[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23224-23229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10679]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 021016236-3089-02; I.D. 082002A]
RIN 0648-AP74


Antarctic Marine Living Resources; CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring 
Permits; Vessel Monitoring System; Catch Documentation Scheme; Fishing 
Season; Registered Agent; and Disposition of Seized AMLR

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to: lengthen the duration of the 
permit required to enter a Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic 
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP) 
site from 1 year to up to 5 years; define the CCAMLR fishing season and 
require the use of an automated satellite-linked vessel monitoring 
system (VMS) for U.S. vessels harvesting Antarctic marine living 
resources (AMLR) in the area of the Convention on the Conservation of 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Convention); require foreign 
entities to designate and maintain a registered agent within the United 
States; prohibit the import of Dissostichus species (toothfish) 
identified as originating from certain high seas areas outside the 
Convention Area; incorporate into the Code of Federal Regulations the 
prohibition on the import of toothfish issued a Specially Validated 
Dissostichus Catch Document (SVDCD); and institute a preapproval system 
for U.S. receivers and importers of Dissostichus eleginoides 
(Patagonian toothfish) and Dissostichus mawsoni (Antarctic toothfish). 
This final rule is intended to implement U.S. obligations as a Member 
of CCAMLR and to conserve Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish by 
preventing and discouraging unlawful harvest and trade in these species 
and streamlining the administration of the Dissostichus Catch Document 
(DCD) scheme.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 2, 2003, except that 
amendments to Sec. Sec.  300.107 and 300.113 are effective June 16, 
2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact 
Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA and RIR/FRFA) 
supporting this action may be obtained from Dean Swanson, International 
Fisheries Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Send comments regarding the 
burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information 
requirements contained in this final rule to Dean Swanson at the above 
address and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA 
Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Swanson at 301-713-2276, fax 301-
713-2313.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Antarctic fisheries are managed under the 
authority of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 
1984 (Act) codified at 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq. NMFS implements 
conservation measures developed by CCAMLR and adopted by the United 
States, through regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subparts A and G. 
Background information about the need for revisions to the Antarctic 
fisheries regulations was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(67 FR 64853, October 22, 2002) and is not repeated here.
    Fees will be charged for reviewing and processing preapproval DCDs. 
A system of calculating fees and billing for fees was discussed in the 
proposed rule. NMFS will use a much simpler procedure already in use by 
an unrelated permitting system by specifying the application fee in the 
instructions accompanying each application form for DCD preapproval. 
The methodology for calculating the fee is in accordance with 
procedures specified in the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining 
administrative costs of special products and services. ``Instructions 
for Completing the NOAA Product/Service Cost Computation Form'' from 
Chapter 9, Section 10 of the NOAA Finance Handbook, may be obtained by 
contacting NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This action will simplify the DCD 
application process for applicants and DCD program personnel without 
affecting the amount of the fee.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received written comments during the 30-day comment period on 
the proposed rule. When drafting the final regulations and the final EA 
and RIR/FRFA, NMFS considered all comments received. Comments were 
received on the proposed rule from

[[Page 23225]]

