Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 21615 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions on this proposed rule. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the species from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether the benefit of 

designation would outweigh threats to 

the species caused by the designation, 

such that the designation of critical 

habitat is prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

habitat of the southwest Alaska DPS of 

the northern sea otter, 

• What areas occupied at the time of 

listing and that contain features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species we should include in the 

designation and why, and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. 

(5) Any areas that might be 

appropriate for exclusion from the final 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

(6) Special management 

considerations or protections that the 

proposed critical habitat may require. 

(7) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

We are also in the process of 

preparing a draft Economic Analysis of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, which will be made 

available for public review and 

comment. We will publish a separate 

Notice of Availability for the draft 

Economic Analysis. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information we receive on or before July 

1, 2009. You may submit comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. Comments 

previously submitted on the December 

16, 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 76454) 

need not be resubmitted, as they have 

been incorporated into the public record 

and will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. Comments 

submitted during this reopened 

comment period also will be 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in the final rule. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this notice, will be 

available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Marine Mammals Management 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by mail 

from the Marine Mammals Management 

Office in Anchorage, Alaska. 

Author 

The primary author of this package is 

the Marine Mammals Management 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 

99503. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 29, 2009. 

Will Shafroth, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E9–10715 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 090223227–9691–01] 

RIN 0648–AX63 

Electronic Filing of Trade Documents 

for Fishery Products 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking to 

announce that it is revising procedures 

to file import and export documentation 

for certain fishery products to meet 

requirements of the SAFE Port Act of 

2006, the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

other applicable statutes, and 

obligations that arise from U.S. 

participation in regional fishery 

management organizations. Specifically, 

NMFS intends to integrate the collection 

of trade documentation within the 

government–wide International Trade 

Data System and require electronic 

information collection through the 

automated internet portal maintained by 

the United States Customs and Border 

Protection. NMFS is seeking advance 

public comment on the feasibility of 

electronic reporting by parties involved 

in an import or export transaction for 

applicable seafood products. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by August 6, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this 

action and requests for background 

information should be addressed to 

Christopher Rogers, Trade and Marine 

Stewardship Division, Office of 

International Affairs, NMFS. Comments 

and requests, identified by 0648–AX63, 

may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e–Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Christopher Rogers, Trade and 

Marine Stewardship Division, Office of 

International Affairs, NMFS, 1315 East– 

West Highway, Room 12657, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

• Fax: 301–713–9106, Attn: 

Christopher Rogers. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
21616 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

All personal identifying information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Rogers (phone:301–713– 

9090, fax:301–713–9106, e–mail: 

christopher.rogers@noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Security and Accountability For 

Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act, 

Public Law 109–347) requires all 

Federal agencies with a role in 

admissibility decisions for imports to 

collect information electronically 

through the international trade data 

system (ITDS). The Department of the 

Treasury has the lead on ITDS 

development and Federal agency 

integration. The U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) of the 

Department of Homeland Security has 

developed the Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE) as the internet– 

based portal for the collection and 

dissemination of information for ITDS. 

The Office of Management and Budget, 

through its e–government initiative, has 

oversight regarding Federal agency 

participation in ITDS, with a focus on 

reducing duplicate reporting across 

agencies and migrating paper based 

reporting systems to electronic 

information collection. 

Numerous Federal agencies are 

involved in the regulation of 

international trade and many of these 

agencies participate in the import, 

export and transportation related 

decision–making process. Agencies also 

use trade data to monitor and report on 

trade activity. ITDS is an integrated, 

government–wide system for the 

electronic collection, use, and 

dissemination of the international trade 

and transportation data Federal agencies 

need to perform their missions. ITDS is 

a ‘‘single window’’ concept: a single 

internet portal (ACE) for the trade 

community to submit all the required 

standardized commodity and 

transportation data pertaining to an 

import or export transaction. Data from 

ITDS is transmitted to all government 

agencies legally authorized to receive 

such information. Detailed information 

on ITDS and the ACE portal is available 

at: http://www.itds.gov. 

NMFS has become a participating 

government agency in the ITDS project 

because of its role in monitoring the 

imports of certain fishery products. 

NMFS is working with CBP to 

determine the extent to which current 

seafood import documentation programs 

can be adapted to collect required data 

through the ACE portal. Electronic 

collection of seafood trade data through 

the ACE portal will reduce the public 

reporting burden, reduce the agency’s 

data collection costs, improve the 

timeliness and accuracy of admissibility 

decisions, and increase the effectiveness 

of applicable trade restrictive measures. 

Authorities for Trade Measures 

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 

109–479), amended the High Seas 

Driftnet Moratorium Protection Act 

(Public Law 104–43) to require U.S. 

actions to address illegal, unregulated 

and unreported (IUU) fishing activity 

and bycatch of protected living marine 

resources (PLMR). Specifically, the 

amendments require the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to identify in a 

biennial report to Congress those foreign 

nations whose vessels are engaged in 

IUU fishing or fishing that results in 

bycatch of PLMR. The Secretary is also 

required to establish procedures to 

certify whether nations identified in the 

biennial report are taking appropriate 

corrective actions to address IUU fishing 

or bycatch of PLMR by its fishing 

vessels (74 FR 2019, January 14, 2009). 

