the essential resting habitat of the spinner dolphins, NMFS proposes to prevent the

taking of these animals.

Legal Basis: All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS is proposing

these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking authority under MMPA 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1372 et seq., which

generally prohibits the take of any marine mammals; and 16 U.S.C. 1382 et seq.

Alternatives: 1. No Action 2. Regulate human behaviors and activities 3. Implement time-area closures in specified spinner

dolphin resting habitats 4. Combine limits on specified human behaviors with time-area closures 5. Full closure of all identified

spinner dolphin resting habitats 6. Codify the West Hawaii Voluntary Standards for Marine Tourism

19

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Costs and Benefits: The primary benefit of this action would be to reduce the unauthorized taking of spinner dolphins in

their primary resting habitat. These animals are being disturbed in an area that is significant to their health, reproduction and

survival. Managing the amount of interactions humans can have with spinner dolphins will help protect the animals in their

natural environment. Costs with this proposed rule would affect humans as their use of these particular bays would be limited.

Commercial tour operators, kayak companies, and spiritual retreat operators may be negatively economically impacted. The

public at large would not be allowed to engage in activities in the closure areas, and they may therefore associate a cost with

this proposed action.

Risks: No risks to public health, safety or the environment were identified with implementation of this rule.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 12/12/2005 70 FR 73426 

ANPRM Comment Period End 01/11/2006 

NPRM 12/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Melissa Andersen 

Fishery Biologist, Management

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring , MD 20910 

Phone: 301 713-2322 Extension: 173 

FAX: 301 713-2521

E-Mail: melissa.andersen@noaa.gov

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) RIN: 0648-AY54

 View Related Documents

Title: Designation of Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale

Abstract: In June 1970, the northern right whale was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act,

the precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(35 FR 8495; codified at 50 CFR 17.11). Subsequently, right whales were

listed as endangered under the ESA in 1973, and as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) the same year.

In 1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for the northern right whale, a single species thought at the time to include right

whales in both the north Atlantic and the North Pacific. In 2006, NMFS published a comprehensive right whale status review

that concluded that recent genetic data provided unequivocal support to distinguish three right whale lineages (including the

southern right whale) as separate phylogenetic species (Rosenbaum et al. 2000). Rosenbaum et al. (2000), concluded that the

right whale should be regarded as the following three separate species: (1) The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

ranging in the North Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), ranging in the North Pacific Ocean;

and (3) the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), historically ranging throughout the southern hemisphere's oceans. Based

on these findings, NMFS published a proposed and final determination listing right whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific

as separate endangered species under the ESA (71 FR 77704, Dec. 27, 2006; 73 FR 12024, Mar. 6, 2008). Based on the new

listing determination, NMFS is required by the ESA to designate critical habitat separately for both the North Atlantic right whale

and the North Pacific right whale. In April 2008, a final critical habitat determination was published for the North Pacific right

whale (73 FR 19000; Apr. 8, 2008). At this time, NMFS is preparing a proposal to designate critical habitat for the North Atlantic

right whale.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226; 50 CFR 229 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 16 USC 1361 et seq; 16 USC 1531 to 1543

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to designate critical

habitat for newly listed species.

20

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act

Alternatives: Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development, no alternatives have been formulated or

analyzed at this time.

Costs and Benefits: Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development, no analysis has been

completed at this time to assess costs and benefits.

Risks: Loss of critical habitat for a species listed as protected under the ESA and MMPA, as well as potential loss of right

whales due to habitat loss.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Marta Nammack 

Office of Protected Resources

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring , MD 20910 

Phone: 301 713-1401 Extension: 180 

FAX: 301 427-2523

E-Mail: marta.nammack@noaa.gov

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) RIN: 0648-BA89

 View Related Documents

Title: Regulatory Amendments To Implement the Shark Conservation Act and Revise the Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and

Unregulated Fishing

Abstract: NMFS is amending identification and certification procedures under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium

Protection Act to help achieve shark conservation in international fisheries. NMFS must identify nations whose fishing vessels

have engaged in high seas fisheries targeting or incidentally catching sharks not subject to a regulatory program for the

conservation of sharks comparable to that of the United States, taking into account different conditions, as required under the

Shark Conservation Act (Pub. L. 111-348). NMFS would subsequently certify whether identified nations have adopted regulatory

programs governing the conservation of sharks that are comparable to U.S. programs, taking into account different conditions,

and established management plans for sharks. The absence of sufficient steps may lead to prohibitions on the importation of

certain fisheries products into the United States and other measures. NMFS is also amending the regulatory definition of "illegal,

unreported, and unregulated fishing" under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. The procedures for

identification and certification would entail a multilateral approach of consultations and negotiations with other nations to achieve

shark conservation. This action is not expected to have adverse economic impacts, and any such impacts would be well below

the economic threshold of impact pursuant to E.O. 12866. In addition, there are no novel legal or policy issues associated with

this action since identification and certification procedures have already been established in regulations (50 CFR part 300).

