Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan, 66867-66879 [2015-27780]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66867-66879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27780]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE285


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

[[Page 66868]]

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Determination.

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

SUMMARY: The National Ocean Council Committee on IUU Fishing and 
Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee) has finalized principles for determining 
seafood species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud (at-risk 
species) and a list of at-risk species developed using the principles.

DATES: List of principles and at-risk species is final upon October 30, 
2015.

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 statistics, 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 globally. 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 
scope of action anticipated through the Action Plan approaches IUU and 
fraudulently-labeled seafood at the Flag State, Port State, and Market 
State levels. The work the Task Force began continues under the 
oversight of the NOC Committee, established in April 2015.
    This final 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 of 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. These principles and the draft list were then published in 
a Federal Register notice (80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015) to solicit 
additional public comment. This public comment period was extended 
through Federal Register notice (80 FR 50270, August 19, 2015) until 
September 11, 2015. The Working Group considered public input received 
during the public comment period and developed final principles to 
determine seafood species at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud and a 
final recommended list of at risk species.
    This publication is the NOC Committee's transmission of the list of 
species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud to the agencies 
charged with implementing the Task Force recommendations for 
appropriate action, as requested in the Action Plan, as well as 
notification to the public. The list does not impose any legal 
requirements, but will inform the first phase of the risk-based seafood 
traceability program, as described in the Action Plan. 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. Implementation and enforcement of the traceability 
program may require engagement of additional U.S. agencies.

Principles for Determining Species at Risk of IUU Fishing and Seafood 
Fraud

    To develop principles, the Working Group considered public comments 
received through both public comment periods. The Working Group 
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 minimized overlap of principles to ensure that a species' 
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 principles to a base list of 
species to develop the list of species at risk of IUU fishing or 
seafood fraud.
    Based on the Working Group's evaluation and synthesis of comments 
received through both public comment periods, the final principles are 
listed below. Species and species groups were evaluated using these 
principles:
     Enforcement Capability: The existence and effectiveness of 
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: 
Consideration of transparency of chain-of-custody for a species, such 
as the level 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 goes across multiple country borders or 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 Misrepresentation: The history of known 
misrepresentation of a species related to substitution with

[[Page 66869]]

another species, focused on mislabeling or other forms of 
misrepresentation of seafood products.
     Mislabeling or Other Misrepresentation: The history of 
known misrepresentation of information other than mislabeling related 
to species identification (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 violations of 
fisheries laws and regulations 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 or other toxins were introduced directly 
from the substituted species.

Application of Principles

    Given the large number of seafood species that are domestically 
landed or imported, 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 could 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 together in its analysis (e.g., 
shrimp), because the supporting data utilized nomenclature which made 
further analytical breakouts unworkable. In other cases, the working 
group was able to target species within larger species groups (e.g. red 
snapper), based on commercial and marketplace significance.
    The Working Group determined that data from the past five years was 
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.
    The resulting list of species and groups analyzed by applying the 
principles listed above is set forth below. Note that this list is not 
the list of at-risk species to which the first phase of the 
traceability program will be applied:
    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.
    Based on public comments received on the draft list of at-risk 
species, the following eight additional species/species groups were 
also analyzed according to the principles described above: Anchovies; 
Eels; Flounder (Southern and Summer); Octopus; Queen Conch; Weakfish; 
Skates and Rays.
    Both imported and domestically-landed species were evaluated using 
the same principles, data sources and methodology, as described below. 
Principles were not weighted and were evaluated evenly. Additionally, 
the Working Group considered the interaction of principles to be 
important. For example, the interaction between the enforcement 
capability, and history of violations was important when evaluating 
species. The presence or absence of one principle (e.g., catch 
documentation scheme) was not determinative in making the at-risk 
assessment.
    The following Federal agency offices contributed to the analysis of 
the list of species: the Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of 
Oceans and International Environmental Affairs, Department of State; 
Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and 
Environment, Department of State; Office of International Affairs and 
Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department 
of Commerce; Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce; Office of Science and 
Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of 
Commerce; Office of Law Enforcement, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
NOAA, Department of Commerce; Office of General Counsel, Enforcement 
Section, NOAA, Department of Commerce; and Office of General Counsel, 
Fisheries and Protected Resources Section, NOAA, Department of 
Commerce; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; Division of Seafood, Office of Food Safety, Food and 
Drug Administration; Office of Analytics and Outreach, Food and Drug 
Administration; Office of Compliance, Food and Drug Administration; 
Office of Environment and Natural Resources, U.S. Trade Representative; 
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Trade Representative. Resources from 
these offices, including data and expertise, drove the analysis and 
application of principles. Additional information used was from U.S. 
government-verifiable sources, such as 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.
    Sub-working groups composed of subject matter experts from the 
agencies listed above were created to complete the analyses of each 
species under each individual principle. The Working Group then 
combined 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 noted that the suite of risks posed to species varied not only in 
terms of which 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 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 an in-
ability to detect or prosecute violations.
    After the second round of public comment, the Working Group 
reconvened to discuss the eight new species or species groups added to 
the analysis in response to public comments plus new, relevant, U.S. 
government-verifiable information from the past five years applicable 
to species already analyzed. Based upon these discussions, the list of 
species now deemed to be at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud has 
been modified from the draft list.