Based upon the outcome of the 

certification procedure, these nations 

could be subject to import prohibitions 

under the authority provided in the 

High Seas Driftnet Fisheries 

Enforcement Act (codified at 16 U.S.C. 

1826a). 

Additionally, there are identification 

and/or certification procedures in other 

statutes, including the Pelly 

Amendment to the Fishermen’s 

Protective Act (codified at 22 U.S.C. 

1978) and the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (codified at 16 U.S.C. 

971). These procedures may result in 

trade restrictive measures for a certified 

country for those fishery products 

associated with the activity that resulted 

in the certification. Further, import 

prohibitions for certain fishery products 

could also be applied under provisions 

of the Tariff Act (codified at 19 U.S.C. 

1323), Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(codified at 16 U.S.C. 1371), Lacey Act 

(codified at 16 U.S.C. 3371) and other 

statutes, depending on the 

circumstances of the fish harvest and 

the conservation concerns of the United 

States. Trade monitoring authority is 

also provided by the Dolphin Protection 

Consumer Information Act (codified at 

16 U.S.C. 1385) which specifies the 

conditions under which tuna products 

may be imported into the United States 

with a dolphin–safe label. 

Multilateral efforts to combat IUU 

fishing may also result in trade action. 

The United States is a contracting party 

to several regional fishery management 

organizations (RFMOs). Many of these 

RFMOs have established procedures to 

identify nations and/or vessels whose 

fishing activities undermine the 

effectiveness of the conservation and 

management measures adopted by the 

organization. Fishery products exported 

by such nations or harvested by such 

vessels may be subject to import 

prohibitions specified by the RFMO as 

a means to address the activity of 

concern. In these cases, the United 

States is obligated to deny entry of the 

designated products into its markets. 

Trade Monitoring and Documentation 

Programs 

As a result of unilateral authorities 

and/or multilateral agreements, NMFS 

has implemented a number of 

monitoring programs to collect 

information from the trade regarding the 

origin of certain fishery products. The 

purpose of these programs is to 

determine the admissibility of the 

products in accordance with the specific 

criteria of the trade measure or 

documentation requirement in effect. 

NMFS trade monitoring programs cover 

tunas, swordfish, billfish, shark fins, 

toothfish, krill and certain other fishery 

products under the authority of the High 

Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act 

(refer to http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/fmd/ 

italy.htm for an exhaustive list.) 

Generally, these trade monitoring 

programs require importers to obtain a 

blanket permit, to obtain from exporters 

documentation on the authorization for 

the harvest by the flag nation, and to 

submit this information to NMFS for 

review and approval. Depending on the 

commodity, specific information may be 

required on the flag state of the 

harvesting vessel, the ocean area of 

catch, the fishing gear used, and details 

of landing, transshipment and export. 

In most cases, these monitoring 

programs require the importer to 

provide paper documents to NMFS, 

while other relevant information on the 

inbound shipments is provided by the 

shipper, carrier, or customs broker to 

CBP by electronic means. NMFS 

reconciles the information reported by 

importers with the information obtained 

from CBP to determine if the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 21617 

admissibility requirements have been 

satisfied. If documentation is 

incomplete, fraudulent or missing, or if 

the shipment is not admissible given its 

ocean area of origin, flag nation, 

harvesting vessel or the circumstances 

under which it was harvested, entry into 

U.S. commerce is prohibited for that 

shipment. 

As a participating government agency, 

access to the ACE portal has improved 

NMFS’ ability to evaluate trends and 

potential problems with seafood imports 

including real time information on ports 

of entry, potential cases of tariff code 

misspecification, or indications of lack 

of proper documentation. It has helped 

NMFS communicate with the trade 

community to educate importers and 

brokers on the documentation 

requirements. It has also helped NMFS 

target enforcement resources by taking a 

risk management approach. NMFS 

anticipates that ITDS integration will 

result in reduced reporting burden for 

the trade community, reduced data 

processing time for government, 

increased compliance with product 

admissibility requirements, and quicker 

response time on admissibility 

decisions. 

Information Collection and 

Respondents 

This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking solicits public input on the 

development of electronic information 

collection procedures for the purposes 

of determining which shipments of 

seafood products are eligible for entry 

into the United States. Timely 

information is critical to making 

accurate and effective admissibility 

decisions. However, NMFS is aware that 

many different parties serve different 

roles in the trade process, and it is 

important to identify the correct party 

who can supply the required 

information at any particular point in 

the transaction. Potential sources of 

information on an inbound shipment 

could be the foreign exporter, freight 

forwarder/consolidator, shipper, carrier, 

customs broker, importer or ultimate 

consignee. Specific information is 

available to some or all of these parties 

and could be supplied to NMFS at 

various points in the trade process. 

Certain information may be available on 

a pre–arrival basis, while other 

information might not be available until 

arrival, upon the start of the entry 

process or even post–release. 

In order to establish an electronic 

reporting system that meets NMFS’ 

statutory requirements for admissibility 

without imposing an undue burden on 

the trade community, NMFS seeks input 

from the public on the following 

questions: 

As an importer, do you rely on 

brokers for customs clearance or file 

customs entries on your own? 

What CBP electronic reporting 

systems does your business use (e.g., 

Automated Commercial System, 

Automated Broker Interface, Customs 

Automated Manifest Interface 

Requirements, Customs and Trade 

Automated Interface Requirements)? 

Does your business (importer, 

customs broker, shipper, carrier) 

currently maintain an ACE portal user 

account? 

Does another business entity file 

CBP–required information on your 

behalf? Does that business have cross 

account access for you within CBP 

reporting systems? 

Does your business (importer, 

customs broker, shipper, carrier) 

currently have a blanket (annual) permit 

from NMFS for importing/exporting 

tuna, swordfish, shark fins or Antarctic 

resources (krill, toothfish)? 

Does another business entity with a 

NMFS blanket permit submit NMFS– 

required information on your behalf? 

As an importer, how would your 

business be affected if you are required 

to obtain a blanket permit (e.g., annual) 

prior to importing your product? 

Is your business (importer, customs 

broker, shipper, carrier) currently 

registered with the Dun and Bradstreet 

Universal Numbering Service (DUNS 

Number)? Could this registration 

number serve as a unique identifier for 

your business with regard to reporting 

obligations to CBP, NOAA and other 

agencies? Does your business have one 

or more importer of record numbers 

registered with CBP? 

What are the principal ports of 

import, the predominant product form 

(fresh, frozen or in airtight containers), 

and the usual transportation mode 

(ocean, air, truck, rail) for the import 

transactions of your business? 

How would your business practices 

be affected if NMFS required imports 

only through a limited number of 

designated ports of entry? 

Which established government or 

private sector product identifiers are 

generally used in your business 

transactions (e.g., FDA, USDA, HTSUS, 

UPC, GTIN, GDSN)? 

What paper documents (manifest, 

invoice, bill of lading, harvesting or 

exporting government authorization, 

certificate of eligibility, catch document) 

are available to your business and at 

what point in trade transaction (pre– 

arrival, arrival, post–release)? 

What problems, if any, have you 

encountered with the existing paper 

document systems for NMFS trade 

monitoring programs? Could these 

problems be resolved by electronic 

reporting? 

When you have questions on 

documentation requirements or 

encounter problems with release of 

shipments, how do you contact NMFS 

(telephone, email, internet, office visit)? 

Have you had difficulties in contacting 

NMFS to get answers to your questions? 

What concerns do you have about 

timely release of perishable seafood 

shipments? In your view, could 

electronic reporting expedite the 

submission of information to CBP to 

obtain release? How would your 

business be affected if information 

collection requirements cause a delay in 

release of shipments? 

How does your business currently 

meet prior notice requirements of the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

for inbound shipments of food 

products? Specifically, what FDA 

reporting system do you use? 

How would your business be affected 

if NMFS required pre–approval for all 

inbound seafood shipments that are 

subject to documentation requirements? 

That is, what costs and risks would you 

face if all documentation must be 

provided prior to arrival and the 

shipment cannot be released until 

NMFS verifies the information? 

As an importer, do you serve as a U.S. 

agent for foreign entities? If so, what 

trade documents are available to you 

prior to the arrival of the shipment? 

As a foreign entity, do you use a U.S. 

agent to facilitate the import process 

into the U.S. market? If so, what trade 

documents do you supply to your U.S. 

agent prior to arrival of the shipment? 

As an importer or customs broker, do 

you have knowledge of the ultimate 

consignee and or final U.S. destination 

at time of entry filing? Do you have this 

information prior to arrival or release? 

As an importer, do you also re–export 

seafood to a destination outside of the 

United States? 

As a re–exporter, do you move 

product after processing or repacking in 

the United States? If so, what types of 

processing or repacking occur and at 

what locations (airport, seaport, 

warehouse)? 

What entry types are typical for your 

business (consumption, warehouse, 

foreign trade zone, informal entries)? As 

an importer or customs broker, do you 

use bonded warehouses or foreign trade 

zones to hold product prior to filing 

entry for consumption? 

Do you serve as a U.S. agent to 

facilitate transportation and export 

entries for foreign firms who use U.S. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
21618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

transit links to get seafood products to 

overseas markets? 

What other Federal or state agencies, 

if any, require documentation or 

declarations for the seafood products 

that you import? 

What industry groups or trade 

associations represent your business 

interests? Does your business maintain 

a membership in any associations (e.g., 

National Fisheries Institute, Trade 

Support Network, National Customs 

Brokers and Forwarders Association of 

America)? 

Submitting Public Comment 

You may submit information and 

comments concerning this advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking by any 

one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). 

Information related to current programs 

to monitor international trade in 

fisheries products can be found on the 

NMFS Web site at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/. NMFS will 

consider all comments and information 

received during the advance notice 

comment period in preparing a 

proposed rule. 

Classification 

This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking has been determined to be 

not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1826d–1826k; 16 

U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; 16 

U.S.C. 1371; 16 U.S.C. 1385; 16 U.S.C. 3371. 

Dated: May 4, 2009. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–10820 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS