APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 
and protect fisheries resources. Congress might want to consider 
amending this provision to recognize the “optimum sustainable 
yield" concept promoted by the 1976 Act ana to coordinete it 
with the concept of regional councils and regional planning. 
(2) As previously mentioned, 16 U.S.C. §760a, which directs 
the Secretary of Commerce to make certain Atlantic Coast studies 
on which to base his recommendations to the States for develop- 
ment and protection of Atlantic fisheries, might be amended to 
address itself in some way to the regional councils. 
(8) 227 USC. aS27/)53)(b)),= whuich™ poh bilitsirorer'gqnemiisleinte aiay: 
sales for a period of one year to any country that seizes or 
fines an American fishing vessel for engaging in fishing more 
than 12 miles from the coast of that country, was not amended 
by the 1976 Act to reflect the 200-mile extended jurisdiction. 
Congress might want to consider amending this in some way because 
it seems incongruous to prohibit foreign fishing within 200 miles 
of our shores, while not recognizing similar territorial limits 
in other countries. Failure to amend this provision of law seems 
to have been an oversight. 
D. Foreign relations 
Several comments concerning statutes affecting foreign rela- 
tions: (1) 19902 SVC. -§1323, allowing the President ‘to rartset duty 
rates up to 50 percent above the rate existing on July 1, 1934, 
could be obsolete if the rates today have already reachea that 
point; if they have not, some adjustment of the base date might 
be warranted; (2) several sections, such as 22 U.S.C. §2753(b) 
and 22 U.S.C. §2370(0), provide for sanctions against foreign 
countries that seize U.S. fishing vessels in international waters. 
Congress might consider combining these and similar statutes into 
one law dealing with the subject; and (3) the inconsistency of 
76 U.S.C. §2753(b) with the 200—mile limit established in the 
1976 Act has already been discussed. 
E. Domestic and foreign commerce 
While several commerce-related statutes--l16 U.S.C. §§772b, 
781, 955c, 1171(a), for example--prohibit possession, sale, etc., 
of a described species, they do not specifically prohibit “import- 
ing" or "exporting" those species. If Congress intended these 
statutes to prohibit importing or exporting the named species, 
consideration should be given to clarifying them, at least when 
the conventions, agreements, or treaties are renegotiated. If 
importation and exportation were not intended to be prohibited, 
Congress might want to make that clear. 