several importers of toothfish or their representatives and several 
environmental organizations. All commenters supported the need for the 
proposed regulations in general. Some had specific concerns.
    Comment 1: One commenter said that the proposed change regarding 
registered agents was unnecessary because any foreign-based importer of 
record must, under Customs Service regulations, appoint a registered 
agent in the United States authorized to accept service of process.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that requiring a registered agent is 
unnecessary. The registered agent required in Customs Service 
regulations is not necessarily authorized to facilitate the 
implementation of NMFS regulations. However, it would be acceptable to 
NMFS for any foreign-based importer of record to appoint the same 
registered agent to NMFS and to the Customs Service.
    Comment 2: One commenter strongly supported the proposal to 
prohibit the importation of Dissostichus ssp. identified as being 
harvested from Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Statistical 
Areas 51 and 57. Other commenters opposed the proposal, believing that 
NMFS lacks sufficient evidence that these areas cannot sustain a 
healthy fishery. One of these latter commenters argued that: the 
proposed action is based on speculation and inconsistent data; that 
action should not be taken until a stock assessment is completed; that 
NMFS does not have information that the DCDs from these areas are 
fraudulent; and that NMFS and CCAMLR should examine other alternatives.
    Response: As the preamble to the proposed rule states, in October 
2001, the Chair of the Scientific Committee advised CCAMLR that the 
catches reported in Area 51 were not credible. This same advice was 
ardently concurred in by the Scientific Committee in October 2002. In 
2002, CCAMLR noted the following advice from the Scientific Committee:
    -The catches attributed by catch documentation scheme (CDS) reports 
outside the Convention Area in Areas 51 and 57 were unlikely to have 
come from those areas (as explained in the preamble to the proposed 
rule) and most likely came from within the Indian Ocean sector of the 
Convention Area;
    -Illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) catches within the 
Indian Ocean sector of the Convention Area were most likely to be 
underestimated;
    -The current levels of IUU fishing reported from Areas 51 and 57 
would have seriously depleted whatever stocks might have been present 
in those areas;
    -Current levels of IUU fishing have depleted stocks in Division 
58.4.4, and Subareas 58.6 and 58.7, while the catch rates in Division 
58.5.1 have declined substantially.
    CCAMLR noted with great concern that the information presented by 
the Scientific Committee indicated continued high levels of IUU fishing 
in the Convention Area. The majority of Members of CCAMLR agreed that 
catches reported from Areas 51 and 57 were not credible. They also 
expressed concern that the information reported in catch documents did 
not match available knowledge of toothfish distribution and potential 
biomass for waters in these two adjacent areas, outside the Convention 
Area.
    After extensive discussion at CCAMLR XXI concerning the use of VMS 
to confirm areas of harvest for vessels fishing outside the Convention 
Area and specifically on the high seas, it was concluded that most flag 
states whose vessels had reported large catches from high seas areas 
had not, in fact, implemented the required VMS in accordance with the 
applicable CCAMLR conservation measure. Although some states reported 
compliance with this requirement, it came to light during the 
discussions that there were serious flaws in the types of systems being 
used including, but not limited to, the use of manual systems that 
could be easily manipulated, systems that could simply be turned on and 
off at will, systems not inspected at port for proper operation, and 
even the complete absence of any operational VMS on some vessels. 
Therefore, verification of catch dates and locations of harvest on the 
high seas by landing or importing states via VMS reports is not a 
viable option. The view of the United States, in light of these 
shortcomings and without the reliability of verification procedures, is 
that there is no alternative to the implementation of a ban on all 
imports whose catch is reported as having been harvested from FAO Areas 
51 and 57.
    CCAMLR requested all Members fishing for toothfish on the high seas 
outside the Convention Area to again submit verifiable documentation 
next year on VMS and other catch verification procedures. In 
particular, the reports should include verification procedures, 
specifications of the VMS equipment installed on board each fishing 
vessel, and details of software used to monitor the position and 
movement of vessels. Australia tabled a proposal for a centralized VMS, 
or a dual reporting VMS system that would provide CCAMLR with real-time 
VMS information on all fishing vessels. Although most Members supported 
the idea that CCAMLR should receive VMS data, some took the view that 
this information should be provided to CCAMLR from the fishing 
monitoring center of the vessel's flag state. The United States, along 
with Australia, viewed this support as progress but believes that it 
does not provide the level of integrity to the VMS data that would give 
importing states a well-documented instrument to supply solid 
verification of catch.
    The combination of the lack of confidence that catches are being 
reported accurately from vessels claiming to fish on the high seas, 
specifically FAO Areas 51 and 57, and the failure of CCAMLR Members to 
either adopt a centralized VMS system or to fully comply with the 
current VMS requirements convinces NMFS that a ban on the importation 
of toothfish originating in Areas 51 or 57 is the only solution.
    Comment 3: One commenter strongly supported the proposal to require 
VMS transponders on all U.S. fishing vessels authorized to fish for 
AMLRs.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 4: One commenter supported the proposal to prohibit the 
importation of toothfish harvested in violation of CCAMLR's 
conservation measures even if accompanied by a SVDCD.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 5: One commenter did not want seized AMLRs to be allowed to 
re-enter trade, but also did not want them destroyed.
    Response: NMFS has not resolved all issues associated with the 
disposition of AMLRs denied entry and has decided to continue to 
reserve Sec.  300.116(d), ``Disposition of resources denied entry'' as 
a place-holder for future regulations governing this issue.
    Comment 6: One commenter supports requiring preapproval as proposed 
for Sec.  300.113.
    Response: NMFS agrees.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Section 300.107(c)(1)(iii) was clarified to say that fish taken 
from either Statistical Area 51 or Statistical Area 57 would not be 
issued a preapproval.
    Section 300.107(c)(7) and the reference to it in Sec.  
300.107(c)(1)(ii) have been removed because they created a 60-day 
exception to a requirement for a DCD which expired in 2000.
    The paragraphs in Sec.  300.113 have been redesignated to include a 
new paragraph (c) regarding the simplified means to be used for 
collecting fees for