[[Page 66870]]

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 species list has been developed to identify species for 
which the current risks of 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 
list of species or species groups at risk of IUU fishing and seafood 
fraud, in alphabetical order. (Appendix A to this final notice lists 
the scientific names for these species and/or species groups.) Brief 
summaries of the Working Group findings are presented here. Detailed 
presentation of the data considered by the Working Group and its 
deliberations is protected from disclosure because of data 
confidentiality and enforcement implications.
    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 fraudulently marketed as abalone.
    Atlantic Cod: Atlantic cod has been the subject of species 
substitution with other white fish, and mislabeling due to over-glazing 
(ice coating), and short-weighting. Despite enforcement capability, 
Atlantic Cod have been targets of IUU fishing in parts of the 
geographic range of the species. 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.
    Blue Crab: Atlantic Blue crab is sold in a number of different 
forms from live animals to significantly processed crab meat. In the 
crabmeat product 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 or co-mingled 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 lacks a catch documentation 
scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing activity, which make 
it vulnerable to IUU fishing. Some dolphinfish is transshipped prior to 
entry into the United States, 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 in the family 
Serranidae that are legally fished and sold under the names grouper and 
spotted grouper. Grouper, as a species group, has a history of 
fisheries violations, and lacks 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 Gempylotoxin hazard).
    King Crab (red): King crab (red) has a significant history of 
fisheries violations, and 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. King crab is at risk of seafood 
fraud, mostly due to misrepresentation of product origin, as well as 
some species substitution. Further, King crab is often transshipped 
before entering the United States, which increases the IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud risks.
    Pacific cod: Pacific cod is a species at risk of IUU fishing 
despite significant enforcement capability associated with this 
fishery. Pacific cod is a target of global IUU fishing operators and 
has a clear 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 of 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. This species also lacks a catch 
documentation scheme throughout the geographic range of fishing 
activity and is subject to 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 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 of 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 of imitation shark fin, which has been 
labeled as shark fin.

[[Page 66871]]

    Shrimp: Shrimp is produced through both aquaculture and wild 
harvest. The Working Group found that shrimp is at risk of IUU fishing 
activity due to the history of fishery violations. Shrimp is also often 
processed and co-mingled, which can make it vulnerable to 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 (the lack of labeling is 
fraudulent, not the use of Sodium Tripolyphosphate). Mislabeling is 
also a concern because aquacultured product is sometimes labeled as 
wild caught and product origin is sometimes falsified. Additionally, 
there is a history of substitution of one species of shrimp for another 
when imports cross the border into the United States.
    Swordfish: Swordfish are at risk of both IUU fishing and seafood 
fraud. Swordfish are a highly migratory species and their range crosses 
numerous jurisdictions, including the high seas. There is 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 likely be expected in a traceability program, 
particularly for fish harvested outside the Atlantic, which are not a 
part of the program. Swordfish is commonly transshipped and is also at 
risk of species substitution with mako shark.
    Tunas: Tunas are a high volume and high value species group that 
includes five main species: Albacore, bigeye, skipjack, yellowfin, and 
the bluefins. There is 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 
some do not provide a complete catch documentation scheme. Tunas are 
also subject to complicated processing that includes comingling of 
species and transshipments. Further, there is a history of some species 
substitutions, with most instances involving substitution of one tuna 
species for another. Additionally, there have also been instances of 
escolar, which can contain a toxin, being substituted for albacore 
tuna.
    The Working Group sought public comment specifically on how to 
narrow the scope of tunas on the list of at-risk species. Public 
comment received highlighted that the risk levels vary greatly 
depending on species. The Working Group further discussed the 
variability of the risk levels for IUU fishing and seafood fraud on a 
species by species basis. The Working Group has determined that Bluefin 
tuna species are at a lower risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud than 
other tuna species and has determined that it should not be included on 
the list of at-risk species. This decision reflects our conclusion that 
two of the principles analyzed demonstrate that there is a lower risk 
of IUU and seafood fraud as compared to other tunas. First, there are 
robust catch documentation scheme in place for Atlantic bluefin tuna 
and Southern bluefin tuna entering the U.S. market, which are 
implemented through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. 
Bluefin tuna was historically a target of IUU fishing and thus had a 
catch documentation scheme implemented for two of the three species 
world-wide, which are the two species comprising the vast majority of 
Bluefin that enters U.S. Commerce. A catch documentation scheme is 
under development for Pacific Bluefin tuna. The existing catch 
documentation scheme for Bluefin tuna does not eliminate all risk of 
IUU fishing, but it mitigates the risk to a low level. Second, Bluefin 
tuna does not have the history of species substitution that other tunas 
have, in part because of its different color and texture compared to 
other tunas, as well as the sophistication of Bluefin buyers, in 
discerning Bluefin from other fish. Although the Working Group 
recognizes that there may be further variance in risk level among the 
three Bluefin species, we have chosen to remove all three stocks, so as 
not to create any incentive for new species substitution schemes among 
the three Bluefin species.

Programs To Mitigate Risk

    Through the application of the principles for determining at-risk 
species, 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 
listed 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 is not listing 
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)). 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 Siluriformes 
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 the use of existing 
resources and expertise from across the federal government through 
increased federal agency collaboration, the Working Group did not 
include catfish on this initial list of at-risk species.

[[Page 66872]]

Summary of Comments in Response to Draft Principles and Draft List of 
At-Risk Species (80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015)

    In response to the August 3, 2015, Federal Register notice 
(described above), and following outreach to foreign nations, the 
Working Group received 101 unique written comments from fishing 
industry groups both domestic and abroad, non-governmental 
organizations, foreign nations, and interested citizens. The comments 
covered a breadth of issues pertaining to seafood traceability. 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 were outside the scope of the public comment 
request and that may be more relevant to future steps in the process, 
e.g., the pending rulemaking on the design and implementation of the 
traceability system.

1. Decision-making Transparency

    Comment: The Working Group received numerous public comments 
requesting additional information on what data was used in making the 
species risk determinations, as well as what experts were a part of the 
process.
    Response: This notice specifies all government offices that 
contributed data and expertise. The data came from across the U.S. 
Federal government and included government-verifiable data, such as 
that of certain Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. As noted 
earlier, details of the results have not been included because much of 
the data reviewed are sensitive and/or confidential, and could 
compromise the integrity of individual businesses, systems or 
enforcement capability if released.

2. Approach for Analysis Should Be Quantitative

    Comment: We received comment that the application of principles 
should be quantitative, and use numbers and a systematic data driven 
approach.
    Response: The Working Group partially agrees. We used systems and 
expertise to apply the principles for determining seafood species at-
risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud evenly, and did not give any 
individual principle more weight than another. The application of these 
principles was not entirely quantitative, however, as some of the 
information we used was not quantitative. Incidents of illegal fishing 
and incidents of fraudulent activity vary in scope and scale from one 
to the next and the differences cannot be numerically calculated.

3. Data Used Should Be From a Longer Time Period

    Comment: The Working Group received public comment that a longer 
time horizon would afford more data on violations and more ability to 
see trends over time.
    Response: The Working Group agrees that looking at a longer time 
horizon would produce more data from the databases utilized; however it 
would potentially decrease the accuracy of the determination regarding 
current risk. There have been efforts made in most fisheries to 
decrease the level of risk, and the Working Group does not think that 
data from further back than five years accurately depicts the current 
status of fisheries.

4. Using Additional Authorities

    Comment: Comment was received regarding the legal authorities for 
the rulemaking and regulatory process that will implement a seafood 
traceability program for the species listed as at-risk.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this public comment 
request. The rulemaking process will provide an opportunity for public 
comment on the proposed seafood traceability program and this comment 
would be more appropriately directed toward that process.

5. Country Specific Risk/Country of Origin Based

    Comment: The Working Group received numerous comments, including 
from many foreign nations that species risk should be tied to country 
of origin.
    Response: The Working Group acknowledges that the risk of IUU 
fishing will vary depending on the origin of catch and country of 
processing. However, the Working Group used enforcement capability and 
history of fisheries violations when determining the at-risk species to 
capture this element of the risk analysis because these more directly 
represent risk. These principles already take into account fisheries 
identified in NOAA's biennial report to Congress as implicated in IUU 
fishing (see 16 U.S.C. 1826h). In addition, the Working Group does not 
believe it is useful or appropriate to establish a principle based on 
country of origin.

6. Vessel Specific

    Comment: The Working Group received a comment that the risk level 
and the application of the traceability program should be vessel 
specific, as that is the appropriate level at which to assess risk.
    Response: The Working Group used history of fisheries violations as 
a principle, which covers incidents from all vessels.

7. Equality

    Comment: Numerous comments were received regarding equality. The 
majority of the comments received were tied to equality from one nation 
to another. These comments included requests that countries be treated 
equally in the analysis for identifying at-risk species, as well as 
comments outside of the scope of this comment request, pertaining to 
the equal and evenhanded implementation of the pending traceability 
program.
    Response: The Working Group applied each of the principles for 
determining risk level evenly and equally. The principles were applied 
equally to domestically-landed species and imported species.

8. IUU Fishing Should Be Separate From Seafood Fraud

    Comment: The working group received a couple of comments that 
seafood fraud and IUU fishing are separate and should be analyzed as 
such.
    Response: The Working Group agrees and recognizes the difference 
between IUU fishing and seafood fraud. We recognize that, for example, 
they may occur at different points in the supply chain from harvest to 
entry into U.S. commerce; however the Working Group believes they are a 
part of the same system. The Working Group developed principles, 
informed by public comment, which are specific to the different 
components. For example, under the principles applied by the Working 
Group, the history of fishery violations is specific to the concept of 
IUU fishing, whereas species misrepresentation is specific to seafood 
fraud. When analyzing a species, the Working Group applied each 
principle individually and then analyzed the resulting findings across 
the supply chain for both IUU fishing and seafood fraud.

9. Enforcement of Existing Laws

    Comment: Public comment encouraged the enforcement and application 
of existing laws before creating new laws.
    Response: This notice, which identifies at-risk species, does not, 
in and of itself, create any new legal requirements. Establishment of 
the seafood traceability program through a future rulemaking, as well 
as the resources devoted to implementation of

[[Page 66873]]

current laws, are outside the scope of this comment request.

10. Combatting IUU Fishing Requires Focus on Flag State, Port State, 
and Market State

    Comment: The Working Group received comment that proposing a list 
of at-risk species and the following implementation of a seafood 
traceability program focuses solely on the market drivers of IUU 
fishing and seafood fraud, and does not approach Flag State and Port 
State measures. The commenter stated that all three are critical 
components to combatting IUU fishing and seafood fraud, and that a 
narrow focus would limit effectiveness.
    Response: The Presidential Task Force on Combatting IUU Fishing and 
Seafood Fraud Action Plan contains 15 recommendations. This series of 
Federal Register notices pertained only to one component of 
recommendation 15, the identification of principles for determining at-
risk species and the initial list of at-risk species. Other Task Force 
recommendations focus on Flag State and Port State measures, from 
actions on enforcement capacity building to working on obtaining entry 
into force of the Port State Measures Agreement.

11. Biological Vulnerability/Overfished/Overfishing Should Be a 
Principle

    Comment: The Working Group received comments requesting that a 
principle for determining at-risk species be tied to the biological 
vulnerability and/or status of a species. Commenters note that as a 
species is overfished, the risk of IUU fishing can increase.
    Response: The Working Group acknowledges that the sustainability of 
fisheries resources 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 public comments such as sharks, 
sturgeon caviar, and abalone were added to the base list and analyzed 
by the Working Group. The Working Group agrees that as legal catch 
limits on a species are tightened, the incentive for IUU fishing often 
increases. However, the main focus of this process is to identify 
species at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud and enforcement 
capability and history of violations are better indicators of IUU 
fishing risk than species sustainability.

12. Gear-Type

    Comment: The Working Group received a comment that the risk of IUU 
fishing is tied to gear type, and that gear type should be a principle 
for determining at-risk species.
    Response: The Working Group acknowledges that fishing gear used in 
IUU fishing can sometimes include illegal gear types that are 
indiscriminate and can have higher environmental impacts than legal 
gear types. However, the Working Group does not believe that gear type 
alone is a sufficiently strong determinant of IUU fishing or seafood 
fraud risk, and use of illegal gear types was covered through the 
information collected on enforcement capability and history of 
violations.

13. Human Rights and/or Human Trafficking Concern

    Comment: Numerous comments were received recommending that a 
history of human rights violations or human trafficking concerns should 
be a principle used to identify species at risk of IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud.
    Response: Human rights and human trafficking are issues in the 
fishing industry that warrant consideration and action, but are not in 
and of themselves determinative of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The 
Administration is addressing these issues in a variety of ways. On 
March 15, 2012, President Obama called on his cabinet to strengthen 
federal efforts to combat human trafficking and to expand partnerships 
with civil society and the private sector. The President's Interagency 
Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (PITF) and its 
operational arm, the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG), bring 
together federal departments and agencies to ensure a whole-of-
government approach that addresses all aspects of human trafficking--
enforcement of criminal and labor laws, development of victim 
identification and protection measures, support for innovations in data 
gathering and research, education and public awareness, enhanced 
partnerships and research opportunities, and strategically linked 
foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement. For more information on 
the Administration's effort to combat Trafficking of Persons, please 
visit https://www.state.gov/j/tip/response/usg/ response/usg/.

14. Transparency of Vessel Ownership

    Comment: The Working Group received comment recommending that the 
transparency of vessel ownership be used as a principle for determining 
species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The comment suggests 
that convoluted vessel ownership and flags of convenience are often 
tied to IUU fishing.
    Response: The Working Group agrees with the potential correlation 
between vessel ownership transparency and the potential for IUU 
fishing. This was addressed in the Working Group's discussions about 
enforcement capability; however there is not sufficient data available 
to analyze this as a principle for determining at-risk species.

15. Complex Chain of Custody

    Comment: The Working Group received multiple comments on using the 
complexity of the chain of custody as a principle for determining IUU 
fishing risk. Many commenters agreed with the inclusion of this as a 
principle, while another group suggested there was no connection 
between IUU fishing and chain-of-custody complexity. The latter group 
requested more information on the relationship between the level of 
processing or chain-of-custody complexity and the risk of IUU fishing. 
We also received public comment stating that the two are not related, 
and thus this principle should not be used to determine at-risk 
species.
    Response: The Working Group does not believe that a complex chain 
of custody or high level of processing necessarily signifies fraudulent 
product or a connection to IUU fishing. In the more complex chains of 
custody, however, there are more opportunities for mixing illegally 
caught fish with legally caught fish, and for mislabeling, thereby 
increasing the risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. Transshipments 
make tracking the chain of custody harder and present opportunities to 
commingle legally and illegally caught fish. Seafood that undergoes a 
high amount of processing and enters U.S. Commerce through a long chain 
of custody may often be legal and not fraudulent, but that does not 
negate the increased risk. Therefore, the Working Group had retained 
complexity in the chain of custody as a principle for determining at-
risk species.

16. Harmful Antibiotics and Human Health Risk

    Comment: The Working Group received comment requesting that in the 
application of the human health risk principle, we extend our 
assessment of risk to harmful antibiotic use.
    Response: The application of the human health risk principle did 
include the use of harmful or unlawful antibiotic use. This principle 
does not, however, include the use of legal and non-harmful antibiotic 
use in aquaculture practice.

[[Page 66874]]

17. Weighting of Principles

    Comment: The Working Group received public comment both requesting 
clarification on whether we weighted some principles more heavily than 
others, as well as comment requesting that we do so.
    Response: The Working Group considered all of the principles 
without giving weights to them. The discussion for each species 
evaluated covered all of the principles and the findings associated for 
each, and the Working Group reviewed the suite of risks as a whole 
picture, without any one principle having a designated higher level of 
importance.

18. Number of Species

    Comment: The Working Group received comments requesting both that 
all species be part of the first phase of the pending traceability 
program as well as comments requesting that the list of at-risk species 
be limited to two to three species.
    Response: The Action Plan specifies that the Working Group is to 
prioritize species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud in the 
first phase of a seafood traceability program that could eventually be 
expanded to cover all species. As directed by the Task Force, the 
Working Group completed a data driven analysis and listed species 
determined to be most at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. This 
exercise was not predicated on creating a list with a certain number of 
species, rather the focus was on the most at-species, regardless of the 
numerical results.

19. The Substitute Species Should Be Tracked (e.g., Blue Swimming Crab)

    Comment: Public comment received recommended that the traceability 
program track both the at-risk species and the species that are 
substitutes for those targets. For example, Atlantic Blue Crab is on 
the list of at-risk species, in part because Blue Swimmer Crab is known 
to be mislabeled and fraudulently marketed under the Atlantic Blue Crab 
name. The recommendation from public comment is that both are at-risk 
of seafood fraud and, therefore, both the target and the substitute 
should be tracked.
    Response: The Working Group believes that the species at risk of 
fraud is the one that other species are used to imitate and that, at 
this time, tracking of the target species is the most efficient 
approach.

20. Aquaculture Species

    Comment: Commenters requested that aquaculture species be exempt 
from the pending traceability program, and removed from the list of at-
risk species because aquacultured species are not subject to IUU 
fishing.
    Response: Both wild caught and aquacultured seafood can be at risk 
of seafood fraud (e.g., farmed shrimp mislabeled as wild-caught) and 
therefore both are included on the list of at-risk species.

21. Consistency and Coordination With the Marine Mammal Rule

    Comment: Public comment was received regarding the relationship 
between this list of at-risk species, the pending seafood traceability 
program, and the proposed rulemaking promulgated under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The proposed MMPA rule aims to reduce 
marine mammal bycatch associated with commercial fishing operations. 
Under the proposed MMPA rule, nations wishing to export fish and fish 
products to the United States must demonstrate they have a regulatory 
program for reducing marine mammal incidental mortality and serious 
injury that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. program.
    Response: The MMPA proposed rulemaking is focused on reducing 
marine mammal bycatch, unlike this Federal Register Notice, which 
identifies species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. However, 
NOAA recognizes the importance of ensuring that its programs are 
consistent and coordinated.

22. ``High Volume,'' ``High Visibility''

    Comment: A commenter requested clarification regarding the meaning 
of the terms ``high volume'' and ``high visibility'' species when 
referring to tunas, in the Federal Register notice with the draft list 
of at-risk species.
    Response: In using those terms, the Working Group was trying to 
highlight that this is a popular group of species in the U.S. market. 
Tuna is a high volume import, and the text should have read that is it 
also a ``high value'' species.

23. Use Scientific Names

    Comment: The Working Group received numerous comments requesting 
that scientific names be used to in the list of at-risk species, for 
greater clarity.
    Response: The Working Group agrees with this comment, and has 
included an appendix of the scientific names for the at-risk species.

24. Government Resources

    Comment: Comments were received recommending that the U.S. 
government contribute adequate resources both domestically and in 
capacity building abroad to implement the pending traceability program 
effectively. A separate comment was also received stating that no 
additional government resources should be spent on implementing the 
pending program.
    Response: Implementation of the seafood traceability program is 
outside the scope of this Federal Register Notice, however, the Working 
Group notes that the Action Plan does not call for additional 
government resources for this effort.

25. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Catch 
Documentation Scheme

    Comment: The Working Group received comment that FAO has begun 
discussions about implementing a catch documentation scheme and that we 
should use their deliberations to inform our pending program.
    Response: The traceability program as outlined in the Action Plan 
is to be in at least two parts. The first phase applies to species most 
at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud and, by December 2016, an 
evaluation of the program will be conducted to inform a possible 
program expansion to all species. The FAO deliberations, if 
contemporary to the predetermined timeline for the U.S. program, could 
prove useful, as could additional work being contemplated by the FAO 
related specifically to traceability.

26. Existing Efforts To Combat IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud

    Comment: The public comment highlighted the importance of not 
duplicating efforts of existing programs and enforcement that target 
IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
    Response: The Working Group agrees, and the Presidential Task Force 
to Combat IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud and the Action Plan both 
support the idea of coordination, not duplication.

27. Third Party Certification

    Comment: The Working Group received public comment requesting 
clarification on whether third party certification (e.g., Marine 
Stewardship Council) would exempt product from the pending seafood 
traceability program. Comment was also received recommending that 
product should be exempt if it is certified by a third party.
    Response: Implementation of the traceability program, including any 
potential exemptions, is beyond the mandate of the Working Group and 
outside the scope of this Federal Register Notice. It will be addressed 
in

[[Page 66875]]

the forthcoming rulemaking related to the traceability program.

28. Fraud in the United States

    Comment: The Working Group received comments on the level of fraud 
that happens with seafood inside U.S. commerce, once seafood has 
entered into our markets. Comments requested information on how the 
pending traceability program will address the amount of fraud that 
happens once seafood is inside U.S. markets.
    Response: The scope of the traceability program is beyond the 
mandate of the Working Group and outside the scope of this Federal 
Register Notice. It will be addressed in the forthcoming rulemaking 
related to the traceability program.

29. Chain of Custody Principle Discriminates Against Imports

    Comment: One commenter noted that using complex chain of custody as 
a principle will discriminate against imports.
    Response: The Working Group disagrees. The Working Group considered 
the frequency of transshipment, complexity of processing, and 
complexity of the supply chain (especially with respect to the 
potential for fish to be comingled) equally for domestically-harvested 
and imported fish.

30. Carbon Monoxide

    Comment: One comment was received concerning the use of carbon 
monoxide to improve the color of fish to make it appear fresh. The 
commenter was concerned that this practice creates an unfair market for 
local seafood that is fresh and untreated with carbon monoxide. Another 
commenter was concerned about our inclusion of carbon monoxide as an 
example of fraud, as it is legal to use.
    Response: The Working Group recognizes the concerns raised by these 
comments. The use of carbon monoxide is legal; however, the product 
must be labeled appropriately. The mislabeling principle addressed the 
fraudulent practice of failing to properly label product that has been 
treated.

