[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions]
[Department of Commerce Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 231 / Friday, November 29, 1996 / The
                            Regulatory Plan

[[Page 62022]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Sustainable, long-term economic growth is a central focus of the 
President's policies and priorities. The mission of the Department of 
Commerce is to promote job creation, economic growth, sustainable 
development, and improved living standards for all Americans, by 
working in partnership with business, universities, communities, and 
workers to:
 Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in the 
            global marketplace, by strengthening and safeguarding the 
            Nation's economic infrastructure;
 Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and 
            technology and an unrivaled information base; and
 Provide effective management and stewardship of our Nation's 
            resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
            opportunities.
In his State of the Union message, the President said: ``Now we move to 
an age of technology, information, and global competition. These 
changes have opened vast new opportunities, but they have also 
presented us with stiff challenges.'' The Vice President has sounded a 
similar call: ``Americans also understand that in a global economy, the 
only way to maintain America's competitive edge is to lead the world in 
innovation and new technologies. Investments in science and technology 
mean better jobs, higher wages, and a growing economy.''
These words help to make clear the role of the Commerce Department: To 
help keep America as the world's technology leader, to help American 
companies compete globally, to enable communities to conquer economic 
challenges, to stimulate the growth of high-pay, high-quality jobs, to 
preserve and protect the environment and our natural resources as well 
as safeguarding the public from environmental changes, and to provide 
information vital for good business and policy decisions.
Commerce promotes and expedites American exports, helps nurture 
business contacts abroad, protects our firms from unfair foreign 
competition, and makes how-to-export information accessible to small- 
and mid-sized companies throughout the Nation so that market 
opportunities span the globe.
Commerce encourages development in every community, by clearing the way 
for private sector growth by building or rebuilding economically 
deprived and distressed communities. We promote minority 
entrepreneurship to establish businesses that frequently anchor 
neighborhoods and create new job opportunities. We work with the 
private sector to enhance competitive assets.
As the Nation looks to revitalize our industries and communities, 
Commerce works as a partner with private entities to build America with 
an eye on the future. So through technology, research and development, 
and innovation, we are making sure America is on the winning side.
Commerce's considerable information capacities help businesses 
understand clearly where our national and world economies are going, 
and to take advantage of that knowledge by planning the road ahead. 
Armed with this information, businesses can undertake the new ventures, 
investments, and expansions that make our economy grow.
The capacity for managing the Nation's assets and resources is another 
key policy driver for Commerce, an essential one in our ability to help 
the Nation succeed in the future. These activities--ranging from 
protecting our fisheries to controlling the radio frequency spectrum to 
protecting intellectual property--affect the economy directly.
This Department of Commerce has instituted the programs and policies 
that mean cutting-edge, competitive, better paying jobs. We work 
everyday to boost exports, to deregulate business, to help smaller 
manufacturers battle foreign competition, to advance the technologies 
critical to our future prosperity, to invest in our communities, and to 
fuse economic and environmental goals.
The Department of Commerce is American business' surest ally in job 
creation, serving as a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and a 
Cabinet-level voice for the private sector.
The Department's regulatory plan directly tracks these policy and 
program priorities, only a few of which involve regulation of the 
private sector by the Department.
Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
To the extent permitted by law, all preregulatory and regulatory 
activities and decisions adhere to the Administration's statement of 
regulatory philosophy and principles, as set forth in section 1 of 
Executive Order 12866. The Department of Commerce has long been a 
leader in advocating and using market-oriented regulatory approaches in 
lieu of traditional command-and-control regulations when such 
approaches offer a better alternative. All regulations are designed and 
implemented to maximize societal benefits while placing the smallest 
possible burden on those being regulated.
When a regulation is no longer needed, the Secretary's standing order 
is to rescind it. In this light, one of the Secretary's first actions 
upon appointment was to institute a pilot Regulatory Offset Program. 
Under this program, the Department will eliminate two existing 
regulations for each new regulation it issues.
The Secretary has prohibited 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 in 
simple, plain English and 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.
The vast majority of the Department's programs and activities do not 
involve regulation. Of the Department's 12 primary operating units, 
only 4--the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA), the International 
Trade Administration (ITA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), and the Technology Administration--plan 
significant preregulatory or regulatory actions for the regulatory plan 
year. Many of these regulatory actions do not involve new or increased 
regulation of the private sector. Two of these operating units--ITA and 
NOAA--have the most important of the Department's significant 
regulatory actions planned for the regulatory plan year. These two 
units are described below, along with their regulatory objectives and 
priorities and how they relate to the President's priorities and their 
most significant planned regulatory actions.
The Commerce Department is also reinventing itself by taking into 
account, among other things, the President's regulatory principles. We 
have made bold and dramatic changes, never being satisfied with the 
status quo. Over the past 3-1/2 years we have emphasized, initiated, 
and expanded programs that