[[Page 23226]]

DCDs, and to reflect that the final two paragraphs under Sec.  300.113 
(i.e., (j) and (k)) are not subsets of the ``Exception'' paragraph as 
set forth in the proposed rule.
    Section 300.113(a) was revised to make it clear that dealers 
intending to import or re-export AMLR must obtain an AMLR dealer permit 
and that preapproval is required for each shipment of Dissostichus 
species.
    Provisions governing changes to applications under Sec.  
300.113(g)(1) have been modified to make the extension period for 
applications discretionary with NMFS. This modification has been made 
to give NMFS the flexibility to avoid frivolous extensions.
    Section 300.113(i)(2) was modified to make it easier for a foreign-
based importer of record to identify its resident agent to NMFS.
    Section 300.118 has been eliminated to reduce the complexity of 
collecting fees for DCDs.

Classification

    This final rule is published under the authority of the Antarctic 
Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984, codified at 16 U.S.C. 
2431 et seq. This final rule has been determined to be not significant 
for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS prepared an 
``Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Proposed Rule to 
Institute Various Measures Pertaining to United States Obligations 
Regarding Antarctica and Antarctic Living Marine Resources, Including 
Implementation of Preapproval Procedure for Dissostichus spp. Catch 
Documentation Scheme.'' No comments from the public were received on 
this document. That analysis has been finalized and incorporated with 
the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review as the EA and 
RIR/FRFA. It describes the effects of the various measures in this 
final rule, as well as alternatives where appropriate, as follows:
    1. The measure to lengthen the duration of the permit required to 
enter a CEMP site from 1 year to up to 5 years would apply to parties 
currently holding, or who obtain in the future, a CEMP permit. To date, 
the only entity to hold a CEMP permit has been the NMFS Antarctic 
Research Group, which is not a small entity. The effect of this action 
would be to ease a restriction by allowing permits to last for a longer 
period of time. As such, there is no significant economic impact that 
NMFS must consider minimizing.
    2. The measure to define the CCAMLR fishing season as December 1 --
November 30 would apply to U.S. vessels that fish for AMLR. There are 
currently three U.S. vessels permitted to fish for AMLR (1 for crab and 
2 for krill) all of which NMFS believes to be small entities. The 
establishment of the fishing season is intended to improve 
administration of CCAMLR's annual conservation measures. It would not 
affect the amount of quota available for fishermen, nor would it affect 
when fishing could occur. Therefore, the measure would not result in 
any significant economic impacts that NMFS must consider minimizing. It 
is an administrative change that would not be expected to affect the 
practices of the fishermen.
    3. The measure to require the use of an automated satellite-linked 
VMS for all U.S. vessels harvesting AMLR in the area of the Convention 
would apply to the three vessels permitted to participate in such 
fisheries (the 1 crab vessel and the 2 krill vessels), all of which 
NMFS believes to be small entities. Currently, the vessel permitted for 
crab does not participate in the fisheries. NMFS estimates the cost of 
purchasing and installing the VMS units at about $3,250 per unit. The 
cost of operating the unit while in Convention waters is estimated to 
be no more than $1,000 per year.
    NMFS considered the alternative of excluding vessels fishing 