However, this action is significant under the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it could lead to trade restrictive measures applied

against foreign nations.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 16 USC 1826d to 1826k

Legal Deadline: 

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory The rule needs to be published by December 4, 2011, due to the 30-

day delay in effectiveness. 01/04/2012 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: These regulatory amendments are required to implement the international provisions of the Shark

21

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Conservation Act to identify and certify nations whose vessels are engaged in shark finning and/or fishing for sharks in a

manner that is not consistent with international management efforts. Additionally, this rule would revise the definition of Illegal,

Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in response to comments on a prior rulemaking (0648-AV51) that set out the

regulatory definition of IUU fishing.

Legal Basis: Shark Conservation Act (Pub. L. 111-348) and 16 U.S.C. 1826d to 1826k.

Alternatives: This action is categorically excluded from analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act because the

proposed action is the promulgation of regulations of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and the

environmental effects of which are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and for

which any potential cumulative effects are negligible. Consequently, no alternatives were analyzed.

Costs and Benefits: This action is not expected to have adverse economic impacts, and any such impacts would be well

below the economic threshold of impact pursuant to E.O. 12866. Potential benefits, if any, would be indirect and accrue to

internationally managed fisheries by strengthening Regional Fishery Management Organizations and by restricting U.S. market

access through prohibiting illegally harvested fishery products.

Risks: There are no novel legal or policy issues associated with this action since identification and certification procedures

have already been established in regulations (50 CFR part 300). However, this action is significant under the meaning of E.O.

12866 because it could lead to trade restrictive measures applied against foreign nations.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/00/2011 

Final Action 06/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

be of international interest.

Agency Contact: Christopher Rogers 

Division Chief

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring , MD 20910 

Phone: 301 713-9090 Extension: 117 

FAX: 301 713-9106

E-Mail: christopher.rogers@noaa.gov

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

Bureau of Industry and Security ( BIS ) RIN: 0694-AF17

 View Related Documents

Title: Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Military Vehicles and Related Items that the

President Determines do not Warrant Control on the United States Munitions List

Abstract: In August 2009, President Obama directed a fundamental review of the U.S. Export control system be conducted.

This review included a fundamental review of the two primary control lists of the U.S. Export control system; i.e., the Commerce

Control List (CCL) and the United States Munitions List (USML). In December 2010, the Departments of Commerce and State

each published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public comments on creating more "positive"

and clear control lists and recommendations for how items listed on the two control lists could be tiered based on criteria

developed during the Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative. An integral part of creating a "positive" USML requires a proper

control structure be put into place under the EAR to appropriately control the less significant items moved from the USML to the

CCL, which is the subject of this proposed rule. This rule outlines the control structure developed under the ECR initiative to

ensure appropriate controls are in place for these less significant items moved from the USML to the CCL.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 15 CFR 740; 15 CFR 743; 15 CFR 744; 15 CFR 748; 15 CFR 774; 15 CFR 730; 15 CFR 732; 15 CFR 738;

15 CFR 742; 15 CFR 746; 15 CFR 756; 15 CFR 762; 15 CFR 770; 15 CFR 772 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code

22

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 10 USC 7420; 10 USC 7430(e); 15 USC 1824a; 22 USC 287c; 22 USC 6004; 22 USC 7201 et seq; 22

USC 7210; 30 USC 185(s); 42 USC 2139a; 42 USC 2139a; 42 USC 6212; 43 USC 1354; 50 USC 1701 et seq; 50 USC 2401

et seq; 50 USC 5; EO 12058; EO 12851; EO 12938; EO 12947; EO 13026; EO 13099; EO 13222; EO 13224; 22 USC 2151

note; 22 USC 3201 et seq; EO 11912; EO 12002; EO 12214; EO 12854; EO 12918; EO 12918; EO 12981; EO 13020; EO

13338; 30 USC 185(u)

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule is needed to describe how items that no longer warrant ITAR control--but, because they are

specially designed for military applications, warrant some degree of control--will be made subject to the EAR and listed on the

CCL. In particular, this rule establishes the framework within which items that are transferred from the ITAR to the EAR will be

identified in and controlled by the EAR. Such ready identification is needed to allow for public understanding of the changes and

to facilitate executive branch compliance with the requirements to notify Congress when items are removed from the ITAR.

Such controls are needed to accomplish the national security and foreign policy objectives of controlling transfers of military

items, which includes complying with statutory and international obligations to prevent the transfer of such items to certain

countries, end uses, and end users.

Legal Basis: The Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, authorizes the President to prohibit or curtail exports for

national security or foreign policy reasons. Section 3(1) of that Act provides that "It is the policy of the United States to minimize

uncertainties in export control policy and to encourage trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or

trading relations, except those countries with which such trade has been determined by the President to be against the national

interest." Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), as amended, expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order

13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)) as extended by Notice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681 (Aug.

16, 2010) continues the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The EAA and the

IEEPA provide the President with the discretion to tailor controls, such as through the use of license exceptions and the

creation of country groups in the implementing regulations, over different types of items based on their significance or other

factors relevant to the national interest. The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) gives the President the authority to

identify any item as a "defense article." The list of "defense articles" is identified on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) of the

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). (22 CFR chapter I, subchapter M). Section 38(f) of the AECA requires the

President to periodically review the list of defense articles and determine which, if any, should be removed from the list. Section

38(f) authorizes the President to remove defense articles from the USML and control them under other statutory and regulatory

authorities, such as the export control regulations administered by the Commerce Department, after completing a 30-day

congressional notification.

Alternatives: BIS considered several alternative regulatory structures for the items that would be moved from the ITAR to

the EAR, including creating a separate Commerce Munitions List in the EAR and attempting to insert all items transferred into

the existing ECCN structure. BIS selected the "600 series" structure because it provided the best balance between ease of use

and the need to readily identify items moved or to be moved from the ITAR to the EAR for congressional notification purposes.

A separate Commerce Munitions List would have readily identified items moved from the ITAR, but would have required the

public to consult two lists to assess whether license requirements applied to a particular item. Attempting to place all

transferred items within the existing ECCN structure would have minimized the number of ECCNs to be consulted but would

have unduly obscured the ITAR origin of the transferred items.

Costs and Benefits: The underlying policy motivation for the reform effort is not a traditional economic cost/benefit

analysis. Rather, it is a national security effort. When the Administration first began to consider how the export control system

should be reformed to enhance national security, it did not take into account whether there would be particular economic

benefits or costs. After conducting the review, the Administration ultimately determined that our national security will be

strengthened if (i) our export control system allows for more interoperability with our NATO and other close allies; (ii) our

industrial base is enhanced by, for example, reducing the current incentives created by the export control rules for foreign

companies to design out or avoid U.S.-origin content; and (iii) our resources are more focused on controlling or prohibiting, as

needed, the items that provide at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States. Items made subject

to the EAR as a result of this rule generally would require a license to all destinations except Canada and exporters,

reexporters and transferors would incur the costs associated with applying for such licenses. BIS would need additional

resources to review the additional licenses and to handle the related compliance activities that will accompany the planned

change in jurisdictional status of items. The net burden on the government and that the government imposes on industry,

however, would be substantially reduced because this rule would apply to items that currently are subject to strict, generally

inflexible ITAR license requirements that impose many collateral compliance burdens and costs on exporters and the U.S.

Government. BIS believes that replacing such ITAR license requirements with the more flexible EAR license requirements is

not likely to result in any net increase in costs. However, the benefits of the move would be substantial, although not readily

quantifiable.

Risks: Not all items currently subject to the ITAR are appropriate for movement to the EAR. Care must be taken to ensure

that large sophisticated weapons and other inherently military items (as opposed to items unique to defense articles merely

23

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
because of a change in form or fit) are not moved to the EAR. BIS believes that the ongoing interagency review process is

adequate to guard against any transfers contrary to national security and foreign policy interests. At the same time, one must

consider the risks of not transferring to the EAR defense articles that no longer warrant ITAR controls. These risks include

continued excessive costs to exporters in complying with unnecessarily restrictive rules, continued disincentives for defense

manufacturers to use U.S. origin parts and components, and continued excessive costs associated with supplying allied armed

forces with U.S. origin parts and components. BIS believes that this rule sets up a structure for controls that will allow for the

appropriate balance between the risks of continuing the status quo and the risks of unwarranted relaxation of controls.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 07/15/2011 76 FR 41958 

NPRM Comment Period End 09/13/2011 

Final Rule 12/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Related RINs: Merge with 0694-AF09

Agency Contact: Timothy Mooney 

Export Policy Analyst

Department of Commerce

Bureau of Industry and Security

14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20230 

Phone: 202 482-3371 

FAX: 202 482-3355

E-Mail: timothy.mooney@bis.doc.gov

24

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan