80 FR 45955 - Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 148 (August 3, 2015)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 148 (August 3, 2015)
| Page Range | 45955-45963 | |
| FR Document | 2015-18945 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 45955-45963] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-18945] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE078 Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Ocean Council Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee) is seeking public input on draft principles for determining seafood species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud (``at risk'') and a draft list of ``at risk'' species developed using the draft principles. DATES: Comments must be received by September 2, 2015. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, by any of the following methods:Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Mail: Submit written comments to Danielle Rioux, 1315 East-West Highway; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Webinar: A webinar will be held on August 25th 3:30-5pm Eastern time. Please go to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html for information on how to join. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by the Working Group. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. The Working Group will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Rioux, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (phone 301-427-8516, or email [email protected]). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According to NOAA, in 2013, U.S. fishers landed 9.9 billion pounds of fish and shellfish worth $5.5 billion. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud undermine the sustainability of U.S. and global seafood stocks and negatively impact general ecosystem health. At the same time, IUU fishing and fraudulent seafood products distort legal markets and unfairly compete with the products of law-abiding fishers and seafood industries. On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, took an historic step to address these issues and published its Action Plan for Implementing Task Force Recommendations (Action Plan). The Action Plan (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf) articulates the proactive steps that Federal agencies will take to implement the recommendations the Task Force made to the President in December 2014 on a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The Action Plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement, create and expand partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and non- governmental organizations, and create a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce, including through the use of existing traceability mechanisms. The work the Task Force began continues under the oversight of the National Ocean Council's Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee), established this past April, 2015. This notice is one of several steps in the plan to implement Task Force Recommendations 14 and 15, identifying ``species of fish or seafood that are presently of particular concern because they are currently subject to significant seafood fraud or because they are at significant risk of being caught by IUU fishing.'' To begin implementing these recommendations, the NOC Committee created a Working Group (Working Group), led by NOAA and composed of members from partner agencies: Department of State, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. As the first step, the NOC Committee, through the Working Group, solicited public input through a Federal Register notice (80 FR 24246, April 30, 2015) on what principles should be used to determine the seafood species ``at risk'' for IUU fishing or seafood fraud. Public input was received both in writing and through webinars. Taking into consideration comments received, the Working Group developed draft principles and a draft list of ``at risk'' species based on those principles. This notice seeks public comment on the draft principles and ``at risk'' species list. Following public comment, the Working Group will develop final principles and a final recommended list of at risk species. Once at risk species have been determined, the NOC Committee will transmit the list to agencies charged with implementing the Task Force recommendations for appropriate action. The list will be published by October 2015, in the [[Page 45956]] Federal Register. The list will not impose any legal requirements, but will inform the first phase of the risk-based seafood traceability program, as described in the Action Plan for Implementing Task Force Recommendations. The traceability program itself will be developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and that rulemaking will address data requirements, the design of the program, and the species to which the first phase of the program will be applied. Draft Principles for Determining Species at Risk of IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud To develop draft principles, the Working Group reviewed all public comments received and evaluated the strength and utility of various principles as indicators for potential risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud as well as their measurability and the robustness of data available to assess them. The Working Group worked to minimize overlap of principles to ensure that alignment with several principles does not overstate associated risk, and also to distinguish between risk of IUU fishing and risk of seafood fraud. The Working Group then applied the draft principles to a base list of species to determine a draft list of species at risk for IUU fishing or seafood fraud. Based on the Working Group's evaluation and synthesis of comments received, the draft principles for which public comment is sought are listed below. Species and species groups were evaluated using these principles: Enforcement Capability: The enforcement capability of the United States and other countries, which includes both the existing legal authority to enforce fisheries management laws and regulations and the capacity (e.g., resources, infrastructure, etc.) to enforce those laws and regulations throughout the geographic range of fishing activity for a species. Catch Documentation Scheme: The existence of a catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity for a species, and the effectiveness of that scheme if it exists, including whether a lack of proper documentation leads to discrepancies between total allowable catch and trade volume of a species. Complexity of the Chain of Custody and Processing: The transparency of chain-of-custody for a species, which includes the amount of transshipment (in this context, the transfer of fish from one vessel to another, either at sea or in port) for a species, as well as the complexity of the supply chain and extent of processing (e.g., fish that is commonly exported for processing or that is sold as fillet block vs. whole fish) as it pertains to comingling of species or catch. Species Substitution: The history of known species substitution for a species, focused on mislabeling or other forms of misrepresentation of seafood products regarding the species contained therein. Mislabeling: The history of mislabeling other than mislabeling related to species substitution, e.g., customs misclassification or misrepresentation related to country of origin, whether product is wild vs. aquaculture, or product weight. History of Violations: The history of fisheries violations in the United States and abroad for a species, particularly those related to IUU fishing. Human Health Risks: History of mislabeling, other forms of misrepresentation, or species substitution leading to human health concerns for consumers, including in particular, incidents when misrepresentation of product introduced human health concerns due to different production, harvest or handling standards, or when higher levels of harmful pathogens were introduced directly from the substituted species. Application of Draft Principles Given the large number of seafood species domestically landed and imported, it was not feasible to analyze all species that enter U.S. commerce under the principles listed above. Therefore, the Working Group created a base list of species for evaluation using several factors: (1) The value of domestic landings and imports (all seafood species with an imported or domestically landed value over $100 million USD in 2014 were included on the base list); (2) species identified by the Working Group due to a high cost of product per pound (which was considered to potentially increase the incentive for IUU fishing and fraud); and (3) species proposed based on the expertise of representatives from the Working Group agencies. In some cases, the Working Group combined related species (e.g., shrimp), together in its analysis because the supporting data utilized nomenclature which made further analytical breakouts (e.g., by scientific name) unworkable. The resulting list of species and groups analyzed is set forth below: Abalone; Billfish (Marlins, Spearfishes, and Sailfishes); Catfish (Ictaluridae); Cod, Atlantic; Cod, Pacific; Crab, Blue; Crab, Dungeness; Crab, King; Crab, Snow; Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); Oyster; Grouper; Haddock; Halibut, Atlantic; Halibut, Pacific; Lake or Yellow Perch; Lobster; Mackerel; Menhaden; Opah; Orange Roughy; Red Drum; Red Snapper; Sablefish; Salmon, Atlantic; Salmon, Chinook; Salmon, Chum; Salmon, Coho; Salmon, Pink; Salmon, Sockeye; Scallop; Sea bass; Sea cucumber; Shrimp; Sharks; Sole; Squid; Sturgeon caviar; Swordfish; Tilapia; Toothfish; Tunas (Albacore, Bigeye, Bluefin, Skipjack, Yellowfin); Wahoo; Walleye (Alaskan) Pollock; Pacific Whiting. Both imported and domestically landed species were evaluated using the same data sources and methodology, as described below. The Working Group identified appropriate data sources for analyzing the base list of species using the principles to determine species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The Working Group used verifiable data, including information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and NOAA databases, published reports, or data gathered by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to which the United States is a member and whose scientific data is developed and reviewed with active U.S. government participation, and the knowledge of subject matter experts, including members of the Working Group and other personnel from represented agencies. The Working Group decided to analyze data from the past five years as the appropriate timeframe for decision-making because a longer timeframe might not reflect improvements that have been made in some fisheries over time and a shorter timeframe might not include sufficient data to identify risks to certain species. Sub-working groups based on subject matter expertise were created to complete the analyses under each individual principle. The Working Group then used the analyses done by the sub-working groups to determine which species were most at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The Working Group then had in-depth discussions regarding the application of the draft principles to the base list of species, and noted that the suite of risks posed to species varied not only in terms of what risks affected which species, but also in terms of the scale of the risks. For example, a single documented case of species substitution for a species that is sold in high volumes was considered differently than one case for a species rarely found in U.S. markets. Additionally, as the Working Group discussed the suite of risks associated [[Page 45957]] with the principles, a relationship became evident between the enforcement capability associated with a species and the history of violations. In many cases a history of violations was indicative of a strong enforcement capability for a species. Conversely, for some species, a lack of violations history may have been due to a lack of ability to detect or prosecute violations. Draft Species at Risk of IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud The Working Group recognizes that all species of fish can be susceptible to some risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud due to the inherent complexities in the fishing industry and supply chain. However, the draft species list was developed to identify species for which the current risks for IUU fishing or seafood fraud warrant prioritization for the first phase of the traceability program. Pursuant to the Action Plan, implementation of the first phase of the traceability program will be regularly evaluated, beginning with a report to be issued by December 2016, in order to determine ``whether it is meeting the intended objectives and how it can be expanded to provide more information to prevent seafood fraud and combat IUU fishing.'' Based on its evaluation, the