exclusively for krill from the requirement. CCAMLR did not explicitly 
require Parties to implement a VMS program in the krill fishery. 
However, for reasons articulated in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
NMFS believes that applying the VMS requirement to the krill fishery 
will further its compliance with its obligations with respect to the 
Antarctic and AMLR. Therefore, this alternative is not the preferred 
alternative.
    4. The measure to require foreign entities to designate and 
maintain a registered agent within the United States would not apply to 
any ``small entities'' as defined pursuant to the RFA. This measure 
would not apply to any small government jurisdictions or small 
organizations. While it would apply to businesses, some of which may be 
considered small, the Small Business Administration has defined ``small 
business concern'' to apply only to businesses operating primarily 
within the United States (13 CFR 121.105). NMFS is not aware of an 
alternative approach that would accomplish its objectives with regard 
to this provision.
    5. The measure to define SVDCD currently has no regulatory 
requirements attached to it. It is informational only and as such has 
no effect on any small entities. No alternatives have been identified.
    6. The measure to institute a preapproval system for U.S. receivers 
and importers of Patagonian toothfish and Antarctic toothfish would 
apply to dealers, importers, and, as applicable, re-exporters. It is 
estimated that about 60 dealers/importers are involved in the permitted 
trade and that 80 firms would apply for dealer permits and preapproval. 
The estimated costs to importers of toothfish are approximately $4,134 
per firm per year, and $330,750 industry-wide per year. These costs 
include the burden-hour costs of submitting an annual permit, per-
shipment preapproval permits, catch documentation, and NMFS's fees. It 
is estimated that there are about 50 re-exporters. The estimated costs 
to re-exporters of toothfish are about $11 per firm per year and $550 
industry-wide per year. These costs include the burden hours associated 
with annual permit applications and catch documentation requirements, 
and NMFS's fees.
    U.S. imports of toothfish in 2001 had an estimated value of $97 
million. Compliance costs (industry and agency) would likely not exceed 
$600,000 per year during the next 3 years. Currently, no U.S. fishing 
entity participates in the harvesting of toothfish. It is not possible 
to determine the number of firms that would qualify as small entities. 
The final rule would impose annual burden costs of $330,750 and $550 on 
importing and re-exporting firms, respectively.
    NMFS considered two alternatives to the final preapproval system: 
maintaining the status quo, and implementing a total ban on imports of 
toothfish. Maintaining the current system may not have a short-term 
economic or social impact on importers or other dealers of toothfish in 
trade networks, but could have harmful long-term economic implications 
if further steps are not taken to discourage and prevent IUU fishing of 
toothfish.
    Overfishing, which eventually leads to reduced supply, and the 
associated price increases will, in all likelihood, dampen this trade. 
Price increases would likely result in some substitution by consumers. 
Toothfish products may also be diverted to alternate markets in East 
Asia where consumers are willing to pay higher prices for species 
deemed to be luxury items. As a consequence, toothfish could become 
increasingly rare in the U.S. marketplace.
    Similarly, the ``status quo'' alternative would have little short-
term economic or social impacts on the U.S. consumer, but, in the long-
term, would jeopardize the availability of toothfish to

[[Page 23227]]

consumers at prices they are willing to pay or, in the extreme, at any 
price.
    Alternatively, the total ban measure would address concerns over 
the overharvesting of toothfish by denying the U.S. market (estimated 
at 15-20 percent of the world market) to IUU harvested toothfish. 
(Note: in this document, non-IUU harvested toothfish means toothfish 
harvested in the CCAMLR Convention Area in conformity with CCAMLR 
rules, toothfish harvested in high seas areas outside of the CCAMLR 
Convention Area, or toothfish harvested in areas of national 
jurisdiction in conformity with the rules applicable in those national 
jurisdictions. Harvesting in high seas areas where no regional fishery 
management organization's rules apply is often unreported and 
unregulated, and thus may pose an obstacle to achieving a sustainable 
fishery. In the case of such toothfish fisheries, this assumption is 
almost certainly correct.) However, it would also prohibit importation 
of toothfish legally harvested within the CCAMLR Convention Area or in 
exclusive economic zones and impose an unreasonable and unfair burden 
on U.S. importers and consumers. Given the U.S. portion of the global 
market, there is a very real possibility that the market would simply 
shift to other locations, thereby contributing nothing toward bringing 
IUU fishing for toothfish under control. This alternative also could be 
incompatible with U.S. obligations under international trade law and 
pending obligations under the CCAMLR Convention. As a result, this 
alternative is not preferred.
    7. The measure to prohibit imports of toothfish identified as being 
harvested in FAO Areas 51 or 57 would apply to the U.S. dealers and 
importers described above (up to 60 of unknown size). The economic 
impacts of this prohibition are difficult to quantify. Because the rule 
is intended to address fraudulent trade in toothfish, the availability 
of toothfish on the world market could be reduced. This could result in 
the price of toothfish rising. However, to the extent that the 
permitted entities experience an increase in the cost of purchasing 
toothfish, they would most likely pass that cost on to consumers. On 
the other hand, it is likely that illegally harvested toothfish can be 
harvested and marketed more cheaply than toothfish harvested pursuant 
to the applicable CCAMLR conservation rules. To the extent that this 
rule would remove the market for illegally harvested toothfish, the 
rule might make it easier for dealers in legitimately harvested 
toothfish to make a profit (in that they would no longer have to 
compete with unregulated fishermen).
    As an alternative to the ban on imports identified as having been 
harvested in Areas 51 or 57, NMFS considered allowing importers to 
provide independent VMS data to support claims of catches from these 
two areas. For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, current problems with reliability and lack of international 
protocol, NMFS believes that this alternative is impracticable.
    The reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements 
associated with this final rule are described in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act(PRA) discussion in this preamble, which follows below. In 
summary, this final rule modifies existing reporting requirements 
pertaining to the import of toothfish. The new burdens associated with 
these requirements would apply to the approximately 60 dealers who 
import. In addition, the requirement to install and operate VMS units 
would apply to the 3 U.S. vessels permitted to participate in the AMLR 
fisheries for crab/krill. The associated burden is estimated as no more 
than $1,000 per year per vessel.
    NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap with, or conflict with the final rule.
    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been 
approved by OMB under control number 0648-0194. The requirements and 
their estimated response times are: 3 minutes for a DCD, 60 minutes for 
a CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program permit, 30 minutes for a CCAMLR 
Ecosystem Monitoring Program report, 15 minutes for a dealer permit 
application, 4 hours to install a VMS unit, 2 hours for annual 
maintenance of a VMS unit, 0.033 seconds every 4 hours for an automated 
position report from a VMS, and 15 minutes for a preapproval 
application.
    The response estimates above include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 
or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for 
reducing the burden, to NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, and OMB 
(see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    The effective date for revisions to Sec. Sec.  300.107 and 300.113 
is 45 days instead of 30 days for the remaining sections in order to 
accommodate toothfish shipments in transit.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics, Treaties.