[[Page 62023]]

work in partnership with the American people to secure the Nation's 
economic future. At the same time we have down-sized, cut regulations, 
closed offices and eliminated programs and jobs that are not part of 
our core mission. The bottom line is that, after much thought and 
debate, we have made many hard choices needed to make this Department 
``state of the art.''
Reinvention at the Department of Commerce has not only meant cutting 
regulations or improving existing services. It has also meant 
purposeful growth, particularly in the areas of trade and technology.
The Secretary believes reinvention should view the entire Federal 
Government as a major corporation and view the Department of Commerce 
as a critical function within that corporation. A company going through 
a reinvention process may shed jobs and functions, but it will also 
expand and enhance operations that are vital to its long-term growth. 
It is certainly going to build on partnerships with its customers that 
work. We believe expansion of essential programs at Commerce is vital 
to economic growth.
Streamlining Regulatory Processes
The Department of Commerce has taken a variety of steps to reduce 
regulatory burden by streamlining its regulatory processes. For 
instance, export controls on computers and telecommunications equipment 
have been changed, thereby eliminating the requirement for prior 
approval on over $32 billion worth of exports. Further, the Department 
has finished the first complete rewrite of the export control 
regulations in 45 years. This will make compliance easier, particularly 
for small firms. In addition, departmental grants processing time has 
been reduced an average of 25 percent. Finally, the Department has 
simplified its forms, encouraged electronic filing, and has coordinated 
data sharing with other statistical agencies to reduce respondent 
burden, saving the private sector hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
time and money.
The Department is taking steps to streamline its regulatory processes 
and delivery systems in line with the President's directives. In his 
September 30, 1993, Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies, 
President Clinton stated:

In order to streamline the entire [Federal] rulemaking process, agencies 
must, consistent with any applicable laws, utilize internally the most 
efficient method of developing and reviewing regulations. Accordingly, I 
direct the head of each agency and department to examine its internal 
review procedures to determine whether, and if so, how those procedures can 
be improved and streamlined. In conducting this examination, the agency or 
department shall consider the number of clearances required by its review 
process and whether its review process varies according to the complexity 
or significance of the rule.

Each preregulatory and regulatory action of the Department is 
undertaken with the concept of streamlining in mind. Methodologies for 
eliminating levels of review and delegating decisionmaking authority 
down to the lowest appropriate level are constantly being tested. 
Further, the Department is employing advanced technology designed to 
create greater responsiveness. For example, the Office of the General 
Counsel developed a regulation data base and tracking system. This 
system provides decisionmakers with precise, concise, and up-to-the-
minute information on the substance, status, and history of each of the 
Department's regulatory actions.
Eliminating and Improving Regulations
On February 21, 1995, President Clinton announced his plans for reform 
of the Federal regulatory system. This plan included four steps each 
agency was to undertake in order to achieve meaningful reform. One of 
the points in the President's program directed each agency to undertake 
a page-by-page review of its regulations to determine those that were 
obsolete and could be deleted and those that were in need of 
reinvention. In light of the varied activities and responsibilities of 
the Department, each agency reviewed its regulations using a 
methodology most appropriate for its legal obligations, organizational 
structure, and policy priorities. However, all agencies were directed 
to analyze each of their regulations to determine if they were 
necessary and, if so, whether it should be rewritten to make the 
regulation more streamlined and user-friendly. Additionally, the 
regulatory review was conducted by each agency with its, as well as the 
Department's and Administration's, policy and program priorities 
clearly in mind.
The results of each agency's activities under the President's 
initiative comprise a total elimination or reinvention of a substantial 
percentage of the Department's regulations. At the time of the 
President's announcement, the Department had 2,878 pages of regulatory 
text in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Department proposed 
to eliminate 696 pages of existing regulations in the CFR. As of July 
9, 1996, a total of 539 pages of existing regulation had been 
eliminated by issuance of a final rule and proposed rules to eliminate 
another 186 pages of existing regulations had been issued. As such, the 
Department has, or will, eliminate 725 pages of regulations. This 
represents 104 percent of the total promised to the President, and 25 
percent of the Department's pages in the CFR. Further, 1,859 pages of 
regulatory text were designated to be reinvented under the President's 
initiative. As of July 9, 1996, 1,175 pages of regulation had been 
reinvented by issuance of a final rule and 439 pages were proposed to 
be reinvented through issuance of a proposed rule. This activity, in 
addition to 120 pages of Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations that 
can not be reinvented due to uncertainty concerning legislation to 
reauthorize the ESA, equals 1,734 pages, or 92 percent of the amount 
promised the President, and 66 percent of the Department's total pages 
of regulation.
The totals represent the changes achieved by the Department as a whole. 
However, as mentioned above, the review was conducted by the individual 
agencies of the Department. As such, individual agencies within the 
Department of Commerce should be noted for their contribution to these 
amounts and the substantive changes they represent.
The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) administers and enforces U.S. 
export controls on certain commodities, software, and technical data 
that have both military and civilian uses. The BXA regulations 
establishing these controls are called the Export Administration 
Regulations (EARs). Probably the best example of the reengineering of 
an entire regulatory system is the work done by BXA to rewrite the 
entire EAR. (An Interim Final Rule was published in the Federal 
Register on March 25, 1996.) This comprehensive review simplifies and 
clarifies a complex body of regulations, makes the regulations more 
user-friendly and is designed to ensure that novice and veteran 
exporters alike can more easily locate the regulations that pertain to 
their particular circumstances.
BXA undertook an almost 3-year process to accomplish this task. This 
process included an advance notice to solicit public comment prior to 
drafting, making versions of the draft proposed rule available to the 
public while it was

[[Page 62024]]

being developed, and conducting 18 ``town-hall'' meetings during the 
comment period on the proposed rule.
The BXA rule embodies several substantial changes and innovations. Most 
important among these is a fundamental redirection from a negative 
presumption, that all exports subject to the EAR are prohibited unless 
authorized, to a positive approach, in which no license or other 
authorization is required for any transaction subject to the EAR unless 
the regulations affirmatively state the requirement. Additionally, the 
affirmative statements of the need to obtain a license, previously 
scattered throughout the EAR, are consolidated into ten general 
prohibitions, in one part of the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, 
a simple Country Chart was added to the regulations to provide a 
graphic illustration of when a license is required for any item 
exported to any country in the world.
The Antidumping Agreement and Subsidies/Countervailing Measures 
Agreement (Agreements), negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act implementing legislation, establish general principles 
regarding the administration of antidumping and countervailing duty 
laws. In order to facilitate the administration of these laws and to 
provide greater predictability for affected private parties, the 
Department of Commerce issued a proposed rule, published on February 
27, 1996, which translates the principles of the Agreements and the 
implementing legislation into specific and predictable rules.
In developing the proposed rule, the Department took several steps to 
enhance the regulations' effectiveness and to make them more accessible 
to affected parties. First, the antidumping and countervailing duties 
regulations, currently contained in two separate parts of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, were consolidated into one part. As antidumping 
and countervailing duties procedures are essentially identical, 
consolidating those portions of the regulations concerning procedures 
will make the regulations easier to use and will make readily apparent 
the identification of those instances where the procedures differ. 
Second, where possible, the proposed regulations simplify and 
streamline the antidumping and countervailing duties process. Finally, 
and possibly the most important change in the regulations, each section 
of the proposed regulation begins with a straightforward ``plain 
English'' explanation of the provisions of that section. This was done 
to ensure that non-lawyers could read, understand, and apply the 
regulations.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) at the Commerce 
Department published a final rule on March 1, 1996, to completely 
revise and streamline its regulations. It had been over 20 years since 
EDA's regulations were completely revamped. Many regulations were out 
of date, applied to programs that no longer existed, or reflected 
policies that had changed or that were not applied in a consistent or 
regular manner. In essence, EDA's regulations did not achieve the goal 
of truth-in-regulating that is at the heart of a reinvented Government.
The reform of EDA's regulations produced not only fewer and more 
streamlined regulations but also yielded regulations that had been 
thought anew and which were restricted to the absolute minimum 
necessary to achieve EDA's program goals. The reinvention process 
resulted in the elimination of over 200 of EDA's approximately 370 
regulations. Further, those regulations remaining were rewritten in 
``plain English'' so that they will be more easily understood by EDA's 
customer--potential grant applicants and the businesses and communities 
that benefit from economic development projects. Further, EDA staff 
will be better able to explain and apply the regulations, leading to 
greater continuity and consistency in the application of EDA's 
regulations among its regional offices.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the 
Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
regulates the United States fishing industry. NMFS regulations 
implement fishery management plans developed by regional fishery 
management councils, comprised of Federal, State, and local officials, 
industry participants, and other interested individuals. Previously, 
NMFS regulations implementing fishery management plans for particular 
fisheries were contained in separate parts of title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). As such, it was difficult for fishers to 
find the rules that governed their fishing activities. Furthermore, the 
fact that the regulations were contained in separate parts meant that 
there was a great deal of duplication telling fishers what actions were 
required and which were prohibited. Finally, because the regulations 
were separate, many common terms had slightly different definitions, 
causing confusion.
In order to correct this situation, NMFS undertook a massive project to 
consolidate each of the various regulations implementing fishery 
management plans into CFR parts organized by region. In other words, 
all regulations implementing fishery management plans under the 
jurisdiction of each regional fishery management council were placed 
into a separate part of the Code of Federal Regulations for each 
council. This means, for example, that a fisher who fishes off the 
coast of New England need only look at the CFR part pertaining to New 
England to find all the rules for any fishery in which he or she might 
want to participate. In addition, these actions streamlined the 
regulations by eliminating duplicative provisions, harmonizing 
definitions, and redrafting remaining provisions in ``plain English.'' 
The effect was to create a body of regulations that are easier to read 
and simpler to use.
In addition, NMFS has instituted a ``Fix-it'' ticket program which uses 
compliance procedures for relatively minor violations. Under this 
program, both verbal and written warnings will be used more frequently 
than has been past practice. For example, in the instance of a 
violation of conservation regulations that prohibit the possession of 
certain fish, where there is no evidence of an intent to violate the 
regulations for commercial gain, the appropriate remedy may be to allow 
the inadvertent violator to abandon the unlawfully obtained fish. The 
same remedy may be used in cases involving small-percentage violations 
of fishing trip poundage limits. In cases where a particular type of 
fishing gear must be used, and the fisherman has not done so, first 
offenses may be forgiven if the fisherman demonstrates that he or she 
subsequently has acquired the proper gear or otherwise corrected the 
problem with the gear. Additionally, NOAA has amended its penalty 
schedules to reflect a less confrontational approach to first-time 
violators and small businesses. If compliance can be easily obtained at 
the time a violation is detected, then that will be the preferred 
approach. These changes will improve the Agency's image with the 
regulated public and foster voluntary compliance. Moreover, these 
changes will free up enforcement agent and attorney time to allow 
greater concentration on major cases involving deliberate non-
compliance for commercial gain.

[[Page 62025]]

Description of Agency Regulations
International Trade Administration
The International Trade Administration (ITA) is responsible for most 
nonagricultural trade promotion and enforcement activities of the 
Federal Government. It works with the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative in coordinating U.S. trade policy. A large component of 
ITA's activities does not involve regulation. However, ITA has 
important regulatory authority under a number of U.S. trade laws.
ITA administers programs to strengthen domestic export competitiveness 
and to promote U.S. industry's increased participation in international 
markets. ITA's trade development program includes policy development, 
industry analysis, and promotion organized by industrial sectors such 
as science and electronics, basic industries, chemicals and allied 
products, energy, and textiles and apparel. Among its regulatory 
activities, ITA issues certificates of review providing export trading 
companies with limited immunity from liability under antitrust laws.
ITA helps achieve the major departmental goal of opening and expanding 
foreign markets and promoting increased exports of U.S. goods and 
services in markets with the highest potential for growth, such as Asia 
and Latin America, and in important growing sectors, such as computers, 
telecommunications, and environmental technologies. The report of the 
TPCC outlined more than 60 specific actions to strengthen U.S. export 
promotion efforts. Many of these actions, such as increasing U.S. 
businesses' awareness of sources of, and access to, trade finance and 
the establishment of one-stop U.S. Export Assistance Centers, directly 
involve ITA but do not involve regulation.
ITA also enforces our trade laws to ensure free and fair competition in 
our domestic market between U.S.- and foreign-manufactured goods. It 
administers and enforces the antidumping and countervailing duty laws 
of the United States. It investigates whether exports to the United 
States are subsidized or sold at less than fair value; when it finds 
that they are, and the U.S. International Trade Commission finds that a 
U.S. industry has been injured or threatened with material injury as a 
result, it issues an order to the U. S. Customs Service to impose 
offsetting duties. In addition, ITA administers the Foreign Trade Zone 
and Watch Quota Programs, and the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
Materials Importation Act.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations
The top regulatory priority of ITA is revising the antidumping and 
countervailing duty regulations to conform to legislation implementing 
the results of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations.
The newly negotiated Antidumping Agreement and Subsidies/Countervailing 
Measures Agreement (Agreements) establish general principles regarding 
the administration of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. In 
order to facilitate the administration of these laws and to provide 
greater predictability for private parties affected by these laws, it 
will be necessary to promulgate regulations which, where appropriate 
and feasible, translate the principles of the Agreements and the 
implementing legislation into specific and predictable rules. By 
clarifying the methodologies and procedures used in administering the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws, the efficiency and fairness 
of these laws will be enhanced at little, if any, additional cost. The 
manner in which these regulations are drafted could have a significant 
impact on various important sectors of the economy, including steel, 
lumber and bearings.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) establishes 
and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of 
the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a 
variety of essential environmental services vital to public safety and 
to the Nation's economy, such as weather forecasts and storm warnings. 
It is a source of objective information on the state of the 
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving the departmental 
goal of promoting stewardship and assessment of the global environment.
In recognition that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with 
environmental stewardship, the Commerce 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 saving 
fisheries and confronting short-term economic dislocation, while 
boosting long-term economic growth. The Department of Commerce 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 Service 
(NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), 
exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine 
fisheries, protects marine mammals, and promotes the economic 
development of the U.S. fishing industries. NOS assists the coastal 
States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal 
zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the Nation's 
national marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the 
national program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. 
NESDIS administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses 
private organizations to operate civil operational land-remote sensing 
satellite systems.
The Administration is committed to an environmental strategy that 
promotes sustainable economic development and rejects the false choice 
between environmental goals and economic growth. The intent is to have 
the Government's economic decisions be guided by a comprehensive 
understanding of the environment. The Department of Commerce through 
NOAA has a unique role in promoting stewardship of the global 
environment through effective management of the Nation's marine and 
coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes in the 
Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development and technology 
with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal responsibility 
for providing the sound scientific observations, assessments and 
forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource management and 
other societal decisions can be made. The Department of Commerce's 
Economics and Statistics Administration has the primary Federal 
responsibility for providing information about the economy.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include rebuilding 
U.S. fisheries by refocusing policies and fishery management planning 
on increased scientific information; increasing the populations of 
depleted, threatened, or endangered species of

[[Page 62026]]