Working Group identified the following draft list of species or species groups at risk for IUU fishing and seafood fraud, in alphabetical order: Abalone: Abalone is considered to be at risk due to enforcement concerns. The fishery has a history of poaching, and there is a known black market for this expensive seafood. The fishery is primarily conducted by small vessels close to shore, and does not require specialized gear, which makes it difficult to detect illegal harvest, despite some enforcement capability. In addition to the IUU fishing risks for abalone, there is a history of species substitution where topshell is marketed as abalone. Atlantic Cod: Atlantic cod have been targets of global IUU fishing operators. Despite a moderate amount of enforcement capability, there has been concern that adequate resources have not been dedicated to law enforcement for this species globally. Additional IUU fishing risk is tied to a lack of an effective catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity, despite rigorous reporting requirements in some areas, including the United States. In addition, there is a history of species substitution with other white fish, as well as concerns over mislabeling related to over-glazing (ice coating), and short-weighting. Blue Crab: Blue crab is sold in a number of different forms from live animals to significantly processed crab meat. In the highly processed form, species identification is only possible through DNA testing. There is a strong history of both species substitution and mislabeling. Blue crab has been substituted with swimming crab, which is native to Southeast Asia. The mislabeling history is largely associated with misidentification of product origin, with crab from other locations sold as ``Maryland crab,'' although there have also been incidents of short-weighting in the sale of crab meat. Dolphinfish: Dolphinfish (also known as Mahi Mahi) is associated with a lack of enforcement capability and a lack of a catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity, which makes it vulnerable to the risk of IUU fishing. Some dolphinfish is transshipped prior to entry into the U.S, and there is concern over mislabeling associated with product origin. In addition, there is a history of species substitution, in which yellowtail flounder has been sold as dolphinfish. Grouper: Grouper refers to a group of species legally fished and sold under the names grouper and spotted grouper. Grouper, as a species group, has history of fisheries violations, and a lack of a catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity for the species group. Additionally, this global species is transshipped, and processed both at the local level and at regionally located or third country processing plants. Grouper has a strong history of species substitution, including substitution using seafood that is of human health concern, such as escolar (which has a Gemplytoxin hazard). King Crab: King crab has a significant history of fisheries violations, despite insufficient enforcement capability in some parts of the world. Additional IUU fishing risk is tied to the lack of an effective catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity, despite rigorous reporting requirements in some areas, including the United States. Further, King crab is often transshipped before entering the United States, which increases the IUU fishing and seafood fraud risks. King crab is at risk for seafood fraud, mostly due to mislabeling of product origin, as well as some species substitution. Pacific cod: Pacific cod is proposed as a species at risk despite significant enforcement capability associated with this fishery. Pacific cod is a target of global IUU fishing operators and has a clear a history of fishing violations. It is also subject to highly globalized processing and transshipment. Additional IUU fishing risk is tied to a lack of an effective catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity, despite rigorous reporting requirements in some areas, including the United States. In addition, as with Atlantic cod, there is a history of species substitution using other white fish and concerns over mislabeling associated with over- glazing (ice coating) and short-weighting. Red Snapper: Red Snapper is at risk for IUU fishing, based upon the history of fisheries violations, as well as the lack of a catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity, despite rigorous reporting requirements in some areas, including the United States. There are also enforcement capability concerns for red snapper throughout the full geographic range of fishing activity for the species. Additionally, there is a strong history of species substitution with some of the substituted species (e.g. rockfish, porgy, other snappers) presenting a risk to human health due to parasites and natural toxins. Sea Cucumber: Sea cucumber is an IUU fishing concern, due to the lack of enforcement capability and known illegal harvesting and smuggling associated with this species. There is also a lack of a catch documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity and a significant amount of transshipment. Although sea cucumber is often sold live, it can also be processed into a dried product for preservation. There are mislabeling concerns for sea cucumber, often tied to falsification of shipping and export documentation to conceal illegally harvested product. Sharks: ``Sharks,'' as included on the draft at risk species list, refers to a group of species that are often sold as fins with some species also sold as steaks or filets. Depending upon the product form, differentiating between species in this broad group is a challenge without identification guides or DNA testing. This led the Working Group to group all shark species together to assess risks. Sharks as a species group have a history fishing violations because they are processed and transshipped and there is a lack of enforcement capability throughout the geographic range of fishing activity. There is a global trade in shark fins that is a known enforcement concern. In addition to the IUU fishing risks associated with sharks, there are fraud concerns tied to the sale [[Page 45958]] of imitation shark fin, which has been labeled as wild caught product. We are seeking additional public comment on whether this broader grouping is appropriate, potential ways to refine how sharks are addressed on the list, and any exclusions from the group that should be considered. Any refinements would need to be enforceable without the need for DNA testing, and should not unintentionally shift the risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud to other species or introduce new IUU fishing or seafood fraud risks. Shrimp: Shrimp is produced through both aquaculture and wild harvest. The Working Group found that shrimp is at risk for IUU fishing activity due to the history of fishery violations, as well as the level of processing often associated with shrimp products. Shrimp is also at risk for seafood fraud. There is a significant amount of mislabeling and/or misrepresentation of shrimp, tied largely to misrepresentation of weight, including where product has been treated with Sodium Tripolyphosphate to increase water retention. Mislabeling is also a concern regarding wild versus aquacultured labeling and product origin. Additionally, there is a history of substitution of one species of shrimp for another when imports cross the border into the United States. We are seeking additional public comment on possible ways to refine the scope of this species group, e.g., by limiting the scope based on product type, species, processing type, or other approaches. Shrimp is the largest seafood import into the United States, with the value of shrimp imports representing more than twice the value of any other seafood species group. Wild capture fisheries exist both in the United States and foreign nations. Due to the sheer volume of shrimp that enters U.S. markets, traceability for all shrimp may exceed the capacity of implementing agencies. Swordfish: Swordfish are at risk in terms of both IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Swordfish are a highly migratory species and their range crosses numerous jurisdictions, including into the high seas. There has been a history of fisheries violations in certain swordfish fisheries and regions, in addition to a lack of enforcement capability. The United States does, however, implement a statistical document program for swordfish pursuant to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) to help mitigate IUU fishing and seafood fraud risk. This document is required for all swordfish product entering the United States, regardless of the product form or ocean area where it was harvested, although it does not provide the full range of information that would be expected in a traceability program, particularly for fish harvested outside the Atlantic. Swordfish is commonly transshipped and is also at risk in terms of species substitution with mako shark. Tunas: Tunas are a high volume and high visibility species group that includes five main species: albacore, bigeye, bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin. There has been a history of fisheries violations in certain tuna fisheries and in certain regions. Further, harvesting, transshipment, and trade patterns for tunas can be complex, in particular for certain value-added products. While there are multilateral management and reporting measures in place for many stocks within the tuna species group, these management and reporting mechanisms vary in terms of information standards and requirements and do not all provide a complete catch documentation scheme. Tunas are also subject to complicated processing that includes comingling of species and transshipments. Further, there has been a history of some species substitutions, with most instances involving substitution of one tuna species for another. However, there have also been instances of escolar, which can contain a toxin, being substituted for albacore tuna. The Working Group is asking for public comment on possible ways to refine the scope of this species group possibly by limiting to certain product types, species, processing types, or other approaches. Programs To Mitigate Risk Through the application of the draft principles, the Working Group identified two species--toothfish and catfish--that had a number of risk factors for IUU fishing or seafood fraud, but due to mechanisms to address those risks are not being proposed as at risk species in this Notice. Toothfish has been known, historically, as a species with IUU fishing concerns, which led to the development, by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), of a number of monitoring tools including a comprehensive catch documentation scheme. Without the existing level of reporting, documentation, and enforcement capability, including through measures adopted by CCAMLR, for this species, the Working Group would have found it to be at risk. The Working Group found that while existing measures do not eliminate risk for toothfish, they mitigate the IUU fishing and seafood fraud risks to such a level that the Working Group does not propose toothfish as an at risk species for the first phase of the traceability program. In the United States, seafood sold as catfish must be from the family Ictaluridae (per section 403(t) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(t)) Regarding the Use of the Term ``Catfish''). As such, there is a strong history of species substitution, in which non-Ictaluridae species are sold as catfish. Some of this species substitution has been tied to Silurformes species, which could have a drug hazard associated with them, as well as other species that have been found contaminated with prohibited chemicals and pharmaceuticals. In addition to species substitution, there is a history of other mislabeling issues, including product origin and failure to accurately label product that has been treated with carbon monoxide. These risks were discussed and are fully recognized by the Working Group. However, there is a rulemaking on catfish inspection (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201410&RIN=0583-AD36) under development, separate from the NOC Committee and Working Group actions. Once in effect, this pending rulemaking may mitigate risks identified by the Working Group. Taking into consideration the underlying principle of the Task Force to maximize existing resources and expertise from across the federal government through increased federal agency collaboration, the Working Group did not include catfish on the draft list of at risk species. In the absence of this pending rulemaking, or if the pending rulemaking has not progressed when a final list of at risk species is determined, the decision to exclude catfish from the list of at risk species can be revisited. Summary of Comments in Response to 80 FR 24246 (April 30, 2015) In response to the April 30, 2015, notice (described above), U.S. fishing industry groups, non-governmental organizations, foreign nations, and interested citizens submitted comments on a wide breadth of topics related to the development of the draft principles and the draft at risk species list. A total of 155 written comments, and 26 oral comments received via webinars, were provided. The comments included 66 unique comments and 115 comments that were substantially the same and therefore are treated as one unified comment supporting implementation of a seafood traceability program for [[Page 45959]] imported Dolphinfish (noted as ``Dorado'' in public comments, also known as Mahi Mahi, Coryphaena hippurus) from Mexico. The Working Group considered all public comments, and has provided responses to all relevant issues raised by comments below. We have not responded to comments that are outside the scope of this request and that may be more relevant to future steps in the process, i.e., the pending rulemaking on the design of the traceability system. 