    Dated: April 25, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart G is 
amended as follows:

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

Subpart G--Antarctic Marine Living Resources

    1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart G continues 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  300.101, new definitions for ``Specially Validated 
Dissostichus Catch Document'' and ``Vessel Monitoring System'' are 
added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  300.101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Specially Validated Dissostichus Catch Document (SVDCD) means a 
Dissostichus catch document that has been specially issued by a State 
to accompany seized or confiscated catch of Dissostichus spp. offered 
for sale or otherwise disposed of by the State.
* * * * *
    Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) means a system that allows a Flag 
State, through the installation of satellite-tracking devices on board 
its fishing vessels to receive automatic transmission of certain 
information.

0
3. In Sec.  300.103, paragraph (h) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  300.103  Procedure for according protection to CCAMLR Ecosystem 
Monitoring Program Sites.

* * * * *
    (h) Duration. Permits issued under this section are valid for a 
period of up to five years. Applicants requesting a permit to reenter a 
Protected Site must include the most recent report required

[[Page 23228]]

by the general condition in the previously issued CEMP permit 
describing the activities conducted under authority of that permit.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  300.107, paragraphs (a), (c)(1), and (c)(5) are revised to 
read as follows and paragraph (c)(7) is removed:


Sec.  300.107  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Vessels. The operator of any vessel required to have a 
harvesting permit under this subpart must:
    (1) Accurately maintain on board the vessel all CCAMLR reports and 
records required by its permit.
    (2) Make such reports and records available for inspection upon the 
request of an authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector.
    (3) Within the time specified in the permit, submit a copy of such 
reports and records to NMFS at an address designated by NMFS.
    (4) Install a NMFS-approved VMS unit on board the vessel and 
operate the VMS unit whenever the vessel enters Convention waters.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) General. (i) The CCAMLR DCD must accompany all shipments of 
Dissostichus species as required in this paragraph (c).
    (ii) No shipment of Dissostichus species shall be released for 
entry into the United States unless accompanied by a complete and 
validated CCAMLR DCD.
    (iii) No shipment of Dissostichus species identified as originating 
from a high seas area designated by the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations as Statistical Area 51 or 
Statistical Area 57 in the eastern and western Indian Ocean outside and 
north of the Convention Area shall be issued a preapproval.
* * * * *
    (5) Import. (i) Any dealer who imports Dissostichus species must:
    (A) Obtain the DCD and stamp on the DCD showing that NMFS has 
certified that preapproval has been granted for importation (and 
Dissostichus re-export document if applicable) with a unique export 
reference number that accompanies the import shipment,
    (B) Ensure that the quantity of toothfish listed on the DCD (or 
Dissostichus re-export document if product is to be re-exported) 
matches the quantity listed on the preapproval application within a 
variance of 10 percent,
    (C) Express mail or fax the catch documentation described in 
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section to an address 
designated by NMFS so that NMFS receives the documentation at least 15 
working days prior to import, and
    (D) Retain a copy of the DCD for his/her records and provide copies 
to exporters as needed.
    (ii) Dealers must retain at their place of business a copy of the 
DCD for a period of 2 years from the date on the DCD.
    (iii) Exception. For shipments of Dissostichus species which are 
fresh and less than 2,000 kilograms in quantity, the application for 
approval of catch documents of toothfish must be submitted to NMFS 
within 24 hours of import.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  300.111, a new paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  300.111  Framework for annual management measures.

* * * * *
    (e) The fishing season for all Convention Area species isDecember 1 
through November 30 of the following year, unless otherwise set in 
specific CCAMLR conservation measures.

0
6. Section 300.113 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  300.113  Dealer permits and preapproval.

    (a) General. (1) A dealer intending to import or re-export AMLR 
must obtain an AMLR dealer permit valid for one year. Preapproval from 
NMFS is required for each shipment of Dissostichus species. Only those 
specific activities stipulated by the permit are authorized for the 
permit holder.
    (2) An AMLR may be imported into the United States if its harvest 
has been authorized by a U.S.-issued individual permit issued under 
Sec.  300.112 (a)(1) or its importation has been authorized by a NMFS-
issued dealer permit and preapproval issued under paragraph (a) of this 
section. AMLRs may not be released for entry into the United States 
unless accompanied by the harvesting permit or the individual permit 
and the DCD for that shipment which has been stamped by NMFS certifying 
that preapproval has been granted to allow import.
    (3) In no event may a marine mammal be imported into the United 
States unless authorized and accompanied by an import permit issued 
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or the Endangered Species 
Act.
    (4) A dealer permit or preapproval issued under this section does 
not authorize the harvest or transshipment of any AMLR by or to a 
vessel of the United States.
    (b) Application. Application forms for AMLR dealer permits and 
preapproval are available from NMFS. A complete and accurate 
application must be received by NMFS for each preapproval at least 15 
working days before the anticipated date of the first receipt, 
importation, or re-export.
    (c) Fees. A fee to recover the administrative expenses associated 
with processing preapproval applications will be charged. The amount of 
the fee will be determined in accordance with procedures specified in 
the NOAA Finance Handbook for calculating administrative costs of 
special products and services. The fee is specified with the 
preapproval application form. The appropriate fee must accompany each 
application and be paid by check, draft, or money order.
    (d) Issuance. NMFS may issue a dealer permit or preapproval if it 
determines that the activity proposed by the dealer meets the 
requirements of the Act and that the resources were not or will not be 
harvested in violation of any conservation measure in force with 
respect to the United States or in violation of any regulation in this 
subpart.
    (e) Duration. A permit issued under this section is valid from its 
date of issuance to its date of expiration unless it is revoked or 
suspended. A preapproval is valid until the product is imported (and 
re-exported, if applicable).
    (f) Transfer. A permit issued under this section is not 
transferable or assignable.
    (g) Changes in information--(1) Pending applications. Applicants 
for permits and preapproval under this section must report in writing 
to NMFS any change in the information submitted in their permit and 
preapproval applications. The processing period for the application may 
be extended as necessary to review and consider the change.
    (2) Issued permits and preapprovals. Any entity issued a permit or 
preapproval under this section must report in writing to NMFS any 
changes in previously submitted information. Any changes that would 
result in a change in the receipt or importation authorized by the 
preapproval, such as harvesting vessel or country of origin, type and 
quantity of the resource to be received or imported, and Convention 
statistical subarea from which the resource was harvested, must be 
proposed in writing to NMFS and may not be undertaken unless authorized 
by

[[Page 23229]]

NMFS through issuance of a revised or new preapproval.
    (h) Revision, suspension, or revocation. A permit or preapproval 
issued under this section may be revised, suspended, or revoked, based 
upon a violation of the permit, the Act, or this subpart. Failure to 
report a change in the information contained in a permit or preapproval 
application voids the application, permit, or preapproval as 
applicable. Title 15 CFR part 904 governs permit sanctions under this 
subpart.
    (i) Exception. For shipments of Dissostichus species which are 
fresh and less than 2,000 kilograms in quantity, the application for 
approval of catch documents of toothfish must be submitted to NMFS 
within 24 hours of import.
    (j) SVDCD. Dealer permits will not be issued for Dissostichus spp. 
offered for sale or other disposition under a Specially Validated DCD.
    (k) Registered agent. Foreign entities shall, as a condition of 
possessing a dealer permit, designate and maintain a registered agent 
within the United States that is authorized to accept service of 
process on behalf of that entity. Foreign based importers of record may 
identify to NMFS the registered agent identified for Customs Service 
purposes.

0
7. In Sec.  300.115, new paragraphs (s) and (t) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  300.115  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (s) Import Dissostichus spp. with a Specially Validated DCD.
    (t) Import shipments of fresh Dissostichus spp. in quantities of 
2,000 kilograms or more, or frozen Dissostichus spp., without a 
preapproval issued under Sec.  300.113.
[FR Doc. 03-10679 Filed 4-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S