marine mammals by implementing recovery plans that provide for their 
recovery while still allowing for economic and recreational 
opportunities; promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that 
economic development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and 
long-term productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation 
and positioning services. In the environmental assessment and 
prediction area, goals include modernizing 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.
Programs that seek to achieve the above goals involve fishery 
management activities under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act and other statutes, including regulatory, enforcement, 
and conservation actions; endangered species and marine mammal 
protection activities; marine habitat conservation activities under the 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Federal Power Act; deep-
seabed mining regulatory activities under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral 
Resources Act; studies on locating ocean dump sites and disposing of 
toxic waste under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 
and other laws; and coastal zone, estuarine research reserve and 
national marine sanctuary management activities, including regulatory 
activities under various statutes.
NOAA's principal regulatory objectives are to manage more effectively 
the marine fishery resources under its jurisdiction, to implement the 
designation of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and to 
promulgate natural resource damage assessment regulations applicable to 
oil spills.
Magnuson Act Rulemakings
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) 
rulemakings concern the conservation and management of fishery 
resources in the U.S. 3-to-200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 
Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue in the 
regulatory plan year, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory 
actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is 
unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight 
regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for 
preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for 
drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery and by other 
circumstances which cannot be predicted. Once a rulemaking is triggered 
by a FMC, the Magnuson Act places stringent deadlines upon NMFS in 
which it must exercise its rulemaking responsibilities. Most of these 
rulemakings will be minor, involving only the opening or closing of a 
fishery under an existing FMP. While no one Magnuson Act rulemaking is 
among the Department's most important significant regulatory actions, 
and therefore none is specifically described below, the sum of these 
actions, and a few of the individual actions themselves, are highly 
significant.
The Magnuson Act, which is the primary legal authority for Federal 
regulation to conserve and manage fishery resources, establishes eight 
regional FMCs, responsible for preparing FMPs and FMP amendments. NMFS 
issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. FMPs address a 
variety of fishery matters, including depressed stocks, over-fished 
stocks, gear conflicts, and foreign fishing. One of the problems that 
FMPs may use is preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess 
fishing capacity) of fisheries by limiting access to those dependent on 
the fishery in the past and/or by allocating the resource through 
individual transferable quotas which can be sold on the open market to 
other participants or those wishing access. Quotas set on good 
scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit for a species 
in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel participant, enable 
stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include staggering fishing 
seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the fishing 
grounds and establishing seasonal and area closures to protect fishery 
stocks.
NMFS favors the concept of framework FMPs where applicable. Such FMPs 
provide ranges, boundaries, and decision rules within which NMFS can 
change management measures without formally amending the FMP. Further, 
consistent with the recommendations on improving regulatory systems 
accompanying the Report of the National Performance Review, NMFS favors 
using market-oriented approaches such as marketable limited access 
permits and marketable individual quotas in managing fisheries. Open-
access fisheries are destined to have too many people investing too 
much money in vessels and equipment. Access controls (e.g., a limited 
number of permits) represent a rational approach for managing fishery 
resources; they can be used to control fishing mortality levels and to 
prevent overfishing, economic dissipation, and subsequent economic and 
social dislocation. Of course overall quotas will need to be set based 
on the best scientific information available as to such things as stock 
status and optimum yields. At present, adequate scientific information 
is available for only 34 percent of all U.S. fishery resources.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best 
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to 
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional 
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the 
national standards set forth in the Magnuson Act. This process, 
including the selection of the preferred management measures, 
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 
together with draft-implementing regulations and supporting 
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national 
standards set forth in the Magnuson Act, in other provisions of the 
Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to amending an 
existing approved FMP.
The Magnuson Act contains seven national standards against which 
fishery management measures are judged. NMFS has supplemented these 
standards with guidelines interpreting each standard. One of the 
national standards requires that management measures, where 
practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. Under 
the guidelines, NMFS will not approve management measures submitted by 
an FMC unless the fishery is in need of management. Together, the 
standards and the guidelines correspond to many of the Administration's 
principles of regulation as set forth in section 1(b) of Executive 
Order 12866. One of the national standards establishes a qualitative 
equivalent to the Executive order's ``net benefits'' requirement--one 
of the focuses of the Administration's statement of regulatory 
philosophy as stated in section 1(a) of the order.
Rulemakings implementing an FMP or amendment cannot be precisely 
scheduled in advance because, for the most part, an FMP or amendment is

[[Page 62027]]

developed and submitted by an FMC. The timing of the submission is 
determined by the FMC, not by NMFS. Upon receiving an FMP or amendment 
and implementing regulations, NMFS is required by the Magnuson Act to 
publish the proposed implementing regulations within 15 days unless, 
after preliminary review, NMFS disapproves the FMP or amendment because 
it is inconsistent with the national standards or too deficient in 
scope and substance to warrant review. Upon completion of the 
preliminary review, if NMFS finds that the FMP or amendment is 
consistent with the national standards and sufficient in scope and 
substance to warrant further review, NMFS must commence such review. 
Upon completion of that review, if NMFS finds that the FMP or amendment 
is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of the 
Magnuson Act, and any other applicable law, NMFS must approve the FMP 
or amendment and issue final regulations implementing it. If the FMP or 
amendment is not consistent with the Magnuson Act or other applicable 
law, NMFS must disapprove or partially disapprove it within 95 days of 
receipt, and the FMC may submit a revised FMP or amendment.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Rulemaking
NOAA's most important significant regulatory action will be finalizing 
the management plan and regulations for the Florida Keys National 
Marine Sanctuary. A proposed management plan and proposed implementing 
regulations were published in early spring 1995. Mounting threats to 
the ecological health and future of the coral reefs of the Florida Keys 
from oil drilling, deteriorating water quality, vessel groundings, 
pollution, and intense human use prompted Congress to enact the Florida 
Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA) in late 
1990. This Act designated a 2800 square nautical mile area of coastal 
waters running the entire 220 mile length of the Florida Keys as the 
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary). The Act makes NOAA 
responsible for developing a comprehensive Sanctuary management plan, 
including a Florida and U.S. EPA-developed Water Quality Plan, to 
protect Sanctuary resources while facilitating all compatible public 
and private uses of the Sanctuary.
Because of the size of the Sanctuary and the variety of the resources 
the proposed plan addresses, many problems never before presented in 
Sanctuary management must be addressed. For example, significant 
declines in water quality and habitat conditions in Florida Bay are 
threatening the health of Sanctuary resources. These conditions are 
thought to be the result of water quality and quantity management in 
the South Florida region. Accordingly, all agencies with responsibility 
in these areas are being incorporated into the continuous process of 
Sanctuary management of this marine area.
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) has been published which 
sets forth management alternatives for dealing with the problems 
identified in the planning process (e.g., boating, fishing, 
recreation). Five alternatives are set forth for each problem ranging 
from complete restriction of uses to maintaining the status quo, with 
the most attention paid to the three mid-range alternatives. The DEIS 
sets forth the environmental consequences and the economic and social 
effects on the human environment of the three mid-range alternatives, 
including the groups and industries likely to be impacted under each 
alternative. The DEIS selects the middle alternative as the preferred 
course of action because it best accomplishes the statutory objectives 
with due consideration of impacts on the human environment and costs.
In passing the FKNMSPA, Congress specifically recognized that the 
unique natural and historic environment of the Florida Keys is 
irreplaceable. As such, the benefits of the proposed regulation are 
best seen by looking at what would be lost if the environment were not 
protected. First, the 2.4 million-acre Sanctuary contains one of North 
America's most diverse assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine, and 
marine fauna and flora, particularly the Florida Reef Tract. In 
addition to the reef tract, the Sanctuary boundaries include thousands 
of patch reefs, one of the world's largest seagrass communities 
covering 1.4 million acres, mangrove-fringed shorelines, mangrove 
islands, and various hardbottom habitats. Moreover, these diverse 
habitats provide shelter and food for thousands of species of marine 
plants and animals, including over 50 species of animals identified by 
either Federal or State law as endangered or threatened. Finally, 
because the Keys were at one time a major seafaring center for European 
and American trade routes in the Caribbean, submerged cultural and 
historic resources; i.e., shipwrecks, also abound in the surrounding 
waters. Recent information indicates that there may be more 
archaeological resources of pre-European cultures than had previously 
been believed to be the case.
Loss of the unique and distinct marine resources of the Sanctuary would 
not only cost an irreplaceable ecosystem and cultural and historic 
resources, it would also significantly damage the economy of the 
Florida Keys. The abundance of marine resources in the Keys draws 
thousands of visitors each year. As such, the major industry in the 
Florida Keys is tourism, including activities related to the Keys' 
marine resources, such as dive shops, charter fishing and dive boats, 
marinas, as well as hotels and restaurants. More than half (51 percent) 
of the Florida Keys' employment is based in recreation and tourism, 
with about 61 percent of all recreation and tourism activities being 
water-related. About half of the $1.6 billion in total sales for the 
area are related to tourism, with another $16 million spent by Keys 
residents for recreation activities.
The wealth of natural marine resources also supports a large commercial 
fishing sector. With approximately 9 percent of the area work force, 
this industry is the fourth largest source of employment in the Keys.
Finally, the monetary costs of compliance with these proposed 
regulations borne by individuals would be relatively small and arise 
from the following two items. First, some of those engaged in 
consumptive fishing will likely need to travel farther to fish. 
Additionally, some activities that were previously unregulated, such as 
treasure salving (in Federal waters) and coral collecting, would 
require permits or be subject to additional requirements. However, the 
amount charged for a permit may not exceed the cost of administering 
permit issuance.
It should be noted that Congress itself included several prohibitions 
that, by the prevention of income-generating and wealth-generating 
activity, will be quite costly. Specifically, Congress prohibited oil, 
gas and mineral leasing and development and prohibited vessels greater 
than 50 meters from an Area to Be Avoided. However, since Congress 
prohibited these activities, the regulatory prohibition does not create 
associated costs. Other than the prohibition of oil, gas and mineral 
leasing, the Sanctuary regulations contain some Sanctuary-wide 
prohibitions, such as the prohibition on harvesting live rock or 
altering the seabed, that may generate costs.

[[Page 62028]]

Many issues inherent in Sanctuary regulation are foreclosed by 
prohibitions in the FKNMSPA on tank vessels and on mineral and 
hydrocarbon leasing, exploration, development, and production within 
the Sanctuary.
The proposed regulations employ water zoning as a means of protecting 
Sanctuary resources and preventing user group conflicts. While several 
regulatory restrictions apply throughout the Sanctuary, certain 
restrictions apply only by zone. For example, all consumptive 
activities would be prohibited within 22 zones, constituting just over 
5 percent of the Sanctuary area, including 90 percent of the heavily 
used, well-developed coral reef formations. This action might engender 
opposition from members of the public whose activities (diving, 
fishing, and boating) would be highly restricted; however, it was 
believed that this method was the best approach for achieving 
protection while still facilitating use of the Sanctuary.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--International Trade Administration (ITA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

13. ANTIDUMPING DUTIES; COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 19 USC 1671 et seq; 19 USC 1673 et seq; 19 USC 1303


CFR Citation:


 19 CFR 351; 19 CFR 353; 19 CFR 355


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, January 1, 1996.


Section 103(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act establishes January 
1, 1996, as the deadline for interim final regulations.


Abstract:


Revisions of the antidumping and countervailing duty regulations are 
necessary due to enactment of legislation implementing the results of 
the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations. Clarifying the 
methodologies and procedures used in administering the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws will enhance the efficiency and fairness of 
these laws at little, if any, additional cost.


Statement of Need:


Regulations are needed to implement the results of the Uruguay Round 
with respect to the administration of the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws. The newly negotiated Antidumping Agreement 
and Subsidies/Countervailing Measures Agreement (Agreements) establish 
general principles regarding the administration of these laws. In order 
to facilitate the administration and to provide greater predictability 
for private parties affected by these laws, it will be necessary to 
promulgate regulations which, where appropriate and feasible, translate 
the principles of the Agreements and the implementing legislation into 
specific and predictable rules.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for administering the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws pursuant to authority 
contained in several legislative enactments, See 19 USC 1671 et seq.; 
19 USC 1673 et seq.; 19 USC 1303. These laws conform to the Agreements 
and reflect internationally agreed rules regarding unfair trade. The 
Secretary, acting through the Import Administration of the 
International Trade Administration, is responsible for processing 
petitions from firms that allege they have been harmed by unfair 
competition from imports, making preliminary and final determinations 
about whether such competition was subsidized or benefited from 
``dumping,'' and conducting periodic administrative reviews of 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Merchandise found to be 
benefiting from subsidies or to have been ``dumped'' is subject to 
duties in the amount of the dumping or subsidization.


Alternatives:


U.S. objectives in the Uruguay Round antidumping negotiations were to 
improve transparency and due process in antidumping proceedings, 
develop disciplines on diversionary dumping, and ensure that the 
antidumping rules continue to provide an effective tool to combat 
injurious dumping. The Antidumping Agreement substantially achieve 
these objectives.
The Subsidies Countervailing Measures Agreement establishes clearer 
rules and stronger disciplines in the subsidies area while also making 
certain subsidies nonactionable, provided they are subject to 
conditions designed to limit distorting effects. The Agreements create 
three categories of subsidies and remedies: (1) prohibited subsidies; 
(2) permissible subsidies which are actionable if they cause adverse 
trade effects; and (3) permissible subsidies which are nonactionable if 
they are structured according to criteria intended to limit their 
potential for distortion.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Uruguay Round Agreements are anticipated to create hundreds of 
thousands of high-wage, high-skilled jobs in the United States. 
Further, economists estimate that the Uruguay Round will increase trade 
and will add between $100 and $200 billion to the United States economy 
after the round is fully implemented. Finally, the Agreements create an 
effective set of rules for the prompt settlement of disputes by 
eliminating shortcomings in the current system that allows parties to 
prolong the process and block adverse determinations.
The costs of administering the antidumping/countervailing duty system 
will be increased pursuant to the new rules established in the Uruguay 
Round and the implementing legislation. The new agreements dictate a 
number of new obligations in the investigation of petitions and the 
conduct of administrative reviews. Binding dispute settlement under the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) will also increase legal costs because 
substantially more challenges to ITA determinations will be brought to 
the WTO forum.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 80                                       01/03/95
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       02/24/95
Interim Final Ru60 FR 25130                                    05/11/95
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   05/11/95
NPRM            61 FR 7308                                     02/27/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/17/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 62029]]

Agency Contact:
Richard N. Moreland
Director, Office of Antidumping Investigations
Department of Commerce
International Trade Administration
Room 3093
14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: 202 482-1768
RIN: 0625-AA45
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

14. FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 16 USC 1431 et seq; PL 101-605


CFR Citation:


 15 CFR 929


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, May 1993.


Abstract:


These regulations are necessary for the implementation of the 
Congressionally designated national marine sanctuary.


Statement of Need:


Mounting threats to the ecological health and future of the coral reefs 
of the Florida Keys from oil drilling, deteriorating water quality, 
vessel groundings, pollution, and intense human use prompted Congress 
to enact the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 
(FKNMSPA) in late 1990. This Act designated a 2,800-square nautical 
mile area of coastal waters running the entire 220-mile length of the 
Florida Keys as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary). 
The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) is made responsible for developing a 
comprehensive Sanctuary management plan designed to protect Sanctuary 
resources while facilitating all compatible public and private uses of 
the Sanctuary.
Because of the size of the Sanctuary and the variety of the resources 
it contains, many problems never before presented in sanctuary 
management must be addressed. For example, significant declines in 
water quality and habitat conditions in Florida Bay are threatening the 
health of Sanctuary resources. These conditions are thought to be the 
result of water quality and quantity management in the South Florida 
region. Accordingly, all agencies with responsibility in these areas 
are being incorporated into the continuous process of Sanctuary 
management.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


On November 16, 1990, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and 
Protection Act, PL 101-605, set out as a note to 16 USC 1433, became 
law. The FKNMSPA designated, effective the day of enactment, an area of 
waters and submerged lands, including the living and nonliving 
resources within those waters, the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary. Congress found that the area encompassed ``spectacular, 
unique, and nationally significant marine environments, including 
seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living coral reefs'' 
with the environments being ``the marine equivalent of tropical rain 
forests in that they support high levels of biological diversity, are 
fragile and easily susceptible to damage from human activities, and 
possess high value to human beings if properly conserved.''
Both section 7(a) of the FKNMSPA and the National Marine Sanctuaries 
Research Act, 16 USC 1431 et seq. authorize NOAA to issue regulations 
necessary to implement the designation, including managing and 
protecting the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, 
research, educational, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the 
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.


Alternatives:


A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) has been published which 
sets forth alternatives for dealing with the problems identified in the 
planning process (e.g., boating, fishing, recreation). Five 
alternatives are set forth for each problem, ranging from complete 
restriction of uses to maintaining the status quo, with the most 
attention paid to the three mid-range alternatives. The DEIS sets forth 
the environmental consequences and the economic and social effects on 
the human environment of the three mid-range alternatives, including 
the groups and industries likely to be impacted under each alternative. 
The DEIS selects the middle alternative as the preferred course of 
action because it best accomplishes the statutory objectives with due 
consideration of impacts on the human environment and costs.
A final management plan and regulations will be published that will 
further the Clinton Administration's objective of providing long-term 
protection for ecologically significant areas while maximizing their 
sustainable use. The final regulations will protect Sanctuary resources 
with the minimum necessary regulatory burden on Sanctuary users.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In passing the FKNMSPA, Congress specifically recognized that the 
unique natural and historic environment of the Florida Keys is 
irreplaceable. Accordingly, the benefits of the proposed regulation are 
best seen by looking at what would be lost if the environment were not 
protected. First, the 2.4 million-acre Sanctuary contains one of North 
America's most diverse assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine, and 
marine fauna and flora, particularly the Florida Reef Tract. In 
addition to the reef tract, the Sanctuary boundaries include thousands 
of patch reefs, one of the world's largest seagrass communities 
covering 1.4 million acres, mangrove-fringed shorelines, mangrove 
islands, and various hardbottom habitats. Moreover, these diverse 
habitats provide shelter and food for thousands of species of marine 
plants and animals, including over 50 species of animals identified by 
either Federal or State law as endangered or threatened. Finally, 
because the Keys were at one time a major seafaring center for European 
and American trade routes in the Caribbean, submerged cultural and 
historic resources, that is, shipwrecks, also abound in the surrounding 
waters. Recent information indicates that there may be more 
archaeological resources of pre-European cultures there than previously 
believed.
Loss of the unique and distinct marine resources of the Sanctuary would 
not only cost an irreplaceable ecosystem and cultural and historic 
resources, it would also significantly damage the economy of the 
Florida Keys. The abundance of marine resources in the Keys draws 
thousands of visitors each year. The major industry in the Florida Keys 
is tourism, including activities related to the Keys' marine resources, 
such as dive shops, charter fishing, and dive boats, and marinas, as 
well as

[[Page 62030]]

hotels and restaurants. More than half (51 percent) of the Florida 
Keys' employment is based in recreation and tourism, with about 61 
percent of all recreation and tourism activities being water-related. 
About half of the $1.6 billion in total sales for the area are related 
to tourism, with another $16 million spent by Keys residents for 
recreation activities.
The wealth of natural marine resources also supports a large commercial 
fishing sector. With approximately 9 percent of the area work force, 
this industry is the fourth largest source of employment in the Keys.
Finally, the monetary costs of compliance with these regulations borne 
by individuals would be relatively small and arise from two items. 
First, those engaged in consumptive fishing will likely need to travel 
farther to fish. Additionally, some activities that were previously 
unregulated, such as treasure salving and coral collecting, would be 
required to obtain permits. However, the amount permitted to be charged 
for a permit may not exceed the cost of administering permit issuance.
It should be noted that Congress itself included several prohibitions 
that, by the prevention of income-generating and wealth-generating 
activity, will be quite costly. Specifically, Congress prohibited oil, 
gas, and mineral leasing and development. However, since Congress 
prohibited this activity, the regulatory prohibition does not itself 
create this cost. Other than the prohibition of oil, gas, and mineral 
leasing, the Sanctuary regulations contain only one Sanctuary-wide 
prohibition, live rock harvest, that may generate costs.


Risks:


Many issues inherent in Sanctuary regulation are foreclosed by 
statutory prohibitions on tank vessels and on mineral and hydrocarbon 
leasing, exploration, development, and production within the Sanctuary.
The proposed regulations employ water zoning as a means of protecting 
Sanctuary resources and preventing user group conflicts. While several 
regulatory restrictions apply throughout the Sanctuary, certain 
restrictions apply only by zone. For example, all consumptive 
activities would be prohibited within 22 zones, constituting just over 
5 percent of the Sanctuary area, including 90 percent of the heavily 
used, well-developed coral reef formations. This action might engender 
opposition from members of the public whose activities (diving, 
fishing, and boating) would be highly restricted; however, it was 
believed that this method was the best approach for achieving the goals 
of the statute.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 16399                                    03/30/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/31/95
Final Action                                                   11/00/96
Final Action Effective                                         04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Additional Information:


Completion of this regulation within the dates projected in the 
timetable is subject to the availability of appropriated funds for NOAA 
after March 15, 1996. At this time, NOAA anticipates that sufficient 
funds will be appropriated to complete this project.


Agency Contact:
Stephanie R. Thornton
Chief, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1305 East-West Highway (N/ORM2)
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-3125
RIN: 0648-AD85
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-F