31. Tripolyphosphate

    Comment: The Working Group received a comment that expressed 
concern about our inclusion of Tripolyphosphate as an example of fraud 
associated with shrimp, as it is legal to use.
    Response: The Working Group recognizes the concerns raised by these 
comments. The use of Tripolyphosphate is legal; however, the product 
must be labeled appropriately. The mislabeling principle addressed the 
fraudulent practice of failing to properly label product that has been 
treated.

Canned Tuna

    Comment: Public comments noted that the majority of tuna in the 
United States is from canning companies that have industry-run 
traceability programs for contamination and human health reasons and 
thus have a lower level of IUU fishing and fraud risk.
    Response: The Working Group agrees that some canned tuna may have a 
lower level of IUU fishing and seafood fraud risk than other product 
forms. This is based both upon the existence and potential 
effectiveness of industry led traceability programs for canned tuna, 
and the fact that canned product that enters U.S. commerce as ``dolphin 
safe,'' is required to have a statement from the captain of the harvest 
vessel thus tying the product to the harvest vessel. The Working Group 
notes that the potentially lower level of risk for canned tuna products 
could be considered in the application of the data collections 
requirements of the forthcoming proposed traceability program or be 
addressed through the voluntary Trusted Trader Program to be developed 
by the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security per 
Recommendations 14 and 15 of the Action Plan.

32. Bioterrorism Act of 2002

    Comment: The Working Group received a comment requesting 
clarification on the relationship between the pending traceability 
program and this Bioterrorism Act of 2002.
    Response: The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 required FDA to establish 
requirements for the creation and maintenance of records needed to 
determine the immediate previous sources and the immediate subsequent 
recipients of food, (i.e., one up, one down). Such records are to allow 
FDA to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences 
or death to humans or animals. Entities subject to these provisions are 
those that manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, 
hold or import food. Farms and restaurants are exempt from these 
requirements.
    To carry out this provision in the Bioterrorism Act, the Food 
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was enacted and it included enhancing 
tracking and tracing of food and recordkeeping. Under FSMA, FDA, 
working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and State 
agencies, has established two product tracing pilot projects carried 
out by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT). The projects will 
help determine which data are most needed to trace a product that is in 
the market back to a common source and, once the contaminated 
ingredient is identified, to trace the product forward to know where it 
has been distributed. IFT has recommended steps for traceability 
improvement, and the information is still under review and we cannot 
make any comparative analyses.

33. Cooked Seafood

    Comment: The Working Group received comment requesting 
clarification as to whether the pending seafood traceability program 
would extend to cooked seafood, which is exempted from the Country of 
Origin Labeling (COOL) protocols.
    Response: The product types that will be a part of the program will 
be delineated in the traceability rule-making process and are beyond 
the scope of this Federal Register Notice.

34. Base List of Species

    Comment: The Working Group received a public comment that the base 
list of species examined was skewed toward high value species, and the 
focus should be broadened to include mass-market fish.
    Response: Initially the Working Group looked at both high value and 
high volume fisheries, but many of the high volume fisheries were also 
high value fisheries. Generally the only high volume fisheries that did 
not meet the value threshold were from bait fish fisheries. Therefore, 
the Working Group concluded a separate look at high volume fisheries 
was not useful. There were a number of lower value, but higher volume 
(mass market), stocks analyzed using the standards noted as part of the 
base list. However, the level of risk associated with many of them did 
not warrant having them on a list of species at risk of IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud.

35. 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.
    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 the 
first phase of the traceability scheme. As noted above, the Working 
Group does not believe it is appropriate to establish a

[[Page 66876]]

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 at-risk species based on 
whether they are associated with nations that have been issued a yellow 
or 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, was considered.

36. Additional Species

    Comment: The Working Group received many comments requesting that 
additional species be added to the list of at-risk species. The 
additional species requested included: Anchovies, All Snappers, Eels, 
Flounder, Lobster, Mackerel, Pollock, Octopus, Salmon, Skates & Rays, 
Snow Crab, Squid, Totoaba, and Weakfish.
    Response: Lobster, Mackerel, Pollock, Salmon, Snow crab, and Squid 
were evaluated by the Working Group previously. The Working Group has 
confirmed that its earlier assessment of the species was accurate. 
Specific to the requests to have all snappers on the list, the Working 
Group determined that the species that is most at-risk for IUU fishing 
and seafood fraud is Red Snapper, and that the other snappers are 
generally used as a substitute for Red Snapper. Thus the Working Group 
did not expand the at-risk species to include all snappers. Totoaba, 
was requested for addition through public comment, but was not 
evaluated. Totoaba is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA), and is listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) as threatened with extinction. This listing eliminates legal 
trade and negates the need for including Totoaba on the list of at-risk 
species.
    The Working Group reviewed the following additional species, as 
suggested through public comments: Anchovies; Eels; Flounder (Southern 
and Summer); Octopus; Queen Conch; Weakfish; Skates and Rays. All of 
these species were evaluated using the same principles and methodology 
applied to the previously analyzed species. The Working Group did not 
find enough risk across the suite of principles to warrant adding any 
of the newly suggested species to the final list of at-risk species.

37. Emphasis on Unregulated and Unreported Catch

    Comment: A comment was received suggesting the Working Group needed 
to increase attention on unregulated and unreported catch, while 
another comment suggested the Working Group needed to pay less 
attention to unregulated and unreported catch.
    Response: Illegal, unregulated and unreported catch all have 
negative impacts on the sustainability of fisheries and on legal 
fishing businesses across the world. In its analysis, the Working Group 
took into consideration unregulated and unreported catch concerns.

Appendix 1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Scientific name  (to
                Common                   genus or to species)            Family                   Order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abalone..............................  Haliotis spp...........  Haliotidae.............  GASTROPODA.
albacore.............................  Thunnus alalunga.......  Scombridae.............  SCOMBROIDEI.
Atlantic cod.........................  Gadus morhua...........  Gadidae................  GADIFORMES.
bigeye tuna..........................  Thunnus obesus.........  Scombridae.............  SCOMBROIDEI.
blue crab............................  Callinectes sapidus....  Portunidae.............  BRACHYURA.
dolphinfish..........................  Coryphaena hippurus....  Coryphaenidae..........  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Aethaloperca spp.......  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Anyperodon spp.........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Caprodon spp...........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Cephalopholis spp......  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Cromileptes spp........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Dermatolepis spp.......  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Diplectrum spp.........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Epinephelus spp........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Gracila spp............  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Hyporthodus spp........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Mycteroperca spp.......  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Plectropomus spp.......  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Saloptia spp...........  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Triso spp..............  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
groupers.............................  Variola spp............  Serranidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
Pacific cod..........................  Gadus macrocephalus....  Gadidae................  GADIFORMES.
red king crab........................  Paralithodes             Lithodidae.............  ANOMURA.
                                        camtschaticus.
red snapper..........................  Lutjanus campechanus...  Lutjanidae.............  PERCOIDEI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         All Sea Cucumber Species, including the below list from the Food and Agricultural Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sea cucumber.........................  Actinopyga spp.........  Holothuriidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Apostichopus spp.......  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Astichopus spp.........  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Athyonidium spp........  Cucumariidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Australostichopus spp..  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Bohadschia spp.........  Holothuriidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Cucumaria spp..........  Cucumariidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Heterocucumis spp......  Cucumariidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Holothuria spp.........  Holothuriidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Isostichopus spp.......  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Molpadia spp...........  Molpadiidae............  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Paradota spp...........  Chiridotidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Parastichopus spp......  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.

[[Page 66877]]

 
sea cucumber.........................  Pearsonothuria spp.....  Holothuriidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Pseudocnus spp.........  Cucumariidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Pseudostichopus spp....  Synallactidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Psolidium spp..........  Psolidae...............  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Psolus spp.............  Psolidae...............  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Staurocucumis spp......  Cucumariidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Stichopus spp..........  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Thelenota spp..........  Stichopodidae..........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
sea cucumber.........................  Trachythyone spp.......  Cucumariidae...........  HOLOTHUROIDEA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     All Shark Species (excluding skates and rays), including the below list from the Food and Agricultural
                                                  Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sharks...............................  Aculeola spp...........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Alopias spp............  Alopiidae..............  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Apristurus spp.........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Asymbolus spp..........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Atelomycterus spp......  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Aulohalaelurus spp.....  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Brachaelurus spp.......  Brachaeluridae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Carcharhinus spp.......  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Carcharias spp.........  Odontaspididae.........  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Carcharodon spp........  Lamnidae...............  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Centrophorus spp.......  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Centroscyllium spp.....  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Centroscymnus spp......  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Cephaloscyllium spp....  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Cephalurus spp.........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Cetorhinus spp.........  Cetorhinidae...........  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Chaenogaleus spp.......  Hemigaleidae...........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Chiloscyllium spp......  Hemiscylliidae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Chlamydoselachus spp...  Chlamydoselachidae.....  HEXANCHIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Cirrhigaleus spp.......  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Cirrhoscyllium spp.....  Parascylliidae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Ctenacis spp...........  Proscylliidae..........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Dalatias spp...........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Deania spp.............  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Echinorhinus spp.......  Echinorhinidae.........  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Eridacnis spp..........  Proscylliidae..........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Etmopterus spp.........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Eucrossorhinus spp.....  Orectolobidae..........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Euprotomicroides spp...  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Euprotomicrus spp......  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Eusphyra spp...........  Sphyrnidae.............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Furgaleus spp..........  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Galeocerdo spp.........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Galeorhinus spp........  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Galeus spp.............  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Ginglymostoma spp......  Ginglymostomatidae.....  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Glyphis spp............  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Gogolia spp............  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Gollum spp.............  Pseudotriakidae........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Halaelurus spp.........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Haploblepharus spp.....  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Hemigaleus spp.........  Hemigaleidae...........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Hemipristis spp........  Hemigaleidae...........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Hemiscyllium spp.......  Hemiscylliidae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Hemitriakis spp........  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES
sharks...............................  Heptranchias spp.......  Hexanchidae............  HEXANCHIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Heterodontus spp.......  Heterodontidae.........  HETERODONTIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Heteroscyllium spp.....  Brachaeluridae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Heteroscymnoides spp...  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Hexanchus spp..........  Hexanchidae............  HEXANCHIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Holohalaelurus spp.....  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Hypogaleus spp.........  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Iago spp...............  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Isistius spp...........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Isogomphodon spp.......  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Isurus spp.............  Lamnidae...............  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Lamiopsis spp..........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Lamna spp..............  Lamnidae...............  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Leptocharias spp.......  Leptochariidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Loxodon spp............  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Megachasma spp.........  Megachasmidae..........  LAMNIFORMES.

[[Page 66878]]

 
sharks...............................  Mitsukurina spp........  Mitsukurinidae.........  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Mustelus spp...........  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Nasolamia spp..........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Nebrius spp............  Ginglymostomatidae.....  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Negaprion spp..........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Notorynchus spp........  Hexanchidae/             HEXANCHIFORMES.
                                                                 Notorynchidae.
sharks...............................  Odontaspis spp.........  Odontaspididae.........  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Orectolobus spp........  Orectolobidae..........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Oxynotus spp...........  Oxynotidae.............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Paragaleus spp.........  Hemigaleidae...........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Parascyllium spp.......  Parascylliidae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Parmaturus spp.........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Pentanchus spp.........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Pliotrema spp..........  Pristiophoridae........  PRISTIOPHORIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Poroderma spp..........  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Prionace spp...........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Pristiophorus spp......  Pristiophoridae........  PRISTIOPHORIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Proscyllium spp........  Proscylliidae..........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Pseudocarcharias spp...  Pseudocarchariidae.....  LAMNIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Pseudotriakis spp......  Pseudotriakidae........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Rhincodon spp..........  Rhincodontidae.........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Rhizoprionodon spp.....  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Schroederichthys spp...  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Scoliodon spp..........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Scyliorhinus spp.......  Scyliorhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Scylliogaleus spp......  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Scymnodalatias spp.....  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Scymnodon spp..........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Somniosus spp..........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Sphyrna spp............  Sphyrnidae.............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Squaliolus spp.........  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Squalus spp............  Squalidae..............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Squatina spp...........  Squatinidae............  SQUALIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Stegostoma spp.........  Stegostomatidae........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Sutorectus spp.........  Orectolobidae..........  ORECTOLOBIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Triaenodon spp.........  Carcharhinidae.........  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
sharks...............................  Triakis spp............  Triakidae..............  CARCHARHINIFORMES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 All Shrimp Species in the Order Decapoda, including the below list from the Food and Agricultural Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shrimps..............................  Acanthephyra spp.......  Oplophoridae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Acetes spp.............  Sergestidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Alpheus spp............  Alpheidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Argis spp..............  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Aristaeomorpha spp.....  Aristaeidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Aristaeopsis spp.......  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Aristeus spp...........  Aristaeidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Artemesia spp..........  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Atya spp...............  Atyidae................  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Atyopsis spp...........  Atyidae................  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Atypopenaeus spp.......  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Bentheogennema spp.....  Benthesicymidae........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Benthesicymus spp......  Benthesicymidae........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Campylonotus spp.......  Campylonotidae.........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Caridina spp...........  Atyidae................  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Chlorotocus spp........  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Crangon spp............  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Cryphiops spp..........  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Cryptopenaeus spp......  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Dichelopandalus spp....  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Eualus spp.............  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Exhippolysmata spp.....  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Exopalaemon spp........  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Farfantepenaeus spp      Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
                                        (now Penaeus).
shrimps..............................  Fenneropenaeus spp (now  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
                                        Penaeus).
shrimps..............................  Glyphocrangon spp......  Glyphocrangonidae......  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Glyphus spp............  Pasiphaeidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Hadropenaeus spp.......  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Haliporoides spp.......  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Heptacarpus spp........  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Heterocarpoides spp....  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Heterocarpus spp.......  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Holthuispenaeopsis spp.  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).

[[Page 66879]]

 
shrimps..............................  Hymenocera spp.........  Gnatophyllidae.........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Hymenodora spp.........  Oplophoridae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Hymenopenaeus spp......  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Latreutes spp..........  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Leandrites spp.........  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Leptocarpus spp........  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Leptochela spp.........  Pasiphaeidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Lipkebe spp............  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Lipkius spp............  Nematocarcinidae.......  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Litopenaeus spp........  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Lysmata spp............  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Macrobrachium spp......  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Macropetasma spp.......  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Marsupenaeus spp.......  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Melicertus spp.........  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Mesopaeneus spp........  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Metacrangon spp........  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Metapenaeopsis spp.....  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Metapenaeus spp........  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Microprosthema spp.....  Stenopodidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Nematocarcinus spp.....  Nematocarcinidae.......  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Nematopalaemon spp.....  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Notocrangon spp........  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Notostomus spp.........  Oplophoridae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Ogyrides spp...........  Ogyrididae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Oplophorus spp.........  Oplophoridae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Palaemon spp...........  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Palaemonetes spp.......  Palaemonidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pandalopsis spp........  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pandalus spp...........  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pantomus spp...........  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Paracrangon spp........  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Parapandalus spp.......  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Parapenaeopsis spp.....  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Parapenaeus spp........  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Paratya spp............  Atyidae................  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pasiphaea spp..........  Pasiphaeidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Penaeopsis spp.........  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Penaeus spp............  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pleoticus spp..........  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Plesionika spp.........  Pandalidae.............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Plesiopenaeus spp......  Aristaeidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pontocaris spp.........  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Pontophilus spp........  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Processa spp...........  Processidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Protrachypene spp......  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Rhynchocinetes spp.....  Rhynchocinetidae.......  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Saron spp..............  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Sclerocrangon spp......  Crangonidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Sergestes spp..........  Sergestidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Sicyonia spp...........  Sicyoniidae............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Solenocera spp.........  Solenoceridae..........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Spirontocaris spp......  Hippolytidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Stenopus spp...........  Stenopodidae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Systellaspis spp.......  Oplophoridae...........  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Trachypenaeus spp......  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Trachysalambria spp....  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
shrimps..............................  Xiphopenaeus spp.......  Penaeidae..............  Decapoda (NATANTIA).
skipjack tuna........................  Katsuwonus pelamis.....  Scombridae.............  SCOMBROIDEI.
yellowfin tuna.......................  Thunnus albacares......  Scombridae.............  SCOMBROIDEI.
swordfish............................  Xiphias gladiatus......  Xiphiidae..............  SCOMBROIDEI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: October 27, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-27780 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P