1. Enforcement Capability Comment: Many public comments noted that a species will be at risk when there is a lack of enforcement capability for managing the species. Comments addressed two different aspects of enforcement capability: enforcement authority for a species (i.e., if there is an existing legal framework that gives authority to enforce fisheries management regulations), and enforcement capacity (i.e., if the resources and infrastructure necessary for effective enforcement, such as patrol vessels and personnel, exists). Response: The Working Group agrees that this is an important factor to consider in determining whether a species is at risk for IUU fishing and used enforcement capability (i.e., both enforcement authority and enforcement capacity) as one of the draft principles for its analysis. 2. Catch Documentation Scheme Comment: We received multiple comments regarding the importance of a catch documentation scheme to reduce a species' risk for IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Example comments: ``A lack of effective catch documentation systems: Thorough, up-to-date catch documentation and consistent cross-checks of those records helps to reduce opportunities to funnel illegally-caught fish into legal market streams, especially for complicated trade routes,'' and ``the presence of relevant and reliable catch records in an easily stored and shared format (such as electronic) would be considered an indicator for degree of risk.'' Response: The Working Group agrees and has made the existence of a catch documentation scheme for a species, and the effectiveness of the scheme if one exists, one of the draft principles for determining at risk species. An effective catch documentation scheme is a tool that enhances seafood traceability and helps decrease the opportunity for IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 3. Complexity of the Chain of Custody and Processing Comment: A number of comments were received that were related to the complexity and transparency of the chain of custody for seafood. In the more complex chains of custody there are more opportunities for mixing illegally caught fish with legally caught fish, or for mislabeling. Multiple comments noted that transshipments make tracking the chain of custody harder and present an opportunity to commingle legally and illegally caught fish. Similarly, the complexity of the processing a species undergoes is also important. It is much more difficult to mislabel whole fish, because the identification of the species is easier. Conversely, highly processed seafood (such as fillet block or surimi) could have a number of species mixed into it, either legally, or fraudulently, and without DNA testing it is impossible to identify the constituent parts. Example comments include: ``Prioritize mixed products that are composed of more than one species . . . numerous species in a single product can increase IUU risk.'' ``Seafood products that have been co-mingled, processed, transshipped, or transported throughout multiple jurisdictions.'' ``Monitoring and control of transshipments; Does the supply chain actor (i.e. retailer, importer, etc.) request/have a list of vessels involved in transshipments including carrier vessel (basic level information, flag State, registration number, license, unique vessel identifier).'' Response: The Working Group agrees that the transparency in the supply chain is important to detecting and discouraging IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Accordingly, we have made the transparency of chain of custody for a species a draft principle. This draft principle includes an assessment of how common transshipment is for each species, the complexity of processing, and the resulting final product (e.g., fillet block vs. whole fish). 4. Species Substitution Comment: The Working Group received many comments highlighting the problems associated with mislabeling and other forms of misrepresentation of seafood. Due to the magnitude of comments concerned with the substitution of one species for another, the Working Group addressed species substitutions separately from other forms of mislabeling fraud (see next comment). Commenters highlighted some reasons species substitutions might occur: Avoiding tariffs, increasing value (i.e., a less valuable species sold as a higher value species), and masking illegal fishing. Example comments include: ``operators intentionally mislabel species to avoid tariffs or regulations or to pass off lower value fish as higher value product.'' ``Low value species whose products `resemble' those from higher value species. Even if the species itself is plentiful, economic incentive then exists for seafood fraud and substitution.'' Response: The Working Group agrees that substituting one species for another species can be harmful to the seafood industry and to the consumer, regardless of the reason for species substitution. Therefore, the Working Group has included a draft principle that takes into account the history of seafood substitutions for a species. 5. Seafood Mislabeling Comment: In addition to species substitutions, there are many other types of seafood mislabeling that can be considered fraud, including, but not limited to: Improper weighting, unlabeled chemical additives, added water, mislabeled harvest location, misrepresentation of farmed vs. wild product, and misclassification of import codes. Example comments include: ``Net weight is the most widespread fraudulent activity and the hardest to fix. It is very tempting to sell and ice glaze for $10 to $25 a pound.'' ``Lower value farm raised species that are substituted for higher value wild species . . . [is] economically motivated adulteration or fraud.'' Response: The Working Group agrees. Seafood mislabeling and other forms of misrepresentation create an unfair market for law-abiding members of the seafood industry and directly impacts consumers. The motive for mislabeling and other forms of misrepresentation are more difficult to ascertain and in some instances mislabeling can be unintentional. Therefore, the Working Group chose to analyze instances of mislabeling unrelated to species substitution to determine species most at risk, and did not attempt to address intent. 6. History of Violations Comment: A number of comments received highlighted fisheries with prior IUU fishing violations as being at risk fisheries. Without additional controls or management and monitoring systems, continued IUU fishing activity would be expected for species that have a history as a target for IUU fishing. Example comments: ``We encourage the Task Force to identify and review the cases for those companies and individuals, [[Page 45960]] both domestic and foreign, convicted for incidents of misreporting.'' Response: The Working Group agrees with public comments that a history of violations is a risk factor. The Working Group therefore included the history of violations for a species as a draft principle for identifying risk of IUU fishing for a species. It should be noted that the history of fisheries violations within a fishery is separate from the draft principles concerning mislabeling and species substitution. 7. Human Health Risks Comment: The Working Group received comments that species at risk of seafood fraud should also be reviewed and prioritized according to potential human health impacts. When species are substituted or mislabeled, in addition to defrauding the customer, there can be an introduced or increased human health risk. An example comment includes: ``Farmed fish from developing countries with little or no health standards are increasingly being found to contain toxins that pose health threats to consumers. These fish are often substituted for fish with local names, and passed off to the American consumer as domestic wild caught [sic.].'' Response: The Working Group agrees that human health risk should be considered. As such, the Working Group has made history of mislabeling impacting human health a draft principle for determining at risk species. 8. Species Health and Vulnerability Comment: The Working Group received numerous comments regarding the importance of sustainable seafood, and requesting that the biological health of the species, or associated bycatch levels, gear impacts and other environmental impacts be considered. Example comments include: ``[Species] [k]nown or projected to be biologically vulnerable, including low intrinsic rates of population increase or highly migratory (subject to fishing from multiple jurisdictions).'' ``Unfortunately, as a species' numbers decline the market value of the species often rises. This could boost the incentive for illegal fishers to chase those species.'' Response: The Working Group acknowledges that the sustainability of fishing resources is an important goal and is a priority for NOAA under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Some vulnerable species identified in the comments such as sharks, sturgeon, and abalone were added to the base list and analyzed by the Working Group. However, the main focus of this process is to identify species at risk for IUU fishing or seafood fraud and a species' vulnerability is not, in and of itself, indicative of such risk, and thus is beyond the scope of this process. 9. Economic Importance of a Species (Volume and Value) Comment: Multiple comments encouraged the Working Group to include information about the volume and value of the species traded or landed when determining risk. The comments note that high volume and high value species are more likely at risk for IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Example comments include: `` IUU fishing is often associated with highly valuable species that are prized in the global marketplace, including large apex predators, such as tunas or sharks and specialty products such as eel'', and ``Value and volume of species: initial focus on species of significant value and volume, both aspects that increase motivation for IUU and seafood fraud.'' Response: To ensure that the economic importance of a species was taken into account, the Working Group ensured that all species or groups of species, either domestically landed or imported, with an annual value of $100 million USD or more for 2014 were included in the base list of species evaluated to determine whether they are at risk for IUU fishing or seafood fraud. This encompassed both the demand for a product, as well as the value, and, in most cases, also the volume (most high volume species also have an annual value of over $100 million). Recognizing, however, that value or volume is only one measurement, the Working Group also identified species that are known to have high prices per pound, but do not meet the threshold of annual landings or import value of over $100 million, and added them for evaluation (e.g., sturgeon caviar, sea cucumber), as well as species identified by subject matter experts from the Working Group agencies. 10. Bycatch Concern Comment: In addition to comments about target species' sustainability, comments were received regarding the level of bycatch associated with the harvest of a species. These comments generally were in agreement that a high level of bycatch would make the target species more likely to be at risk.'' Example comments: ``It must adequately address bycatch.'' ``Harvested from fisheries with a high frequency of destructive fishing methods . . . and fishing methods that result in significant bycatch are more likely to be threatened by IUU fishing.'' Response: The Working Group acknowledges the importance of reducing incidental bycatch of marine species to the sustainability of global fisheries. The selection of species to which the principles were applied as described in this notice includes species harvested both as targeted catch and bycatch. Despite the importance of minimizing bycatch in sustainable fisheries management, the level of bycatch associated with harvest of a target species is not, in and of itself, determinative of the level of risk for IUU fishing or seafood fraud for the target species. Thus, the Working Group did not include this consideration as a draft principle. 