Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan, 45955-45963 [2015-18945]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
The meeting will be held
via webinar, but anyone can also attend
at the Council office address (see
below). The webinar link is: https://
mafmc.adobeconnect.com/
dogfishap2015/. Please call the Council
at least 24 hours in advance if you wish
to attend at the Council office.
Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 N. State St.,
Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone:
(302) 674–2331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council; telephone: (302)
526–5255. The Council’s Web site,
www.mafmc.org will also have details
on webinar access and any background
materials.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the meeting is to create a
Fishery Performance Report by the
Council’s Spiny Dogfish Advisory
Panel. The intent of the report is to
facilitate structured input from the
Advisory Panel members into the
specifications process.
ADDRESSES:
Special Accommodations
The meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aid should be directed to M.
Jan Saunders, (302) 526–5251, at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: July 29, 2015.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–18941 Filed 7–31–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
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
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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-20140090, 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 https://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
Danielle.Rioux@noaa.gov).
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 lawabiding fishers and seafood industries.
On March 15, 2015, the Presidential
Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing
and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), cochaired 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).
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45955
The Action Plan
(https://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 nongovernmental 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
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
45956
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 MagnusonStevens 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 indepth 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
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
over-glazing (ice coating), and shortweighting.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45957
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
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
45958
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 (https://
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
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 crosschecks 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45959
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,
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
45960
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45961
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.
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
45962
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 nongovernmental 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 sciencebased fisheries management be
considered at risk. This commentary
was often tied to a country, rather than
a species, but the premise of sciencebased 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.
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Jul 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE032
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Caribbean Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold its 153rd meeting.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
August 19–20, 2015. The Council will
convene on Wednesday, August 19,
2015, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and will
reconvene on Thursday, August 20,
2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Holiday Inn & Tropical Casino
Mayaguez, 2701 Hostos Avenue, Puerto
Rico 00680.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caribbean Fishery Management Council,
˜
270 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401,
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918; telephone:
(787) 766–5926.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Council will hold its 153rd regular
Council Meeting to discuss the items
contained in the following agenda:
SUMMARY:
August 19, 2015
Æ Call to Order
Æ Adoption of Agenda
Æ Consideration of 152nd Council
Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions
Æ Executive Director’s Report
Æ SSC National Workshop Report—Dr.
Richard Appeldoorn
Æ Island-Based Fishery Management:
Choosing Species to be Included for
Federal Management Within Each
Island Group
• Outcomes from the Panel of Experts
and District Advisory Panel
Meetings
Æ Participation
Æ Presentations
• Review Draft List of Species
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45963
Selected for Management
Puerto Rico
St. Croix
St. Thomas/St. John
Next Steps in Developing Island
Based
Æ Action 2—Species Complexes
Æ Action 3—Reference Points
Æ Other Needed Actions
Æ Comprehensive Amendment:
Application of Accountability
Measures in the Council Fishery
Management Plans
• Review Draft Comprehensive
Amendment/Select Preferred
Alternative
• Final Action/Revisit Codified Text,
Including:
Æ Clarifying Queen Conch Minimum
Size Limits
Æ Addition of Accountability
Measures-Based Closure Language
—Public Comment Period—
(5-minutes presentations)
Æ
Æ
Æ
•
5:15 p.m.–6 p.m.
Æ Administrative Matters
—Budget Update FY 2015/16
—Other Administrative Business
—Closed Session
August 20, 2015
9 a.m.–10:30 a.m.
Æ ABT Public Hearing
10:45 a.m.–5 p.m.
Æ Abrir/Bajo/Tourmaline: Revision of
Management Regulations in Federal
Portion of Each Area
• Review Draft Amendment
• HMS input on requests from CFMC
• Discuss Outcomes of Public Hearing
• Final Action
• Review Codified Text, Including:
D Coordinate-Based Definition of
State/Federal Closure Boundaries
Æ Timing of Accountability MeasuresBased Closures Amendment
D Review Public Hearing Draft
Document/Select Preferred
Alternatives
D Schedule Public Hearings; Discuss
Next Steps
Æ Saltonstall-Kennedy Funding
Program: Caribbean Projects—Dr.
Bonnie Ponwith
Æ Outreach and Education Report—Dr.
´
Alida Ortız
Æ Enforcement Issues:
—Puerto Rico-DNER
—U.S. Virgin Islands-DPNR
—U.S. Coast Guard
—NMFS/NOAA
Æ Meetings Attended by Council
Members and Staff
Public Comment Period (5-minute
presentations)
Æ Other Business
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45955-45963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 Danielle.Rioux@noaa.gov).
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
(https://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 (https://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