### DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC) Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities Established in 1903, the Department of Co mmerce 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 innova tion, 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 environm ental 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, no w 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 businesse s and small manufacturers;

 Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for U.S. busines ses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent with our Nation’s economic and security interests;

###  Provide effective management and stewardship of our Nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities; and

 Make informed policy decisions and enable be tter 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 regul ation of the private sect or by the Department. Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles The vast majority of the Department's progr ams 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 action s 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 ru lemaking 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 re sources. 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 wa rnings. It is a source of objective information

### on the state of the environment. NOAA plays the le ad 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-t erm 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 conservati on 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. fishi ng 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 mi nerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private organizations to operate commercial land-remote s ensing satellite systems. The Department, through NOAA, has a uniqu e role in promoting stewardship of the global environment through effective management of t he 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 forecast s of environmental phenomena on which resource management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be made.

### 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, threate ned, or endangered species and marine mammals by implementing recovery plans that provide for their recove ry while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities; promoting healthy c oastal 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, go als include: Understanding climate change science and impacts, and communicating that understanding to go vernment 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 mana gement 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 un known, 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, swordf ish, and sharks, are developed dire ctly by NOAA, not by FMCs.

### FMPs address a variety of issues includi ng maximizing fishing opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and addressing gear co nflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is preventing overc apitalization (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 tr aded 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 partici pant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include staggering fishing seasons or lim iting 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 debat e 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 re gulations and supporting documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the nati onal standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of the Act, and other ap plicable 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 an d the Interior and other Federal officials on protecting and conserving marine mammals. The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to

### allow for takings incidental to commercial fishi ng operations, to provide certain exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require the preparation of stoc k 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 conservati on of species that are determined to be "endangered" or "threatened," and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these species depend. The ESA aut horizes 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 additi on, under the ESA's procedur al framework, Federal agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed ac tion 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 si gnificant regulatory actions and thus are included in this year's regulatory plan. The four action s implement provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as reaut horized in 2006. The third action may be of particular interest to international trading partner s as it concerns the Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels are Engaged in Illegal, Un reported, and Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch

### 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 Me xico Fishery Management Council approved the Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan, which aut horizes 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 compre hensive regulatory program for offshore aquaculture in U.S. Federal waters. On September 3, 2009, the Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan entered into effect by operati on 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 ch allenged 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 or ganizations and fishermen’s groups opposed to marine aquaculture has been actively following the process. Others, including some fishing and seafood groups, support the Aquac ulture 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 unde r the international provisions of the Shark Conservation Act, the rule would amend the ident ification 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 cons ervation of sharks that is comparable to that of the United States, taking into account differ ent conditions. NMFS also intends to amend the

### 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 W hale (0648-AY54): In 1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for the northern right whale in the North At lantic 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 No rth 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 designat ed 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 corrid or 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 natur al 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 do lphins and to reduce the human activities that cause unauthorized taking of these dolphins u nder the Marine Mammal Protection Act and its implementing regulations. The proposed rule lis ts 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

### harassment of non-ESA listed marine mammals result ing 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 action s 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 streng thening 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 br oad-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 focu sing 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 crit eria 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 aro und 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 cu rrent 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

### Are structurally aligned so that they potent ially can be combined into a single list of controlled items. BIS' current regulatory plan action is designe d to implement the initial phase of the President's directive. Major Programs and Activities BIS administers four sets of regulati ons. 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 Defens e Industrial Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and allocation s 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 in spection requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States treaty obligat ions under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the United States and t he 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 seve ral U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. Government agencies to pr omote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in export controls and other programs. BIS participa tes 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 strengt hen our national security by focusing our efforts

### on controlling the most critical products and tec hnologies, 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, an d transfers to destinat ions that do not pose a national security concern, provided certain safe guards against diversion to other destinations are taken. BIS also proposed a rule that provides a framework for c ontrolling militarily less significant defense articles, largely generic parts and co mponents, 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 in telligence advantage to t he United States and are available almost exclusively from either t he United States or our partners and allies. Tier 3 will include items that are less sensit ive 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 Regulator y 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 Agenc y is reviewing these rules to determine whether

### 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 publicat ions of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for the Agen cy. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final Agency retr ospective analysis plan can be found at: http://open.commerce.gov/sites/d efault/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

### 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 QualifyLimited 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) YesThe 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 anaquaculture 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 TourismCosts 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.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 SharkConservation 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 Codeof 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 merelybecause 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