11. Marine Mammal Protection Act Ties to Risk Comment: One commenter stated: ``in addition to concerns about the seafood products themselves, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) at 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2) requires the government to insure that seafood products imported into the United States must be caught in a manner that does not result in the killing or serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of U.S. standards.'' Response: MMPA section 101(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)) concerns the level of marine mammal bycatch in the course of commercial fishing operations. As stated above, the level of bycatch associated with harvest of a target species is not, in and of itself, determinative of the level of risk for IUU fishing or seafood fraud for the target species. In a separate rulemaking, NOAA intends to publish a proposed rule to implement MMPA section 101(a)(2). 12. Country-Specific Risk Comment: A large number of public comments requested that we look at the country of origin as a critical principle for determining a species' risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. For example, comments received include: ``The Task Force should start with the existing report NOAA provides to Congress every two years that identifies nations that have vessels engaging in IUU fishing. Imported seafood from nations identified in this report should be categorized as high risk'' and ``[k]nown or established history of illegal fishing or fisheries product coming from a nation identified as having documented IUU fishing.'' Response: The Working Group has already identified as draft principles enforcement capability and history of [[Page 45961]] fisheries violations. These principles will allow the Working Group to take into account fisheries identified in NOAA's biennial report to Congress as engaging in IUU fishing (see 16 U.S.C. 1826(h)). The Working Group does not believe it is useful or appropriate to establish a principle based on country of origin. 13. European Union (EU) IUU Seafood Certification Comment: A number of comments included discussion of the EU approach to combatting IUU fishing, which is country-of-origin based, rather than species-based. Example comments: ``Ideally the United States could also use the well-researched `red and yellow card' system of the European Union to assess the likelihood of IUU products coming out of a country's fishery or processing operations'' and ``[p]rioritize products imported from countries already issued IUU yellow or red cards by the EU.'' Response: The Working Group is implementing the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combatting IUU fishing and Seafood Fraud, which outlines a species specific approach as the basis for a risk-based traceability scheme. As noted above, the Working Group does not believe it is appropriate to establish a principle based on country of origin. In addition, the U.S. government does not have active involvement with the EU country-based IUU fishing risk identification system. Therefore, the Working Group did not include a principle that would identify species at risk based on whether they are associated with nations that have been issued a yellow and red card under the EU system. However, to the extent available, information generated or collected pursuant to the EU system that could be relevant to other principles used by the Working Group, such as enforcement capability and history of fisheries violations for specific species. 14. Vessel-Specific Risk and Flags of Convenience Comment: A comment was received that a principle for determining risk should be: ``Presence of flags of convenience in a fishery: Flags of convenience (FOCs) are a well-known challenge to effective fisheries management . . . Therefore, the Working Group should pay special attention to species caught in fisheries with large numbers of vessels registered to known FOCs).'' Response: The Working Group used history of fisheries violations as a principle, which covers incidents from all vessels. Although the Working Group recognizes the challenges associated with FOCs, the Working Group decided to use a metric of documented offenses rather than a flag- or vessel-specific approach. 15. Wildlife Trafficking Connections Comment: There is an existing President's Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking that is working to implement the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, released by the White House on February 11, 2014. Public comments encouraged the Working Group to connect with the Wildlife Trafficking Advisory Council to ensure we do not duplicate efforts, and to work to synergize activity where appropriate. Additionally, comments requested: ``In continuing to fulfill its mission, we encourage the Working Group to continue reaching out to the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, especially on illegal trade in marine species, particularly sharks, rays, and marine turtles.'' ``Seafood products that are known to be involved in wildlife trafficking. Illegally harvested seafood products, many of which are depleted or highly depleted, are sometimes involved with underground wildlife trade.'' Response: The Working Group is coordinating with the President's Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking as some members participate in both groups. The Working Group has not used wildlife trafficking as a principle for any determination of a species' risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud, but did consider the history of fisheries violations, species substitution and mislabeling violations associated with a species. 16. Sport vs. Commercial IUU fishing Comment: One comment stated: ``The Task Force should differentiate between sport and commercial fishing when determining IUU fishing activities.'' Response: While the Working Group acknowledges that illegal sport fishing can have adverse impacts on fishery resources, the traceability program will only include products that enter into U.S. commerce. Landings from sport fishing trips, for the most part, do not enter the United States in commercially significant quantities and thus, the Working Group used data based on commercial fisheries for all at risk determinations. 17. Market Price Versus Catch Price Comment: A comment was received noting: ``Another indicator of whether IUU products are present in the market are [sic] if there are price discrepancies such that the catch price is significantly lower than the average price on the market. Where the market price is significantly higher than the catch price this may be an indication that the product was derived from IUU fishing.'' Response: The Working Group did not review price discrepancies in its at risk analysis. Data on price in the market versus off the boat is not robust or consistently collected. In addition, the connection between market price and risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud has not been clearly established, and there are many variables that could cause a discrepancy in price other than IUU fishing. 18. Risk From World Customs Organization Harmonized Schedule (New HS Codes) Comment: One comment was received regarding the increased risks associated with species for which there are new import codes that will go into effect in 2017: ``imports of species that originate in countries that have failed to implement the seafood-related amendments to the 2012 [World Customs Organization Harmonized Schedule (HS)] HS Codes should be considered `at risk.' As of March 20, 2015 only 115 out of 151 Contracting parties to the World Customs Organization had implemented the current HS Code Schedule. As the new HS Codes for seafood products come into force in January of 2017, we believe that there will be a heightened risk of fraud and mislabeling (whether inadvertent, as people adjust to the new codes, or intentional so as to avoid tariffs). Consequently, we believe that those species for which new codes have been added should be `at risk.' '' Response: There is another working group addressing the Action Plan for Implementing Task Force Recommendation 10 (Enforcement: Species Name and Code) that is currently assessing ways to enhance the identification of products through the use of the HS and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Though the outcomes of this assessment may not influence other countries' actions with regards to adopting the 2012 or 2017 HS changes, the Working Group may propose changes to the HTSUS and make other recommendations relative to naming and identification that could impact certain seafood imports into the United States, as well as changing the potential associated risks highlighted. [[Page 45962]] 19. Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Comment: Highly migratory species were noted in public comments as being more susceptible to IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Because of the transient and pelagic nature of these species, they are fished outside of or across multiple Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), as well as on the high seas, making regulatory development and enforcement more difficult. Example comments: ``Highly migratory stocks, particularly those that travel through and between national boundaries, may be more susceptible to IUU fishing activities'' and ``The life history of certain species can lead to IUU vulnerability. For instance, fisheries for highly migratory species are difficult to monitor and enforce, which can make illegal behavior harder to detect and deter (e.g. tuna).'' Response: The Working Group concluded that a separate principle for HMS was not necessary. HMS at a high risk for IUU fishing should be identified through a combination of other principles such as enforcement capability and the absence of a catch documentation scheme or an ineffective scheme. In addition, to alleviate potential risk associated with the migratory nature of these species, many HMS are managed internationally through Regional Fishery Management Organizations that adopt harvest limits, data collection requirements, and enforcement measures. The Working Group applied the drafted principles to HMS along with non-HMS, and those determined to be at risk are on the draft list of species (e.g., sharks and tunas). 20. Species-Based Approach Comment: Many comments requested that the Working Group not take a species-based approach, and rather employ a larger scaled approach and begin the traceability program with all seafood products. Example comments: ``any legitimate approach to identifying IUU risk in seafood will inevitably produce a much broader and larger set of products than could be achieved through the selection of a limited set of ``species at risk'' and ``[w]hile we understand the need to prioritize resources on high risk problems, we do not believe that a species-by-species approach is an effective long-term solution to the challenges of IUU fishing and seafood fraud, which are global in nature, occur at all levels, from harvest through final sale, and are influence by changing market demands and other factors.'' Response: The Action Plan for Implementing Task Force Recommendations specifies that the traceability program will be implemented by first targeting high risk species, while preserving the opportunity to leverage the value and effectiveness of other traceability efforts. By December 2016, the NOC will issue a report, taking into careful consideration input from stakeholders, evaluating implementation of the first phase of the traceability program and recommending how and under what timeframe it should be expanded. 21. Data for Analyzing Principles Identified Comment: There were multiple public comments expressing concerns with the data that would be used to analyze the base list of species using the draft principles to identify species at risk. One commenter noted that species at risk shift over time as changes in management occur, and therefore, the Working Group should use current information when identifying at risk species. Conflicting comments were submitted regarding the appropriate data to use: Some comments suggested use of government data only, while others supported use of non-governmental information submitted through public comment. Response: To develop the draft list the Working Group used verifiable data, including information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and NOAA databases, published reports, or data gathered by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to which the United States is a member and whose scientific data is developed and reviewed with active U.S. government participation, and the knowledge of subject matter experts, including members of the Working Group and other personnel from represented agencies. The Working Group determined that including data from the past five years was appropriate, as a longer timeframe may not recognize improvements that have been made in some fisheries over time, and a shorter timeframe may not include enough data to identify the species at risk. 22. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Lists as Basis for Determining Risk Comment: A number of public comments requested that species listed with CITES or that are on IUCN red lists be determined as species at risk. Example comments: ``A species listed on one of the CITES appendices: A number of commercially exploited species, including shark and ray species, are included in the appendices of CITES'' and ``Of the more than 1200 described species, one quarter have been designated as threatened under the IUCN Red List, and 500 species are so data deficient that their conservation status cannot be determined, putting them at even greater risk.'' Response: CITES is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. The IUCN red list of threatened species is an approach for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species on a global scale. As mentioned in response to a prior comment, the Working Group affirms that sustainability of fishing resources is an important goal. However, the main focus here is to identify species at risk for IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Thus, the draft principles do not include consideration of the conservation status of species. 23. Science-Based Fishery Management Comment: Public comments requested that species not managed using science-based fisheries management be considered at risk. This commentary was often tied to a country, rather than a species, but the premise of science-based fishery management was consistent in both approaches. For example, a comment stated that at risk species should include species ``[t]aken in managed fisheries but without science- based or precautionary (where population assessments are not available) catch limits; where limits exceed scientific advice; or where catch limits are routinely exceeded.'' Response: The Working Group agrees that fishery management must be science-based to be effective. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, conservation and management measures for federal fisheries managed in the U.S. EEZ ``shall be based upon the best scientific information available'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). As noted earlier, the Working Group considered in its analysis scientific information from Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to which the United States is a member. Beyond this, the Working Group does not, as a general matter, have sufficient information or the ability to evaluate the science used by foreign nations in the management of their fishing resources. Thus, whether or not a species is subject to a management regime using best available scientific information was not included as a draft principle for determining at risk species. [[Page 45963]] Rather, the NOC will seek to address this concern through other approaches aimed at international stewardship (e.g., capacity building, diplomatic outreach, etc.) 24. Magnitude of the Violations Comment: One public comment requested: ``The Task Force should weigh the magnitude of labeling violations and impact on U.S. consumer prior to deeming a species at risk. The following are examples of mislabeling that should represent lower concern and should NOT be the sole basis from an at risk determination: Species that are mislabeled within the same genus or within the same acceptable market name grouping.'' Response: The Working Group took known violations from the past five years into account in evaluating species for at risk'' determination. Adding a value judgment on the magnitude of the violations was beyond the capacity of the Working Group. 25. Poor Species Identification in the Catch and/or Trade Data Comment: One public comment noted that the lack of species identification in catch and trade data can increase a species' vulnerability to IUU fishing. Response: This issue will be captured under the draft principles concerning any history of species mislabeling and the existence of a catch documentation scheme. In addition, the Working Group recognizes the concern regarding import codes. This issue will be discussed through the work on Task Force Recommendation 10 ``to standardize and clarify rules on identifying the species, common name, and origin of seafood.'' 26. Existing Traceability System Comment: Multiple comments recommended that the Working Group review and take into account whether there is already a certification system or traceability system for a species. Example comment: ``Some private industry sectors have initiated traceability requirements.'' Response: The Working Group commends organizations and fishing groups that have initiated traceability programs on their own and recognizes the investment by the private sector in developing improved traceability. For species with a recently implemented traceability program, the number of enforcement violations over the past five years can be used as a measure of the effectiveness of the program and will allow us to either remove these species from our list of at risk species or, where appropriate, include existing catch documentation provisions into a traceability program to further address risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Dated: July 28, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2015-18945 Filed 7-31-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 45955
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held DATES: Comments must be received by The Action Plan
via webinar, but anyone can also attend September 2, 2015. (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/
at the Council office address (see ADDRESSES: You may submit comments noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf)
below). The webinar link is: http:// on this document, identified by NOAA– articulates the proactive steps that
mafmc.adobeconnect.com/ NMFS–2014–0090, by any of the Federal agencies will take to implement
dogfishap2015/. Please call the Council following methods: the recommendations the Task Force
at least 24 hours in advance if you wish • Electronic Submission: Submit all made to the President in December 2014
to attend at the Council office. electronic public comments via the on a comprehensive framework of
Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to integrated programs to combat IUU
Management Council, 800 N. State St., www.regulations.gov/ fishing and seafood fraud. The Action
Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- Plan identifies actions that will
(302) 674–2331. 0090, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, strengthen enforcement, create and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: complete the required fields, and enter expand partnerships with state and
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive or attach your comments. local governments, industry, and non-
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery • Mail: Submit written comments to governmental organizations, and create
Management Council; telephone: (302) Danielle Rioux, 1315 East-West a risk-based traceability program to
526–5255. The Council’s Web site, Highway; Silver Spring, Maryland track seafood from harvest to entry into
www.mafmc.org will also have details 20910. U.S. commerce, including through the
on webinar access and any background • Webinar: A webinar will be held on use of existing traceability mechanisms.
materials. August 25th 3:30–5pm Eastern time. The work the Task Force began
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Please go to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ continues under the oversight of the
purpose of the meeting is to create a ia/iuu/taskforce.html for information on National Ocean Council’s Committee on
Fishery Performance Report by the how to join. IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC
Council’s Spiny Dogfish Advisory Instructions: Comments sent by any Committee), established this past April,
Panel. The intent of the report is to other method, to any other address or 2015.
facilitate structured input from the individual, or received after the end of This notice is one of several steps in
Advisory Panel members into the the comment period, may not be the plan to implement Task Force
specifications process. considered by the Working Group. All Recommendations 14 and 15,
comments received are a part of the identifying ‘‘species of fish or seafood
Special Accommodations
public record and will generally be that are presently of particular concern
The meeting is physically accessible posted for public viewing on because they are currently subject to
to people with disabilities. Requests for www.regulations.gov without change.
sign language interpretation or other significant seafood fraud or because
All personal identifying information they are at significant risk of being
auxiliary aid should be directed to M. (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
Jan Saunders, (302) 526–5251, at least 5 caught by IUU fishing.’’ To begin
business information, or otherwise implementing these recommendations,
days prior to the meeting date. sensitive information submitted the NOC Committee created a Working
Dated: July 29, 2015. voluntarily by the sender will be Group (Working Group), led by NOAA
Tracey L. Thompson, publicly accessible. The Working Group and composed of members from partner
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable will accept anonymous comments (enter agencies: Department of State, Food and
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish Drug Administration, Department of
[FR Doc. 2015–18941 Filed 7–31–15; 8:45 am] to remain anonymous). Homeland Security, Customs and
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Border Protection, and the Office of the
Danielle Rioux, Office of Sustainable U.S. Trade Representative.
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries As the first step, the NOC Committee,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Service (phone 301–427–8516, or email through the Working Group, solicited
Danielle.Rioux@noaa.gov). public input through a Federal Register
National Oceanic and Atmospheric SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According notice (80 FR 24246, April 30, 2015) on
Administration to NOAA, in 2013, U.S. fishers landed what principles should be used to
RIN 0648–XE078 9.9 billion pounds of fish and shellfish determine the seafood species ‘‘at risk’’
worth $5.5 billion. Illegal, unreported, for IUU fishing or seafood fraud. Public
Presidential Task Force on Combating and unregulated (IUU) fishing and input was received both in writing and
Illegal Unreported and Unregulated seafood fraud undermine the through webinars. Taking into
(IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud sustainability of U.S. and global seafood consideration comments received, the
Action Plan stocks and negatively impact general Working Group developed draft
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries ecosystem health. At the same time, IUU principles and a draft list of ‘‘at risk’’
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and fishing and fraudulent seafood products species based on those principles. This
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), distort legal markets and unfairly notice seeks public comment on the
Commerce. compete with the products of law- draft principles and ‘‘at risk’’ species
ACTION: Notice; request for comments. abiding fishers and seafood industries. list. Following public comment, the
On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Working Group will develop final
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY: The National Ocean Council Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing principles and a final recommended list
Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co- of at risk species. Once at risk species
Fraud (NOC Committee) is seeking chaired by the Departments of have been determined, the NOC
public input on draft principles for Commerce and State, took an historic Committee will transmit the list to
determining seafood species at risk of step to address these issues and agencies charged with implementing the
IUU fishing and seafood fraud (‘‘at published its Action Plan for Task Force recommendations for
risk’’) and a draft list of ‘‘at risk’’ species Implementing Task Force appropriate action. The list will be
developed using the draft principles. Recommendations (Action Plan). published by October 2015, in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46103/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 45959
imported Dolphinfish (noted as 3. Complexity of the Chain of Custody valuable species sold as a higher value
‘‘Dorado’’ in public comments, also and Processing species), and masking illegal fishing.
known as Mahi Mahi, Coryphaena Comment: A number of comments Example comments include: ‘‘operators
hippurus) from Mexico. The Working were received that were related to the intentionally mislabel species to avoid
Group considered all public comments, complexity and transparency of the tariffs or regulations or to pass off lower
and has provided responses to all chain of custody for seafood. In the value fish as higher value product.’’
relevant issues raised by comments more complex chains of custody there ‘‘Low value species whose products
below. We have not responded to are more opportunities for mixing ‘resemble’ those from higher value
comments that are outside the scope of illegally caught fish with legally caught species. Even if the species itself is
this request and that may be more plentiful, economic incentive then
fish, or for mislabeling. Multiple
relevant to future steps in the process, exists for seafood fraud and
comments noted that transshipments
i.e., the pending rulemaking on the substitution.’’
make tracking the chain of custody Response: The Working Group agrees
design of the traceability system. harder and present an opportunity to that substituting one species for another
commingle legally and illegally caught species can be harmful to the seafood
1. Enforcement Capability
fish. Similarly, the complexity of the industry and to the consumer,
Comment: Many public comments processing a species undergoes is also regardless of the reason for species
noted that a species will be at risk when important. It is much more difficult to substitution. Therefore, the Working
there is a lack of enforcement capability mislabel whole fish, because the Group has included a draft principle
for managing the species. Comments identification of the species is easier. that takes into account the history of
addressed two different aspects of Conversely, highly processed seafood seafood substitutions for a species.
enforcement capability: enforcement (such as fillet block or surimi) could
have a number of species mixed into it, 5. Seafood Mislabeling
authority for a species (i.e., if there is an
existing legal framework that gives either legally, or fraudulently, and Comment: In addition to species
authority to enforce fisheries without DNA testing it is impossible to substitutions, there are many other
management regulations), and identify the constituent parts. Example types of seafood mislabeling that can be
enforcement capacity (i.e., if the comments include: ‘‘Prioritize mixed considered fraud, including, but not
resources and infrastructure necessary products that are composed of more limited to: Improper weighting,
for effective enforcement, such as patrol than one species . . . numerous species unlabeled chemical additives, added
vessels and personnel, exists). in a single product can increase IUU water, mislabeled harvest location,
risk.’’ ‘‘Seafood products that have been misrepresentation of farmed vs. wild
Response: The Working Group agrees co-mingled, processed, transshipped, or product, and misclassification of import
that this is an important factor to transported throughout multiple codes. Example comments include: ‘‘Net
consider in determining whether a jurisdictions.’’ ‘‘Monitoring and control weight is the most widespread
species is at risk for IUU fishing and of transshipments; Does the supply fraudulent activity and the hardest to
used enforcement capability (i.e., both chain actor (i.e. retailer, importer, etc.) fix. It is very tempting to sell and ice
enforcement authority and enforcement request/have a list of vessels involved in glaze for $10 to $25 a pound.’’ ‘‘Lower
capacity) as one of the draft principles transshipments including carrier vessel value farm raised species that are
for its analysis. (basic level information, flag State, substituted for higher value wild species
registration number, license, unique . . . [is] economically motivated
2. Catch Documentation Scheme
vessel identifier).’’ adulteration or fraud.’’
Comment: We received multiple Response: The Working Group agrees Response: The Working Group agrees.
comments regarding the importance of a that the transparency in the supply Seafood mislabeling and other forms of
catch documentation scheme to reduce chain is important to detecting and misrepresentation create an unfair
a species’ risk for IUU fishing and discouraging IUU fishing and seafood market for law-abiding members of the
seafood fraud. Example comments: ‘‘A fraud. Accordingly, we have made the seafood industry and directly impacts
lack of effective catch documentation transparency of chain of custody for a consumers. The motive for mislabeling
systems: Thorough, up-to-date catch species a draft principle. This draft and other forms of misrepresentation are
documentation and consistent cross- principle includes an assessment of how more difficult to ascertain and in some
checks of those records helps to reduce common transshipment is for each instances mislabeling can be
opportunities to funnel illegally-caught species, the complexity of processing, unintentional. Therefore, the Working
fish into legal market streams, especially and the resulting final product (e.g., Group chose to analyze instances of
for complicated trade routes,’’ and ‘‘the fillet block vs. whole fish). mislabeling unrelated to species
presence of relevant and reliable catch 4. Species Substitution substitution to determine species most
records in an easily stored and shared at risk, and did not attempt to address
Comment: The Working Group intent.
format (such as electronic) would be received many comments highlighting
considered an indicator for degree of the problems associated with 6. History of Violations
risk.’’ mislabeling and other forms of Comment: A number of comments
Response: The Working Group agrees misrepresentation of seafood. Due to the received highlighted fisheries with prior
and has made the existence of a catch magnitude of comments concerned with IUU fishing violations as being at risk
documentation scheme for a species,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the substitution of one species for fisheries. Without additional controls or
and the effectiveness of the scheme if another, the Working Group addressed management and monitoring systems,
one exists, one of the draft principles for species substitutions separately from continued IUU fishing activity would be
determining at risk species. An effective other forms of mislabeling fraud (see expected for species that have a history
catch documentation scheme is a tool next comment). Commenters as a target for IUU fishing. Example
that enhances seafood traceability and highlighted some reasons species comments: ‘‘We encourage the Task
helps decrease the opportunity for IUU substitutions might occur: Avoiding Force to identify and review the cases
fishing and seafood fraud. tariffs, increasing value (i.e., a less for those companies and individuals,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46103/page/5.svg)
![45960 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
both domestic and foreign, convicted for analyzed by the Working Group. bycatch are more likely to be threatened
incidents of misreporting.’’ However, the main focus of this process by IUU fishing.’’
Response: The Working Group agrees is to identify species at risk for IUU Response: The Working Group
with public comments that a history of fishing or seafood fraud and a species’ acknowledges the importance of
violations is a risk factor. The Working vulnerability is not, in and of itself, reducing incidental bycatch of marine
Group therefore included the history of indicative of such risk, and thus is species to the sustainability of global
violations for a species as a draft beyond the scope of this process. fisheries. The selection of species to
principle for identifying risk of IUU which the principles were applied as
fishing for a species. It should be noted 9. Economic Importance of a Species described in this notice includes species
that the history of fisheries violations (Volume and Value) harvested both as targeted catch and
within a fishery is separate from the Comment: Multiple comments bycatch. Despite the importance of
draft principles concerning mislabeling encouraged the Working Group to minimizing bycatch in sustainable
and species substitution. include information about the volume fisheries management, the level of
and value of the species traded or bycatch associated with harvest of a
7. Human Health Risks landed when determining risk. The target species is not, in and of itself,
Comment: The Working Group comments note that high volume and determinative of the level of risk for IUU
received comments that species at risk high value species are more likely at fishing or seafood fraud for the target
of seafood fraud should also be risk for IUU fishing and seafood fraud. species. Thus, the Working Group did
reviewed and prioritized according to Example comments include: ‘‘ IUU not include this consideration as a draft
potential human health impacts. When fishing is often associated with highly principle.
species are substituted or mislabeled, in valuable species that are prized in the
addition to defrauding the customer, global marketplace, including large apex 11. Marine Mammal Protection Act Ties
there can be an introduced or increased predators, such as tunas or sharks and to Risk
human health risk. An example specialty products such as eel’’, and Comment: One commenter stated: ‘‘in
comment includes: ‘‘Farmed fish from ‘‘Value and volume of species: initial addition to concerns about the seafood
developing countries with little or no focus on species of significant value and products themselves, the Marine
health standards are increasingly being volume, both aspects that increase Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) at 16
found to contain toxins that pose health motivation for IUU and seafood fraud.’’ U.S.C. 1371(a)(2) requires the
threats to consumers. These fish are Response: To ensure that the government to insure that seafood
often substituted for fish with local economic importance of a species was products imported into the United
names, and passed off to the American taken into account, the Working Group States must be caught in a manner that
consumer as domestic wild caught ensured that all species or groups of does not result in the killing or serious
[sic.].’’ species, either domestically landed or injury of ocean mammals in excess of
Response: The Working Group agrees imported, with an annual value of $100 U.S. standards.’’
that human health risk should be million USD or more for 2014 were Response: MMPA section 101(a)(2)
considered. As such, the Working Group included in the base list of species (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)) concerns the level
has made history of mislabeling evaluated to determine whether they are of marine mammal bycatch in the
impacting human health a draft at risk for IUU fishing or seafood fraud. course of commercial fishing operations.
principle for determining at risk species. This encompassed both the demand for As stated above, the level of bycatch
a product, as well as the value, and, in associated with harvest of a target
8. Species Health and Vulnerability most cases, also the volume (most high species is not, in and of itself,
Comment: The Working Group volume species also have an annual determinative of the level of risk for IUU
received numerous comments regarding value of over $100 million). fishing or seafood fraud for the target
the importance of sustainable seafood, Recognizing, however, that value or species. In a separate rulemaking,
and requesting that the biological health volume is only one measurement, the NOAA intends to publish a proposed
of the species, or associated bycatch Working Group also identified species rule to implement MMPA section
levels, gear impacts and other that are known to have high prices per 101(a)(2).
environmental impacts be considered. pound, but do not meet the threshold of
Example comments include: ‘‘[Species] annual landings or import value of over 12. Country-Specific Risk
[k]nown or projected to be biologically $100 million, and added them for Comment: A large number of public
vulnerable, including low intrinsic rates evaluation (e.g., sturgeon caviar, sea comments requested that we look at the
of population increase or highly cucumber), as well as species identified country of origin as a critical principle
migratory (subject to fishing from by subject matter experts from the for determining a species’ risk of IUU
multiple jurisdictions).’’ Working Group agencies. fishing or seafood fraud. For example,
‘‘Unfortunately, as a species’ numbers comments received include: ‘‘The Task
decline the market value of the species 10. Bycatch Concern Force should start with the existing
often rises. This could boost the Comment: In addition to comments report NOAA provides to Congress
incentive for illegal fishers to chase about target species’ sustainability, every two years that identifies nations
those species.’’ comments were received regarding the that have vessels engaging in IUU
Response: The Working Group level of bycatch associated with the fishing. Imported seafood from nations
acknowledges that the sustainability of harvest of a species. These comments identified in this report should be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
fishing resources is an important goal generally were in agreement that a high categorized as high risk’’ and ‘‘[k]nown
and is a priority for NOAA under the level of bycatch would make the target or established history of illegal fishing
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery species more likely to be at risk.’’ or fisheries product coming from a
Conservation and Management Act Example comments: ‘‘It must adequately nation identified as having documented
(MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Some address bycatch.’’ ‘‘Harvested from IUU fishing.’’
vulnerable species identified in the fisheries with a high frequency of Response: The Working Group has
comments such as sharks, sturgeon, and destructive fishing methods . . . and already identified as draft principles
abalone were added to the base list and fishing methods that result in significant enforcement capability and history of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46103/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 45961
fisheries violations. These principles all vessels. Although the Working Group are [sic] if there are price discrepancies
will allow the Working Group to take recognizes the challenges associated such that the catch price is significantly
into account fisheries identified in with FOCs, the Working Group decided lower than the average price on the
NOAA’s biennial report to Congress as to use a metric of documented offenses market. Where the market price is
engaging in IUU fishing (see 16 U.S.C. rather than a flag- or vessel-specific significantly higher than the catch price
1826(h)). The Working Group does not approach. this may be an indication that the
believe it is useful or appropriate to product was derived from IUU fishing.’’
15. Wildlife Trafficking Connections
establish a principle based on country of
origin. Comment: There is an existing Response: The Working Group did not
President’s Advisory Council on review price discrepancies in its at risk
13. European Union (EU) IUU Seafood Wildlife Trafficking that is working to analysis. Data on price in the market
Certification implement the National Strategy for versus off the boat is not robust or
Comment: A number of comments Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, consistently collected. In addition, the
included discussion of the EU approach released by the White House on connection between market price and
to combatting IUU fishing, which is February 11, 2014. Public comments risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud
country-of-origin based, rather than encouraged the Working Group to has not been clearly established, and
species-based. Example comments: connect with the Wildlife Trafficking there are many variables that could
‘‘Ideally the United States could also Advisory Council to ensure we do not cause a discrepancy in price other than
use the well-researched ‘red and yellow duplicate efforts, and to work to IUU fishing.
card’ system of the European Union to synergize activity where appropriate.
assess the likelihood of IUU products 18. Risk From World Customs
Additionally, comments requested: ‘‘In
coming out of a country’s fishery or Organization Harmonized Schedule
continuing to fulfill its mission, we
processing operations’’ and ‘‘[p]rioritize (New HS Codes)
encourage the Working Group to
products imported from countries continue reaching out to the Comment: One comment was received
already issued IUU yellow or red cards Presidential Task Force on Wildlife regarding the increased risks associated
by the EU.’’ Trafficking, especially on illegal trade in
Response: The Working Group is with species for which there are new
marine species, particularly sharks, import codes that will go into effect in
implementing the recommendations of rays, and marine turtles.’’ ‘‘Seafood
the Presidential Task Force on 2017: ‘‘imports of species that originate
products that are known to be involved in countries that have failed to
Combatting IUU fishing and Seafood in wildlife trafficking. Illegally
Fraud, which outlines a species specific implement the seafood-related
harvested seafood products, many of amendments to the 2012 [World
approach as the basis for a risk-based which are depleted or highly depleted,
traceability scheme. As noted above, the Customs Organization Harmonized
are sometimes involved with Schedule (HS)] HS Codes should be
Working Group does not believe it is underground wildlife trade.’’
appropriate to establish a principle considered ‘at risk.’ As of March 20,
Response: The Working Group is
based on country of origin. In addition, coordinating with the President’s 2015 only 115 out of 151 Contracting
the U.S. government does not have Advisory Council on Wildlife parties to the World Customs
active involvement with the EU Trafficking as some members participate Organization had implemented the
country-based IUU fishing risk in both groups. The Working Group has current HS Code Schedule. As the new
identification system. Therefore, the not used wildlife trafficking as a HS Codes for seafood products come
Working Group did not include a principle for any determination of a into force in January of 2017, we believe
principle that would identify species at species’ risk of IUU fishing or seafood that there will be a heightened risk of
risk based on whether they are fraud, but did consider the history of fraud and mislabeling (whether
associated with nations that have been fisheries violations, species substitution inadvertent, as people adjust to the new
issued a yellow and red card under the and mislabeling violations associated codes, or intentional so as to avoid
EU system. However, to the extent with a species. tariffs). Consequently, we believe that
available, information generated or those species for which new codes have
collected pursuant to the EU system that 16. Sport vs. Commercial IUU fishing been added should be ‘at risk.’ ’’
could be relevant to other principles Comment: One comment stated: ‘‘The Response: There is another working
used by the Working Group, such as Task Force should differentiate between group addressing the Action Plan for
enforcement capability and history of sport and commercial fishing when Implementing Task Force
fisheries violations for specific species. determining IUU fishing activities.’’ Recommendation 10 (Enforcement:
Response: While the Working Group
14. Vessel-Specific Risk and Flags of Species Name and Code) that is
acknowledges that illegal sport fishing
Convenience currently assessing ways to enhance the
can have adverse impacts on fishery
Comment: A comment was received identification of products through the
resources, the traceability program will
that a principle for determining risk use of the HS and the Harmonized Tariff
only include products that enter into
should be: ‘‘Presence of flags of U.S. commerce. Landings from sport Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
convenience in a fishery: Flags of fishing trips, for the most part, do not Though the outcomes of this assessment
convenience (FOCs) are a well-known enter the United States in commercially may not influence other countries’
challenge to effective fisheries significant quantities and thus, the actions with regards to adopting the
2012 or 2017 HS changes, the Working
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
management . . . Therefore, the Working Group used data based on
Working Group should pay special commercial fisheries for all at risk Group may propose changes to the
attention to species caught in fisheries determinations. HTSUS and make other
with large numbers of vessels registered recommendations relative to naming
to known FOCs).’’ 17. Market Price Versus Catch Price and identification that could impact
Response: The Working Group used Comment: A comment was received certain seafood imports into the United
history of fisheries violations as a noting: ‘‘Another indicator of whether States, as well as changing the potential
principle, which covers incidents from IUU products are present in the market associated risks highlighted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46103/page/7.svg)
![45962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
19. Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Recommendations specifies that the species, including shark and ray
Comment: Highly migratory species traceability program will be species, are included in the appendices
were noted in public comments as being implemented by first targeting high risk of CITES’’ and ‘‘Of the more than 1200
more susceptible to IUU fishing and species, while preserving the described species, one quarter have
seafood fraud. Because of the transient opportunity to leverage the value and been designated as threatened under the
and pelagic nature of these species, they effectiveness of other traceability efforts. IUCN Red List, and 500 species are so
are fished outside of or across multiple By December 2016, the NOC will issue data deficient that their conservation
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), as a report, taking into careful status cannot be determined, putting
consideration input from stakeholders, them at even greater risk.’’
well as on the high seas, making
evaluating implementation of the first Response: CITES is an international
regulatory development and
phase of the traceability program and agreement between governments that
enforcement more difficult. Example aims to ensure that international trade
recommending how and under what
comments: ‘‘Highly migratory stocks, in specimens of wild animals and plants
timeframe it should be expanded.
particularly those that travel through does not threaten their survival. The
and between national boundaries, may 21. Data for Analyzing Principles IUCN red list of threatened species is an
be more susceptible to IUU fishing Identified approach for evaluating the
activities’’ and ‘‘The life history of Comment: There were multiple public conservation status of plant and animal
certain species can lead to IUU comments expressing concerns with the species on a global scale. As mentioned
vulnerability. For instance, fisheries for data that would be used to analyze the in response to a prior comment, the
highly migratory species are difficult to base list of species using the draft Working Group affirms that
monitor and enforce, which can make principles to identify species at risk. sustainability of fishing resources is an
illegal behavior harder to detect and One commenter noted that species at important goal. However, the main
deter (e.g. tuna).’’ risk shift over time as changes in focus here is to identify species at risk
Response: The Working Group management occur, and therefore, the for IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Thus,
concluded that a separate principle for Working Group should use current the draft principles do not include
HMS was not necessary. HMS at a high information when identifying at risk consideration of the conservation status
risk for IUU fishing should be identified species. Conflicting comments were of species.
through a combination of other submitted regarding the appropriate
principles such as enforcement data to use: Some comments suggested 23. Science-Based Fishery Management
capability and the absence of a catch use of government data only, while Comment: Public comments requested
documentation scheme or an ineffective others supported use of non- that species not managed using science-
scheme. In addition, to alleviate governmental information submitted based fisheries management be
potential risk associated with the through public comment. considered at risk. This commentary
migratory nature of these species, many Response: To develop the draft list the was often tied to a country, rather than
HMS are managed internationally Working Group used verifiable data, a species, but the premise of science-
through Regional Fishery Management including information from Customs based fishery management was
Organizations that adopt harvest limits, and Border Protection (CBP), Food and consistent in both approaches. For
data collection requirements, and Drug Administration (FDA), and NOAA example, a comment stated that at risk
enforcement measures. The Working databases, published reports, or data species should include species ‘‘[t]aken
Group applied the drafted principles to gathered by Regional Fisheries in managed fisheries but without
HMS along with non-HMS, and those Management Organizations to which the science-based or precautionary (where
determined to be at risk are on the draft United States is a member and whose population assessments are not
list of species (e.g., sharks and tunas). scientific data is developed and available) catch limits; where limits
reviewed with active U.S. government exceed scientific advice; or where catch
20. Species-Based Approach
participation, and the knowledge of limits are routinely exceeded.’’
Comment: Many comments requested subject matter experts, including Response: The Working Group agrees
that the Working Group not take a members of the Working Group and that fishery management must be
species-based approach, and rather other personnel from represented science-based to be effective. Under the
employ a larger scaled approach and agencies. The Working Group Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
begin the traceability program with all determined that including data from the Conservation and Management Act,
seafood products. Example comments: past five years was appropriate, as a conservation and management measures
‘‘any legitimate approach to identifying longer timeframe may not recognize for federal fisheries managed in the U.S.
IUU risk in seafood will inevitably improvements that have been made in EEZ ‘‘shall be based upon the best
produce a much broader and larger set some fisheries over time, and a shorter scientific information available’’ (16
of products than could be achieved timeframe may not include enough data U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). As noted earlier, the
through the selection of a limited set of to identify the species at risk. Working Group considered in its
‘‘species at risk’’ and ‘‘[w]hile we analysis scientific information from
understand the need to prioritize 22. Convention on International Trade Regional Fisheries Management
resources on high risk problems, we do in Endangered Species (CITES) and Organizations to which the United
not believe that a species-by-species International Union for Conservation of States is a member. Beyond this, the
approach is an effective long-term Nature (IUCN) Lists as Basis for Working Group does not, as a general
Determining Risk
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
solution to the challenges of IUU fishing matter, have sufficient information or
and seafood fraud, which are global in Comment: A number of public the ability to evaluate the science used
nature, occur at all levels, from harvest comments requested that species listed by foreign nations in the management of
through final sale, and are influence by with CITES or that are on IUCN red lists their fishing resources. Thus, whether or
changing market demands and other be determined as species at risk. not a species is subject to a management
factors.’’ Example comments: ‘‘A species listed regime using best available scientific
Response: The Action Plan for on one of the CITES appendices: A information was not included as a draft
Implementing Task Force number of commercially exploited principle for determining at risk species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46103/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 45963
Rather, the NOC will seek to address catch documentation provisions into a Selected for Management
this concern through other approaches traceability program to further address Æ Puerto Rico
aimed at international stewardship (e.g., risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Æ St. Croix
capacity building, diplomatic outreach, Dated: July 28, 2015. Æ St. Thomas/St. John
etc.) Samuel D. Rauch III,
• Next Steps in Developing Island
Based
24. Magnitude of the Violations Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Æ Action 2—Species Complexes
Comment: One public comment Æ Action 3—Reference Points
Fisheries Service.
requested: ‘‘The Task Force should Æ Other Needed Actions
[FR Doc. 2015–18945 Filed 7–31–15; 8:45 am]
weigh the magnitude of labeling Æ Comprehensive Amendment:
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
violations and impact on U.S. consumer Application of Accountability
prior to deeming a species at risk. The Measures in the Council Fishery
following are examples of mislabeling Management Plans
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
that should represent lower concern and • Review Draft Comprehensive
should NOT be the sole basis from an National Oceanic and Atmospheric Amendment/Select Preferred
at risk determination: Species that are Administration Alternative
mislabeled within the same genus or • Final Action/Revisit Codified Text,
within the same acceptable market RIN 0648–XE032
Including:
name grouping.’’ Æ Clarifying Queen Conch Minimum
Response: The Working Group took Caribbean Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting Size Limits
known violations from the past five Æ Addition of Accountability
years into account in evaluating species AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Measures-Based Closure Language
for at risk’’ determination. Adding a Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and —Public Comment Period—
value judgment on the magnitude of the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (5-minutes presentations)
violations was beyond the capacity of Commerce.
the Working Group. 5:15 p.m.–6 p.m.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
25. Poor Species Identification in the Æ Administrative Matters
Catch and/or Trade Data SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery —Budget Update FY 2015/16
Management Council (Council) will —Other Administrative Business
Comment: One public comment noted hold its 153rd meeting. —Closed Session
that the lack of species identification in DATES: The meeting will be held on
catch and trade data can increase a August 20, 2015
August 19–20, 2015. The Council will
species’ vulnerability to IUU fishing. convene on Wednesday, August 19, 9 a.m.–10:30 a.m.
Response: This issue will be captured
2015, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and will Æ ABT Public Hearing
under the draft principles concerning
reconvene on Thursday, August 20,
any history of species mislabeling and 10:45 a.m.–5 p.m.
2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
the existence of a catch documentation
scheme. In addition, the Working Group ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Æ Abrir/Bajo/Tourmaline: Revision of
recognizes the concern regarding import the Holiday Inn & Tropical Casino Management Regulations in Federal
codes. This issue will be discussed Mayaguez, 2701 Hostos Avenue, Puerto Portion of Each Area
through the work on Task Force Rico 00680. • Review Draft Amendment
Recommendation 10 ‘‘to standardize FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • HMS input on requests from CFMC
and clarify rules on identifying the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, • Discuss Outcomes of Public Hearing
species, common name, and origin of 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, • Final Action
seafood.’’ San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918; telephone: • Review Codified Text, Including:
(787) 766–5926. D Coordinate-Based Definition of
26. Existing Traceability System State/Federal Closure Boundaries
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Comment: Multiple comments Council will hold its 153rd regular Æ Timing of Accountability Measures-
recommended that the Working Group Council Meeting to discuss the items Based Closures Amendment
review and take into account whether contained in the following agenda: D Review Public Hearing Draft
there is already a certification system or Document/Select Preferred
traceability system for a species. August 19, 2015 Alternatives
Example comment: ‘‘Some private Æ Call to Order D Schedule Public Hearings; Discuss
industry sectors have initiated Æ Adoption of Agenda Next Steps
traceability requirements.’’ Æ Consideration of 152nd Council Æ Saltonstall-Kennedy Funding
Response: The Working Group Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions Program: Caribbean Projects—Dr.
commends organizations and fishing Æ Executive Director’s Report Bonnie Ponwith
groups that have initiated traceability Æ SSC National Workshop Report—Dr. Æ Outreach and Education Report—Dr.
programs on their own and recognizes Richard Appeldoorn Alida Ortı́z
the investment by the private sector in Æ Island-Based Fishery Management: Æ Enforcement Issues:
developing improved traceability. For Choosing Species to be Included for —Puerto Rico-DNER
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
species with a recently implemented Federal Management Within Each —U.S. Virgin Islands-DPNR
traceability program, the number of Island Group —U.S. Coast Guard
enforcement violations over the past • Outcomes from the Panel of Experts —NMFS/NOAA
five years can be used as a measure of and District Advisory Panel Æ Meetings Attended by Council
the effectiveness of the program and Meetings Members and Staff
will allow us to either remove these Æ Participation Public Comment Period (5-minute
species from our list of at risk species Æ Presentations presentations)
or, where appropriate, include existing • Review Draft List of Species Æ Other Business
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_46103/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 10:51:37
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 10:51:37
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; request for comments. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received by September 2, 2015. | |
| Contact | Danielle Rioux, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (phone 301-427-8516, or email [email protected]). | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 45955 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XE07 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR