Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Seafood Import Monitoring Program, 79836-79848 [2022-27741]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79836-79848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27741]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 300 and 600

[Docket No. 221215-0273]
RIN 0648-BK85


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Seafood 
Import Monitoring Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would add species or groups of species to 
the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) established pursuant to 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In 
addition, this proposed rule would amend SIMP regulations to clarify 
the responsibilities of the importer of record; amend the definition of 
importer of record to more closely align with the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) definition; amend the language requiring chain 
of custody records to be made available for audit or inspection to add 
a requirement that such records be made available through digital means 
if requested by NMFS; clarify the Aggregated Harvest Report criteria; 
and clarify the application of SIMP requirements to imports into the 
Pacific Insular Areas.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or 
before March 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2022-0119, by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via 
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and 
enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-0119 in the Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' 
icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
    Mail: Submit written comments to Rachael Confair, Office of 
International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway (F/IS5), Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    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 NMFS. 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. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    The draft Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Assessment supplementing this proposed rule are available 
on www.regulations.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour 
estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information 
requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the 
Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce and by submission 
to Information Collection Review (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachael Confair, Office of 
International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce, National

[[Page 79837]]

Marine Fisheries Service (phone: 301-427-8361; or email: 
[email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    NMFS issued a final rule on December 9, 2016, to establish the 
Seafood Traceability Program, also known as the Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program (SIMP)(see 50 CFR 300.320-300.325). The goal was to 
establish a risk-based traceability program as a means to combat 
illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud, 
in response to recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on 
Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud. See SIMP proposed rule (81 FR 
6210, February 5, 2016) and final rule (81 FR 88975, December 9, 2016) 
for further background. The program sets forth permitting, reporting, 
and recordkeeping procedures relating to the entry into U.S. commerce 
of certain fish and fish products, identified as being at particular 
risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud, in order to implement the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 
prohibition on the import and trade, in interstate or foreign commerce, 
of fish taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any 
foreign law or regulation or in contravention of a treaty or a binding 
conservation measure of a regional fishery organization to which the 
United States is a party. 16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(Q).
    Although 13 species and species groups were initially identified 
for inclusion in SIMP, application of SIMP requirements to shrimp and 
abalone was stayed through regulation because gaps existed in the 
collection of traceability information for domestic aquaculture-raised 
shrimp and abalone, which is currently largely regulated at the state 
level. On April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17762), NMFS issued a rule for a 
domestic program for comparable traceability requirements as directed 
under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141). 
Subsequently, NMFS lifted the stay on shrimp and abalone on May 24, 
2018. SIMP requirements have been in effect for all initial thirteen 
species and species groups since December 31, 2018.
    The 13 species and species groups were identified based on 
principles for determining seafood species at risk of IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud (at-risk species). On behalf of the National Ocean 
Council Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud, NMFS issued draft 
principles and a draft list of at-risk species, solicited and 
considered public comment, then issued the final principles (listed 
below) and final list of priority (at-risk) species. See 80 FR 66867 
(October 30, 2015) (providing finalized principles and a list of 
priority species developed using the principles). As part of this 
process, an interagency expert working group reviewed public comments 
and confidential enforcement information and developed the draft list 
of priority species, then reviewed further public comment prior to 
publication of the final list of thirteen species. See 81 FR 88975, 
88978 (December 9, 2016). The seven final principles are:
    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 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.
    NMFS now seeks to expand SIMP to include additional species and 
species groups. In June 2022, the White House issued a National 
Security Memorandum on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 
Fishing and Associated Labor Abuses (NSM-11, June 27, 2022), directing 
NOAA to initiate a rulemaking by the end of 2022, to expand SIMP to 
include additional species or species groups, as appropriate, to combat 
IUU fishing and seafood fraud. NSM-11 at Section 5(a).
    In December 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 2021 
Consolidated Appropriations Bill (H.R. 7667), which included an 
accompanying report for NOAA to develop a priority list of other 
species for inclusion in SIMP in order to: (1) reduce human trafficking 
in the international seafood supply chain; (2) reduce economic harm to 
the American fishing industry; (3) preserve stocks of at-risk species 
around the world; and (4) protect American consumers from seafood 
fraud. Although H.R. 7667 was not adopted into law, NOAA nevertheless 
published a Report to Congress in March 2022 titled ``Developing a 
Priority List of Species for Consideration under the Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program'' in response to House Report 116-455. The March 
2022 Report to Congress referred to the list above as ``criteria,'' but 
during the development of this proposed rule, the agency decided that 
they are more appropriately characterized as ``goals.'' NMFS considered 
the four goals in its accompanying report when reviewing potential 
species and species groups for inclusion in SIMP. See Public Law 116-
260 (enacting H.R. 133 as the Consolidated Appropriations Act).
    NOAA's approach to this proposed rule continues to be built on the 
original seven principles for identifying species at risk of IUU 
fishing and seafood fraud under SIMP, given the objective of and 
authority for the program. Seafood fraud and reducing economic harm to 
the American fishing industry (goals 2 and

[[Page 79838]]

4 from House Report 116-455) are covered, respectively, under the 
misrepresentation and mislabeling principles and history of fishing 
violations, enforcement capacity, and catch documentation schemes 
principles.
    Countering forced labor and other labor abuses in the seafood 
supply chain (goal 1) is an agency priority and NMFS will consider such 
concerns when reviewing potential species for inclusion. However, 
labor-abuse concerns alone will not be used as a basis for identifying 
species. See SIMP final rule (81 FR 88975, December 9, 2016) 
(explaining in response to comment 11 that, while forced labor and 
unfair labor practices are important issues in several fisheries and in 
the fish processing sector, the objective of the program is to trace 
seafood products from the point of entry into U.S. commerce back to the 
point of harvest or production for the purpose of ensuring that 
illegally harvested or falsely represented seafood does not enter U.S. 
commerce). NMFS will continue to provide information collected under 
SIMP to Federal agency partners, consistent with MSA data 
confidentiality provisions (16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)) and other Federal law, 
to aid in the investigation or prosecution of labor crimes and to 
support those agencies, through interagency groups and other actions, 
in efforts to address forced labor and other labor abuses.
    As explained in the March 2022 Report to Congress, NMFS relies on 
reports and information from Federal partner agencies on forced labor, 
human trafficking, and child labor abuses in the seafood industry. 
Based on cross-referencing such information with information on Country 
of Origin of U.S. seafood imports, shrimp and tuna (Albacore, Bigeye, 
Bluefin, Skipjack and Yellowfin) are the most predominant species that 
are entering U.S. markets and that are vulnerable to forced labor in 
the supply chain. Both species groups are already included in SIMP, but 
this proposed rule would add other tuna species to the program.
    In the March 2022 Report to Congress, NMFS described ``preserv[ing] 
stocks of at-risk species'' (goal 3 in House Report 116-455) as 
including: threatened or endangered species affected by IUU fishing, 
species being overharvested due to fishing pressure, and/or species 
protected under legislation due to population decline. Conservation and 
management of living marine resources is a core NMFS mandate. When 
reviewing potential species for inclusion in SIMP, NMFS will indicate 
if any of the above labor abuse concerns are raised, but will not use 
these concerns as a basis for adding species to SIMP.
    In addition to its evaluation of priority species, NMFS reviewed 
the efficacy of the program's reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
and identified opportunities to refine the descriptions and 
requirements of certain data elements that International Fisheries 
Trade Permit (IFTP) holders are required to report, thus clarifying and 
standardizing information entered into the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE) for imports subject to SIMP. NMFS intends to clarify 
the small-scale harvest criteria for the Aggregated Harvest Report in 
this proposed rule. For other data elements, NMFS intends to provide 
further guidance to the seafood industry and trade community by 
updating its Implementation Guide that outlines the entry filing 
process for the Partner Government Agenda Message Set. NMFS is updating 
the Implementation Guide based on feedback and questions NMFS received 
from the seafood industry and trade community through the SIMP support 
email and phone line, and lessons gleaned from SIMP audits. The current 
Implementation Guide is available online at https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/nmfs-pga-message-set-guidelines.
    In addition to the proposed changes, NMFS is seeking comments on 
whether to consider a standardized ``SIMP Form'' that would build on 
the current sample model forms to create a required document that 
encompasses all traceability elements required under the program. 
Through program implementation, seafood industry stakeholders have 
requested a standardized form for use in lieu of the optional model 
forms. During the initial development of SIMP, the working group 
decided against inclusion of a standard form due to potential 
duplication with existing forms, especially those required by Regional 
Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). In revisiting this 
decision, NMFS will be mindful of other forms that are required by 
RFMOs or applicable United States programs (e.g., bluefin tuna catch 
documents, swordfish and frozen bigeye statistical documents, NOAA Form 
370, and Certificates of Admissibility required under Marine Mammal 
Protection Act import provisions or High Seas Driftnet Fisheries 
Moratorium Protection Act). If NMFS ultimately determines to pursue a 
standardized form, further rulemaking may be required, including 
justifying any duplicate information collection, as well as associated 
analysis and/or processes consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Paperwork Reduction Act and other applicable requirements.

Seafood Import Permitting and Recordkeeping Procedures

    This proposed rule would amend SIMP regulations to clarify current 
provisions and add a requirement that importers of record provide chain 
of custody documentation through digital means upon request. NMFS 
proposes to amend the International Fisheries Trade Permit (IFTP) 
regulations (50 CFR 300.322) to clarify that the importer of record on 
the Customs entry filing and the IFTP holder must be the same entity. 
Customs and Border Protection defines ``importer of record'' under 19 
U.S.C. 1484 (Section 484, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended) as the owner, 
purchaser, or licensed Customs broker (CBP, 2001). A foreign entity, 
without a United States business presence, must have a U.S. resident 
agent (as defined in Customs regulations 19 CFR 141.18) that must serve 
as the importer of record and hold the IFTP, and that is responsible 
for compliance with all SIMP requirements. SIMP audits have revealed 
that, in many cases, a third party (e.g., the U.S. purchaser of the 
seafood) has allowed their IFTP number to be used by a foreign importer 
of record, even though this is not allowed under the SIMP regulations. 
The process for obtaining an IFTP, the responsibilities of IFTP 
holders, as well as the requirements for the IFTP holder to update 
contact information are set forth in 50 CFR 300.322.
    NMFS proposes to revise the IFTP regulations at Sec.  300.324(d) to 
clarify that paper or electronic copies of all chain of custody 
documentation required under this subpart, and all supporting records 
upon which an entry filing or export declaration is made, must be 
maintained by the importer of record or the exporting principal party 
in interest as applicable, and made available for inspection, at the 
importer's/exporter's place of business for a period of two years from 
the date of the import, export, or re-export. Such records must be made 
available to NMFS upon request. These records can be provided in 
electronic format (within five days from receipt of the agency's 
request or audit notification) or paper format (within ten days from 
receipt of the record request or audit notification), or unless 
otherwise specified by NMFS. The importer's permit status will be 
verified electronically through the U.S. Customs ACE as part of the 
normal entry filing. The proposed revisions clarify that supply chain 
records to support may be stored, retrieved and

[[Page 79839]]

submitted to NMFS electronically, when requested to support an audit or 
inspection, thereby reducing the burden on NMFS and the trade 
community.

Application to Pacific Insular Area

    In addition, this proposed rule would clarify that product coming 
into the Pacific Insular Area as defined in the MSA (16 U.S.C. 
1802(35)) would be subject to all requirements of this section except 
those requiring (ACE) filing. When product is moved from the Pacific 
Insular Area to any place within the customs territory of the United 
States, all requirements would apply.

Consideration of Additional Priority Species

    In its March 2022 Report to Congress, NMFS stated that it was 
evaluating the 13 current SIMP species or species groups (collectively, 
referred to as ``species''), other species previously evaluated but not 
included in SIMP, and new species that were among the top 50 seafood 
imports in 2020 (by volume or value) and/or for which there were 
reports related to IUU fishing and seafood fraud risk. The current 13 
species are Abalone (Haliotis spp.); Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua); Cod, 
Pacific (Gadus macrocephalus); Crab, Atlantic Blue (Callinectes 
sapidus); Crab, Red King (Paralithodes camtschaticus); Dolphinfish 
(Coryphaena hippurus); Grouper (Family Serranidae); Sea Cucumber (Class 
Holothuroidea); Snapper, Northern Red (Lutjanus campechanus); Shark 
(Orders Squaliformes, Hexanchiformes, Carcharhiniformes, Lamniformes, 
Orectolobiformes, Heterodontiformes, Pristiophorimormes); Shrimp (Order 
Natantia); Swordfish (Xiphias gladius); and Tuna--Albacore (Thunnus 
alalunga), Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), Bigeye tuna 
(Thunnus obesus), Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), Southern 
bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii), Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), and 
Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares). The other species (new and previously 
evaluated) are: Anchovies; Billfish (Marlins, Spearfishes, Sailfishes); 
Catfish (Family Ictaluridae); Crabs, Blue (other); Crab, Dungeness; 
Crab, Blue King; Crab, Brown King; Crab, Golden King; Crab, Snow; 
Cuttlefish; Crustaceans (other); Eels; Flounder, Southern; Flounder, 
Summer; Haddock; Halibut, Atlantic; Halibut, Pacific; Perch, Lake 
(Yellow); Lobster, American; Lobster, Spiny and Rock; Mackerel; 
Menhaden; Mussels; Octopus; Opah (Sunfish, Moonfish); Oyster; Orange 
Roughy; Queen Conch; Red Drum; Snappers (Family Lutjanidae); Sablefish; 
Salmon, Atlantic; Salmon, Chinook; Salmon, Chum; Salmon, Coho; Salmon, 
Pink; Salmon, Sockeye; Scallops; Sea bass; Seaweed (Algae); Shellfish 
(Class Bivalvia); Skates and Rays; Sole; Squid; Sturgeon caviar; 
Tilapia; Toothfish; Trout; Tunas (other and bonitos); Wahoo; Walleye 
(Alaskan) Pollock; Weakfish; and Whiting, Pacific.
    NMFS evaluated the above species using the seven original 
principles and built on the 2015 review with insights gleaned from SIMP 
audits and enforcement actions, supplemented by publicly available 
information on relevant Federal agency actions (e.g., reports, press 
releases), other published reports, and news articles. In addition, 
NMFS consulted with the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and agency 
subject matter experts, as well as other government agency contacts as 
appropriate. NMFS believes that the initial thirteen species and 
species groups remain at risk and none should be removed from SIMP, and 
that two single species in SIMP should be expanded to larger species 
groups to minimize the risk of mislabeling and product substitution to 
bypass SIMP requirements. In addition, NMFS identified five new species 
for possible inclusion in SIMP due to IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud 
concerns. This proposed rule would result in 18 individual species and 
species groups in SIMP.
    NMFS notes that the SIMP regulations focus on data necessary to 
establish traceability from point of harvest or production to entry 
into U.S. commerce for imported fish and fish products. For species 
currently under SIMP, equivalent information is being collected at the 
point of entry into U.S. commerce for the products of U.S. domestic 
fisheries and aquaculture facilities pursuant to various Federal and/or 
state fishery management and reporting programs. Given that, there was 
no need to duplicate such requirements in the SIMP regulations. See 81 
FR 88975, 88976 (responding to comment 2 on U.S. obligations under 
international trade agreements, in particular, with respect to national 
treatment). NMFS plans to follow the same approach in the current 
rulemaking, and thus is reviewing whether equivalent information is 
being collected for species proposed to be added to SIMP that are the 
products of U.S. domestic fisheries or aquaculture facilities. If there 
are gaps in collection of traceability information for domestic 
products that may affect the timing for inclusion of certain species 
under SIMP or affect whether certain species can be included.
    NMFS is proposing to expand SIMP to include the following five 
species and species groups and expand two species groups already 
represented in SIMP. The estimated number of three-alpha species codes 
as classified by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's 
Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System (ASFIS) and 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes that are associated with the 
proposed species are provided below.
    NMFS also solicits public comment on the principles identified for 
inclusion of a species, information supporting or not supporting 
application of a principle to a species, economic or other impacts of 
including a species in SIMP, information on whether equivalent 
information is being collected for proposed species that are the 
products of U.S. domestic fisheries, or comments on any other aspects 
of this proposed rule.

Proposed Expansion of Single-Species to Larger Species Groups

Proposed Inclusion of All Species in the Snapper (Lutjanidae) Family

    NMFS proposes to expand the SIMP priority species list to include 
all species in the Snapper (Lutjanidae) family. ``Unspecified snapper 
species'' is one of the top 50 seafood products imported into the 
United States. The United States imported an estimated 24,581 mt 
(valued at $215M) of Lutjanidae species in 2021. Mexico, Brazil, 
Panama, and Nicaragua (in descending order) account for the majority of 
snapper imported into the United States by both volume and value. 
Northern Red Snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) is already subject to SIMP 
reporting due to its history of fisheries violations, particularly 
illegal harvests in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by Mexican 
lanchas (see 2021 Report to Congress submitted under the High Seas 
Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-08/2021ReporttoCongressonImprovingInternationalFisheriesManagement.pdf), 
the lack of a catch documentation scheme and enforcement capability 
outside the United States, and a strong history of species substitution 
with some species presenting human health risks, due to parasites and 
natural toxins (80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). The same factors that 
led to the species inclusion in 2015 exist today and, for that reason, 
NMFS believes that Northern Red Snapper should remain in SIMP and that 
other snapper species should be included as well. Although highly 
regulated in the United States,

[[Page 79840]]

the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is routinely subject to 
illegal fishing by Mexican lanchas (small-sized vessels usually 
intended for short trips close to shore). Mexico appears to have 
limited capacity to address such violations, which continue to pose 
significant challenges to U.S. enforcement. Red snapper continues to be 
substituted with rockfish (which presents parasite hazard), porgy, and 
other snappers that may have natural toxins and different hazards (Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) Import Alert 16-04: Detention Without 
Physical Examination of Seafood Products That Appear To Be Misbranded). 
In addition, agency subject matter experts and enforcement partners 
have anecdotally shared concerns of misreporting and an uptick in 
snapper mislabeling. These concerns are based on the snapper landings 
at Tamaulipas, Mexico bound to the United States through Brownsville, 
Texas. Under this proposed rule, no additional HTS codes would be 
required as the only two HTS codes for Lutjanidae species are already 
listed under SIMP. Inclusion of all snappers would add about 92 new 
ASFIS three-alpha species codes under SIMP.
    NMFS has particular concern about the potential to mislabel 
Northern Red Snapper as another snapper species that is not subject to 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Snapper has been identified 
in multiple public reports as commonly mislabeled (Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency, 2021; FDA, 2021; Leahy, 2021; Wallstrom et al., 
2020; FDA, 2018; New York City Attorney General, 2018; Warner, 2016). 
While Lutjanus campechanus is the only species permitted to be marketed 
as ``red snapper'' by the FDA Seafood List, there are roughly 28 
additional snapper species that include the word ``red'' in their 
common or vernacular name (e.g., Caribbean Red Snapper as a common name 
for the FDA approved market name `snapper', or Pacific Red Snapper as 
vernacular for the approved FDA market name `rockfish'). In reviewing 
declared snapper species data in 2019 and 2021, NMFS found that 
approximately 19 percent of imports declared the species as either 
Northern Red Snapper (``SNR'') or the flagged non-specific snapper in 
the Lutjanid family (``SNX''). NMFS is continuing to analyze these 
imports, and consult with CBP, on species code usage and trends before 
and after SIMP implementation.
    As noted above, illegal fishing for snapper species by Mexican 
lanchas in the U.S. EEZ continues to be of concern. Lanchas are known 
to catch finfish stocks that are regulated by the United States, 
including red snapper. In the 2021 Report to Congress under the High 
Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, NMFS identified Mexico 
for having vessels fishing illegally in U.S. waters in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Mexico was previously identified for this same issue in 2015, 
2017, and 2019. Mexico has also been negatively certified for failing 
to address the activities for which it was identified in 2017 and 2019, 
and its vessels have been subject to denial of privileges in U.S ports 
until Mexico addresses the illegal lancha incursions. Despite the 
increasing number of prosecutions by Mexico and the imposition of fines 
on Mexican nationals found guilty of fishing in U.S. waters, the United 
States remained concerned that these actions had not yet had a material 
effect on the number of incursions. The United States imported 
4,796,693 kilograms of fresh and frozen snapper from Mexico in 2018 
(with a declared value of $33,036,108). Based on previous consultations 
with Mexico it appears that, while control of the licensed fleet may 
have improved, there continues to be an unlicensed fleet that operates 
without meaningful monitoring or control by Mexico.

Expanding Tuna Species Group To Include Additional Tuna Species

    SIMP currently includes five general species of tunas (albacore, 
bigeye, bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin) due to a history of fishing 
violations, transshipment and complex supply chains, lack of a complete 
documentation scheme (even across various reporting and management 
mechanisms), and substitution history (80 FR 66867, October, 30, 2015). 
Tuna species are highly regulated domestically and internationally, and 
in some cases are already subject to tracking or catch documentation. 
However, due to the high volume and high value of most tuna species, 
existing enforcement capabilities remain insufficient, as reflected in 
continued reports of IUU fishing. NMFS believes all of the above issues 
are still present today, thus the currently listed tuna species should 
remain in SIMP. Based on concerns about illegal fishing, 
misrepresentation, and species misreporting in the supply chains from 
multiple nations, this proposed rule would expand the tuna species 
group under SIMP to include the following: slender tuna (Allothunnus 
fallai), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), 
kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis), spotted tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), 
black skipjack tuna (Euthynnus lineatus), blackfin tuna (Thunnus 
atlanticus), longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol), bonito--sometimes 
marketed as dogtooth tuna--(Gymnosarda unicolor), escolar--sometimes 
marketed as white tuna--(Lepidocybium flavobrunneum), hamachi/
yellowtail/amberjack--sometimes marketed as racing tuna--(Seriola 
quinqueradiata), or other species marked or described as ``tuna.''
    In 2021, the United States imported approximately 269,845 mt 
(valued at $1.8B) of the tuna species currently covered under SIMP, as 
well as about 16,943 mt ($54M) of additional tuna species proposed. 
Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia account for the majority of U.S. tuna 
imports currently covered under SIMP. Vietnam, the People's Republic of 
China, and Thailand account for the majority of imports of the proposed 
additional tuna species. Tuna is in the top 50 seafood imports for the 
United States. Inclusion of the expanded tuna species group would add 
approximately eight HTS codes and 27 ASFIS three-alpha species codes 
(depending on scope) to SIMP.
    With regard to illegal fishing, NMFS identified three vessels 
harvesting unspecified tuna and bycatch species in the 2020 Notice of 
Foreign Fishing Vessels presumed to have engaged in IUU fishing (CSMS 
#43272528), an alert to the U.S. trade community that products 
harvested by these vessels are prohibited from entry and/or subject to 
seizure/forfeiture under 16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(Q). All three vessels were 
operating within the International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Area and identified as Ocean Star No. 2 
(Vanuatu-flagged in 2016, but presumed stateless), Mario 11 (Senegal-
flagged), and Mario 7 (Senegal-flagged). The 2021 Report to Congress 
under the High Seas Driftnet Moratorium Protection Act provides further 
details on the above vessels. In the 2017 and 2019 Report to Congress 
under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, NMFS 
identified Ecuador for failure to fully investigate Inter-American 
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) purse seine vessels authorized to fish 
for tuna. Ecuador was later positively certified in 2021 due to 
corrective actions and increased participation in IATTC Compliance 
Committee and responsiveness to all new identified cases.
    In a nationwide operation in 2019, in cooperation with CBP and FDA, 
NMFS found that importers misidentified some consignments of tuna in 
the entry filing as bonito, which has significantly lower tariff rates. 
In addition to NMFS actions, CBP identified 32 companies

[[Page 79841]]

misreporting tuna as bonito and took actions to recover nearly $600,000 
in lost revenue to the United States due to the underpayment of tariffs 
(NMFS, 2021).
    The FDA Seafood List accepts ``tuna'' as the market name for 15 
species, eight of which do not require SIMP data reporting (e.g., 
frigate tuna, longtail tuna). There are three additional species that 
use ``tuna'' in their common or vernacular name but are not allowed to 
be marketed as ``tuna'' (e.g., dogtooth tuna). All eleven of these 
species can be and are confused with the species of tuna that require 
SIMP reporting. Due to the lack of species-specific reporting more 
broadly, NMFS is unable to identify exactly which tuna species are 
being mislabeled and/or misrepresented.
    As noted earlier, tuna (Albacore, Bigeye, Bluefin, Skipjack and 
Yellowfin) and shrimp are the U.S. seafood imports most vulnerable to 
forced labor. In 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, CBP has issued six 
Withhold Release Orders (WRO) for the suspected use of forced labor 
during operations on five individual fishing vessels (Tunago No. 61, Yu 
Long No. 2, Da Wang, Yi Hsing No. 12, and Hangton No. 112) and all 
fishing vessels owned by a one company (Dalian Ocean Fishing Co. Ltd.). 
All six WROs identified tuna as one of the species harvested during 
harvesting operations on the fishing vessels (CBP, 2022). The most 
recent WRO was for the Fijian flagged Hangton No. 112 tuna longliner, 
owned by Hangton Pacific Co., which exports 95 percent of its fresh and 
frozen tuna products to the United States and Japan and smaller 
quantities to other nations, according to Seafood Source (White, 2021).

Additional Priority Species for Inclusion on the SIMP Priority Species 
List

Cuttlefish and Squid

    NMFS is proposing to add squid and cuttlefish to SIMP as a single 
species group. There is significant overlap between the fisheries for 
both species as well as documented mislabeling of squid as cuttlefish. 
The two species also share certain U.S. tariff codes. NMFS identified 
the following risk principles for cuttlefish and squid: lack of 
enforcement capability, species substitution, lack of catch document 
scheme, history of fishing violations, chain of custody and processing 
complexity, and other misrepresentation. NMFS evaluated squid in 2015 
and did not find enough risk across the suite of principles to warrant 
SIMP inclusion (80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). Since then, new 
information has demonstrated the escalating fishing pressure on squid, 
the lack of enforcement capacity, and the increased reports of 
mislabeling and potential for IUU fishing, especially illegal and 
unregulated fishing (Lawrence et al., 2022; Park et al., 2020; World 
Wildlife Fund-Trygg Mat Tracking (WWF-TMT), 2020).
    Squid is one of the top 50 seafood imports for the United States. 
In 2021, the United States imported approximately 40,412 mt ($245M) of 
squid and cuttlefish. The People's Republic of China, India, and 
Thailand (in descending order) are the three largest exporters of 
cuttlefish and squid to the United States. Inclusion would add an 
estimated 15 HTS codes and 240 ASFIS three-alpha species codes.
    NMFS found multiple reports of species substitution for cuttlefish 
in association with squid and/or octopus mislabeling (Lawrence, 2022; 
Ho et al., 2020; Department of Justice (DOJ), 2019; Luque & Donlan, 
2019; National University of Singapore News, 2019; Golden & Warner, 
2014). In 2019, two corporations in the New York area pleaded guilty to 
defrauding over ten grocery stores, in violation of the Lacey Act. The 
defendants imported, processed, marketed, and distributed over 113,000 
pounds of giant squid from Peru falsely labeled as octopus (DOJ, 2019).
    Squid and cuttlefish have also been the subject of IUU fishing. 
China, along with various other nations, has taken action against the 
Chinese distant water fleet (DWF) for illegal fishing for squid and 
cuttlefish in South American waters (Godfrey, 2019; Godfrey, 2016). In 
2016, Argentina sank a Chinese state-owned vessel for repeated illegal 
harvests. Other nations have taken action against Chinese DWF, such as 
Ivory Coast's confiscation of two vessels in 2014 and Peru's 2004 
detention and fines issued to nine vessels (Godfrey, 2016). In 2019, 
China issued fines and revised its domestic law on its DWF requiring 
tracking systems and certificates of origin for legally landed squid 
(Godfrey, 2019). Despite this, in 2020, Argentina sent China an 
official complaint about its squid jiggers illegally operating in 
Argentina's EEZ (Godfrey, 2020). In 2021, China announced a short 
moratorium on its squid fishing fleets in the Atlantic and Pacific 
(Godfrey, 2021). A World Wildlife Fund-Trygg Mat Tracking report 
estimates that unregulated squid fisheries in the Indian Ocean expanded 
by 830 percent (from 30 to 279 fishing vessels) between 2015 and 2019. 
The Indian Ocean area subject to increased fishing is beyond the 
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement convention area and the EEZs 
of Oman and Yemen (WWF-TMT, 2020). The fishing pressure on squid and 
cuttlefish fisheries is expected to continue to meet the demand in 
Asian and other foreign markets.

Octopus

    NMFS proposes to add octopus to SIMP due to the species' close 
connection to squid and cuttlefish fisheries and the following 
principles: species substitution, lack of enforcement capability, lack 
of catch document scheme, history of fishing violations, and other 
misrepresentation. NMFS is not adding octopus to the cuttlefish and 
squid species group because these species do not share any HTS codes. 
NMFS evaluated octopus in 2015 and did not find enough risk across the 
suite of principles to warrant SIMP inclusion (80 FR 66867, October 30, 
2015). Since then, various reports have claimed that octopus is at risk 
for IUU fishing and fraud. Octopus is among the top 50 seafood products 
imported into the United States. In 2021, the United States imported 
roughly 30,565 mt ($259M) of octopus. Spain, Indonesia, and Mexico (in 
descending order) are the three largest exporters of octopus to the 
United States. Inclusion would add approximately five HTS codes and 75 
ASFIS three-alpha species codes to SIMP.
    The World Octopus Fisheries (2019) report mentions the difficulty 
of tracking the trade of octopus products due to the ``high levels'' of 
IUU fishing (Warwick et al., page 397). While data on octopus is 
limited when compared to squid and cuttlefish, there are documented 
cases of illegal harvests in Europe and Northern Africa. In 2021, 35 
kilos of undersized octopus were seized in Puerto de Mazarr[oacute]n, 
Spain (Murcia Today, 2021). In 2022, Seafood Source reported on 
Morocco's National Institute of Fisheries Research report claiming the 
octopus populations declined by 60 percent due to the illegal fishing 
and trafficking activities of an organized group of operators (Loew). 
Earlier this year, Morocco's Prime Minister announced its expansion of 
Marine Protected Areas and increased resource protection to counter IUU 
fishing efforts (Oirere, 2022). From 2018 to October 2022, the United 
States imported approximately 118 million kilograms of octopus from 
Morocco and Spain, valued at $974 million (NMFS, 2022).
    The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program has noted 
enforcement concerns and illegal fishing for the common octopus and the 
Mexican Four-

[[Page 79842]]

eyed octopus in the Gulf of Mexico, similar to the concerns with common 
red octopus in 2015 (Seafood Watch, 2021; Felbab-Brown, 2020).
    The substitutability of octopus and squid is also a concern 
(Lawrence, 2022; Luque & Donlan, 2019; Pramod et al., 2014; Golden & 
Warner, 2014). There have been some varieties of squid that have been 
improperly substituted for more expensive octopus, including by a 
domestic food processor and distribution companies that were found 
guilty of mislabeling squid as octopus in violation of the Lacey Act 
(DOJ, 2019).

Eels (Anguilla spp.)

    NMFS is proposing to add eels to SIMP. NMFS evaluated eels in 2015 
and did not find enough risk across the suite of principles to warrant 
SIMP inclusion (80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). Since then, there has 
been a significant increase in domestic and international illegal 
fishing for and trafficking in eels. NMFS identified the following risk 
principles for eels: lack of enforcement capability, lack of catch 
document scheme, history of fishing violations, chain of custody and 
processing complexity, other misrepresentation, and human health risks. 
In 2021, the United States imported approximately 7,924 mt (valued at 
$80M) of eels. The People's Republic of China is by far the largest 
exporter of eels to the United States, followed by Thailand and Taiwan 
in decreasing magnitude. Inclusion would add approximately eight HTS 
codes and 13 ASFIS three-alpha species codes to SIMP.
    As described below, there have been several domestic and 
international enforcement efforts and cases on the illegal harvesting 
and trafficking of eels. The relationship between the history of 
violations and enforcement capability associated with eels is unclear 
at this time, and further complicated by the increase in fishing 
pressure due to market demand and the capacity to illicitly harvest and 
transport. NMFS is concerned that the enforcement cases indicate a 
wider problem and believes SIMP inclusion would facilitate future 
enforcement through better access to harvest and landing data required 
for U.S. entry.
    A 2022 FDA Import Alert (16-131) warned of the detention without 
Physical Examination of farm-raised shrimp, dace, and eel from China 
due to the presence of new animal drugs and/or unsafe food additives. 
The FDA flagged residues of gentian violet, malachite green, and 
mebendazole for eels under the specific Import Alert. Contaminant 
levels from pollutants in European eels have been reported to be a 
human health concern (Guhl et al., 2014).
    Due to high demand in Asian markets, harvesters have turned to the 
American eel to fill the void resulting from depleted stocks of 
Japanese and European eels. Elver (juvenile eel) harvesting is 
prohibited in the United States as a result of overfishing, except in 
Maine and South Carolina where the fishery is regulated (Atlantic 
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), 2021; Scientific American, 
2015; DOJ, 2018). However, American, European, and Japanese elvers are 
frequently targeted (International Criminal Police Organization 
(INTERPOL), 2021). An INTERPOL Environmental Security Programme report 
describes the ``epidemic'' of illegal commercial harvest and 
trafficking of elvers from Europe to Asia since the European Union 
initiated the zero export quota for the European eel. The eels are 
matured, harvested, processed, and exported as non-Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) species, such as American or Japanese eels. INTERPOL found 
species mislabeling was easily done as the species are difficult to 
distinguish without DNA testing and the products are labeled as ``eel'' 
(INTERPOL, 2021). The INTERPOL report also discussed the connection 
between criminals' exploitation of fisheries products like eels with 
other criminal and administrative abuses to maximize profits, such as 
avoiding customs regulations, tax fraud, human trafficking, and food 
fraud.
    In 2022, the United States Department of Justice indicted American 
Eel Depot and associates for smuggling large quantities of live 
juvenile European eels from Europe to its factory in China. The 
government seized six containers that predominantly contained European 
eels but were intentionally labeled as American eels to circumvent 
detection by law enforcement. The European Union banned exports of 
European eel outside member nations in 2010. Per the indictment, the 
defendants imported roughly 138 containers of eel into the United 
States over four years, with an estimated market value of over 160 
million (DOJ, 2022). The live juvenile eels would be reared in China to 
maturity, then harvested, processed, and imported to the United States 
for sushi products. The Department of Justice press release states that 
``eel poaching and smuggling is one of the world's biggest wildlife 
trafficking problems, based on both the number of animals and the 
amount of money that changes hands in the black market'' (DOJ, 2022). 
Additional enforcement initiatives related to illegal harvesting and 
trafficking of elvers from the United States to other nations (exports) 
include the United States Fish and Wildlife's Operation Broken Glass in 
2018 and a joint enforcement operation across 18 nations sampling eel 
meat imported in violation of the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in 2018-2019 (DOJ, 2018; 
Sustainable Eel Group, 2020). During the latter operation, the United 
States found several imports of European eel, and further testing 
detected malachite green in the product (Sustainable Eel Group, 2020).

Queen Conch

    NMFS is proposing to add Queen Conch (Family Strombidae) to SIMP 
due to IUU fishing in the Caribbean, lack of enforcement capacity, a 
lack of a catch document scheme, and human health risks. NMFS evaluated 
Queen Conch in 2015 and did not find enough risk across the suite of 
principles to warrant SIMP inclusion (80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). 
Since then, NMFS conducted a Status Review for an Endangered Species 
Act proposed listing (discussed further below) that found significant 
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing of Queen Conch throughout 
the region. NMFS believes species inclusion in SIMP will deter 
illegally harvested Queen Conch from being exported to the United 
States, and the harvest and landing data reported will aid in 
enforcement efforts. In 2021, the United States imported 702 mt (valued 
at $14M) of conch (unspecified and Aliger species, formerly referred to 
as Strombus species). Approximately 70 percent of all internationally 
traded conch meat is consumed in the United States (CITES, 2021). Due 
to this high export rate and the high occurrence of IUU fishing 
documented, NMFS does not believe that existing regional enforcement 
capabilities are sufficient. Honduras, Belize, and Nicaragua (in 
descending order) are the three largest exporters of Queen Conch to the 
United States. Inclusion would add approximately three HTS codes and 40 
ASFIS three-alpha species codes. In addition to the single Queen Conch 
species, NMFS may include in the final rule additional species, such as 
Aliger species (A. costatus, A. pugilis, A. raninus, A. gallus, and A. 
goliath), to prevent circumvention of SIMP reporting requirements, and 
seeks public input on the scope of the species to be included.
    Reports of IUU fishing for Queen Conch are relatively common in the 
Caribbean (Horn et al., 2022). Due to

[[Page 79843]]

concerns over the status of the species, NMFS is proposing to list 
Queen Conch as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 
(87 FR 55200, September 8, 2022). The proposed rule states that IUU 
fishing is a significant factor in the species decline of queen conch, 
representing approximately 15 percent of the total annual catch of the 
species (likely an underestimate). Illegal fishing of Queen Conch was 
especially prevalent in the Bahamas, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, 
Honduras, and Jamaica. The FDA initiated Import Alert 16-31 Detention 
Without Physical Examination of Frozen Raw and Cooked Conchmeat due to 
the high levels of detention of conchmeat from the Dominican Republic 
due to decomposition since 1985 (though the rate seems to have 
declined). In addition, at least two Caribbean nations have inquired 
about or encouraged NMFS to consider the inclusion of Queen Conch in 
SIMP. The United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have 
existing regulations for Queen Conch harvest. The domestic Queen Conch 
fishery is managed by NMFS and the Caribbean Fishery Management 
Council. Florida prohibited the Queen Conch fishery in the mid-1980s. 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands manage the Queen Conch fishery 
in their respective territorial waters, and the Fishery Management Plan 
for Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
manages the fishery in Federal waters (NMFS, 2022). Queen Conch is 
listed under CITES in Appendix II, which requires issuance of a valid 
CITES permit prior to export (or re-export). A CITES export permit may 
only be issued if the specimen was legally obtained (legal acquisition 
finding) and if the export will not be detrimental to the survival of 
the species (a non-detriment finding). Despite these measures, illegal 
harvest of Queen Conch persists. More information on the Caribbean 
nations' management and exploitation rates (harvesting) is available in 
the Endangered Species Act Status Review Report for Queen Conch (Horn 
et al., 2022).

Caribbean Spiny Lobster

    NMFS is proposing to add Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) 
and associated species to SIMP based on the following risk principles: 
lack of enforcement capability, lack of catch document scheme, and 
history of fishing violations. NMFS evaluated several species of 
lobster in 2015, which included North American species (e.g., American 
Lobster and Caribbean Spiny Lobster) and non-native species (e.g., Rock 
Lobster and other Spiny Lobsters). At the time, NMFS did not find 
enough risk across the suite of principles to warrant SIMP inclusion 
(80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). In the 2015 review, the interagency 
Working Group noted general enforcement concerns for Caribbean Spiny 
Lobster and intermittent issues in the past with spiny lobster imports 
for size and labeling from Caribbean nations. Since then, new 
information has demonstrated the escalating pressure on the foreign 
stocks of spiny lobsters (Panulirus spp.), increased reports of IUU 
fishing, and little oversight and lack of enforcement capacity. NMFS is 
proposing to add all Panulirus species as spiny lobsters are commonly 
harvested together, commingled through the supply chain, and marketed 
interchangeably (pre- and post-U.S. entry). NMFS believes the inclusion 
of all spiny lobsters will discourage circumvention of SIMP reporting 
requirements and seeks public input on the scope of the species to be 
included. In 2021, the United States imported approximately 19,115 mt 
(valued at $860M) of spiny lobster (Panulirus spp.). Canada, Brazil, 
and Honduras are major exporters of spiny lobster to the United States. 
While Canada appears to be the predominant exporter of spiny lobster, 
this may not in fact be the case, but rather may be due to the use of 
general HTS codes for both spiny lobster and cold-water lobster 
(Homarus spp.). NMFS is unable to differentiate prevalence of lobster 
species as the species-level data is not currently reported upon entry. 
Inclusion of spiny lobsters in SIMP would add roughly ten HTS codes and 
46 ASFIS three alpha species codes.
    NMFS subject matter experts believe Caribbean Spiny Lobster should 
now be included in SIMP due to a history of illegal fishing in the 
Caribbean and lack of enforcement capacity, as well as lack of a catch 
documentation scheme. Several articles substantiated these concerns in 
domestic and foreign waters in the Caribbean. A report prepared on 
behalf of the intergovernmental organization Caribbean Community 
(CARICOM) found the lack of monitoring, control, and enforcement of 
existing regulations and widespread IUU fishing are significant 
obstacles for the Caribbean spiny lobster fishery (Winterbottom et al., 
2012). These concerns and findings on IUU fishing of spiny lobster are 
echoed in a Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch report that noted the 
challenges in the Bahamas, Belize, Brazil, Honduras, and Nicaragua in 
enforcing fisheries regulations for Caribbean Spiny Lobster and the 
resulting high occurrence of IUU fishing (Sullivan, 2013). Other 
reports include a local Florida news source that noted the prevalence 
of poaching in the state's waters and the officials' aggressive stance 
to prosecute such cases (Stanwood, 2021). A Bahamas publication, The 
Tribune, reported that illegal or unregulated lobster harvests in the 
country represent around 36 percent of total landed catch (Hartnell, 
2022). InSite Crime reported that lobster is a target species in the 
illegal fishing activities in the disputed archipelago of San 
Andr[eacute]s between Colombia and Nicaragua (Mistler-Ferguson, 2021). 
A 2009 unpublished study notes the lack of enforcement and illegal 
fishing trends of Caribbean spiny lobsters with undersized lobsters 
sent to foreign markets via third party countries (Ehrhardt et al., 
2009).
    As cold-water lobsters (Homarus spp.) are well-managed and 
considered relatively low risk, only spiny lobsters are being proposed 
for inclusion under SIMP. NMFS acknowledges that SIMP reporting for 
spiny lobster could be circumvented by using the ASFIS three-alpha code 
for cold-water lobster as NMFS has seen for similar species. However, 
NMFS believes the separate HTS codes and the difference in physical 
characteristics of cold water and warm water lobster would facilitate 
identification and the distinguishing of the two crustacean groups 
(i.e., only cold water lobsters have claws).
    NMFS notes that there have been reports of labor abuses in the 
spiny lobster fishery (Department of Labor (DOL), 2020; DOL, 2022; 
Department of State, NMFS, 2020). The Department of Labor (2020, 2022) 
identified use of child labor for lobster harvesting in reports from 
Honduras. In 2004, the Honduran Government was sued by the Honduran 
Miskito Association of Disabled Divers and the Association of Miskito 
Women and the Council of Elders in the Inter-American Court of Human 
Rights (IACHR) for not holding a company accountable for labor abuses 
(Morris et al., 2020; Avalos, 2021; IACHR, 2019). The court ruled in 
favor of the divers in 2021 (IACHR, 2021; Zorob & Candray, 2021). U.S. 
imports of lobster, predominantly spiny lobster, from Honduras from 
2017-2021 amounted to approximately 5.2M kg and were valued at $174M 
(NMFS, 2021). In addition, NMFS notes another H.R. 7667 goal to reduce 
economic harm to the American fishing industry with this species. 
Domestic stocks of Caribbean Spiny Lobster are well-managed and 
regulated, and the imported lobster from foreign harvests subject to 
IUU fishing

[[Page 79844]]

concerns prevent a fair and competitive trade environment.

Aggregated Harvest Report Criteria

    NMFS proposes revising the Aggregated Harvest Report exemption as 
described in Sec.  300.321(b)(1) to clarify the criteria of the small-
scale harvest accommodation as a record made at a single collection 
point on a single calendar day for aggregated catches by multiple 
small-scale fishing operations. For small-vessel harvests, this means 
aggregated at a single collection point on a single day by vessels of 
no more than 20 measured gross tons or by vessels less than 12 meters 
in overall length. The catch is offloaded at the same collection point 
on the same calendar day, or landed by a vessel to which the catches of 
one or more small-scale vessels were transferred at sea. The number of 
vessels contributing to the collection point for that day must be 
included in the Aggregated Harvest Report. For small-scale aquaculture 
operations, this means a record made at a single collection point or 
processing facility on a single calendar day for aggregated deliveries 
from multiple small-scale aquaculture facilities, where each 
aquaculture facility delivers no more than 1,000 kilograms to the same 
collection point or processing facility on that day. The number of 
farms contributing to the collection for that day must be included in 
the Aggregated Harvest Report. An Aggregated Harvest Report may not be 
used for information for catches harvested by vessels greater than 20 
measured gross tons or greater than 12 meters in length overall, 
catches collected from multiple locations or landed on different days, 
or deliveries of more than 1,000 kilograms from aquaculture facilities. 
This proposed rule would add clarifying text to the definition of 
aggregate harvest report and move the substance of the exemption to a 
new provision in the regulations, Sec.  300.324(g).

Classification

    NMFS is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to section 305(d) (16 
U.S.C. 1855(d)) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that this proposed action is necessary to 
implement MSA section 307(1)(Q) and is consistent with the provisions 
of the MSA and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration 
after public comment.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
    NMFS has prepared a regulatory impact review of this action, which 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This analysis describes the 
economic impact this proposed action will have on businesses and 
consumers.
    The primary objective of this proposed rule is to collect or have 
access to additional data on imported fish and fish products to 
determine that they have been lawfully acquired and are not 
fraudulently represented and to deter illegally caught or 
misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce. These data 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements affect, inter alia, importers 
of seafood products, many of which are small businesses. Given the 
level of imports contributing to the annual supply of seafood, 
collecting and evaluating information about fish and fish products 
sourced overseas are a part of normal business practices for U.S. 
seafood dealers.
    The permitting, electronic reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements proposed by this rulemaking would build on current 
business practices (e.g., information systems to facilitate product 
recalls, to maintain product quality, or to reduce risks of food-borne 
illnesses) and are not estimated to pose significant adverse or long-
term economic impacts on small entities.
    If this rule is finalized, NMFS estimates there will be 
approximately 487 new applicants for the IFTP, with an estimated 
industry-wide increase in annual costs to importers of $23,863 in 
permit fees. Data sets to be submitted electronically to determine 
product admissibility are, to some extent, either already collected by 
the trade in the course of supply chain management, already required to 
be collected and submitted under existing trade monitoring programs 
(e.g., tuna and swordfish), or collected in support of third party 
certification schemes voluntarily adopted by the trade. Incremental 
costs are likely to consist of developing interoperable systems to 
ensure that the data are transmitted along with the product to ensure 
the information is available to the entry filer.
    The proposed rule would apply to U.S. entities that import fish and 
fish products derived from the designated species. This proposed rule 
would be implemented so as to avoid duplication or conflict with any 
other Federal rules. To the extent that the proposed requirements 
overlap with other reporting requirements applicable to the designated 
species, this will be been taken into account to avoid collecting data 
more than once or by means other than the single window (ACE portal). 
As stated above, this rule is intended to allow NMFS to determine that 
imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and is not fraudulently 
represented and to deter illegally caught or misrepresented seafood 
from entering into U.S. commerce. Given the large volume of fish and 
fish product imports to the U.S. market, the number of exporting 
countries, and the fact that traceability systems are being 
increasingly used within the seafood industry, it is not expected that 
this rule would significantly affect the overall volume of trade or 
alter trade flows in the U.S. market for fish and fish products that 
are legally harvested and accurately represented.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule will have on 
small entities and includes a description of the action, why it is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action. The purpose of 
the RFA is to relieve small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental entities of burdensome regulations and recordkeeping 
requirements. Major goals of the RFA are: (1) To increase agency 
awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small 
business, (2) to require agencies to communicate and explain their 
findings to the public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use 
flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. The RFA 
emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group distinct 
from other entities and the consideration of alternatives that may 
minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of the 
action. Below is a summary of the IRFA for the proposed rule which was 
prepared in conjunction with a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The 
IRFA/RIR is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    The primary objective of this proposed rule is to collect or have 
access to additional data on imported fish and fish products to 
determine that it has been lawfully acquired and is not fraudulent and 
to deter illegally caught or misrepresented seafood from entering into 
U.S. commerce. These data reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
affect inter alia importers of seafood products, many of which are 
small businesses. Given the level of imports contributing to the annual 
supply of seafood, collecting and

[[Page 79845]]

evaluating information about fish and fish products sourced overseas 
are a part of normal business practices for U.S. seafood dealers. The 
permitting, electronic reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
proposed by this rulemaking would build on current business practices 
(e.g., information systems to facilitate product recalls, to maintain 
product quality, or to reduce risks of food borne illnesses) and are 
not estimated to pose significant adverse or long-term economic impacts 
on small entities.
    If this rule is finalized, NMFS estimates there will be 
approximately 487 new applicants for the IFTP (all considered small-
businesses), with an estimated industry-wide increase in annual costs 
to importers of $23,863 in permit fees. Data sets to be submitted 
electronically to determine product admissibility are, to some extent, 
either already collected by the trade in the course of supply chain 
management, already required to be collected and submitted under 
existing trade monitoring programs (e.g., tuna, swordfish, current SIMP 
species), or collected in support of third-party certification schemes 
voluntarily adopted by the trade. NMFS has estimated that submission of 
an IFTP application, preparation and submission of message sets to ACE, 
maintaining the supply chain record keeping, and responding to audit 
requests would amount to $2,356,117 in the first year and every three 
years (for broker software acquisition and maintenance), and $895,117 
each of the other years. The average importer of the priority species 
subject to the Program would incur an annual cost of $3,727 in the 
first year and every three years and $727 each of the other years.
    The proposed rule would apply to U.S. entities that import fish and 
fish products derived from the designated priority species. This 
proposed rule would be implemented so as to avoid duplication or 
conflict with any other Federal rules. To the extent that the proposed 
requirements overlap with other reporting requirements applicable to 
the designated priority species, this will be taken into account to 
avoid collecting data more than once or by means other than the single 
window (ACE portal). As stated above, this rule is intended to allow 
NMFS to determine that imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and 
is not fraudulently represented and to deter illegally caught or 
misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce. Given the 
large volume of fish and fish product imports to the U.S. market, the 
number of exporting countries, and the fact that traceability systems 
are being increasingly used within the seafood industry, it is not 
expected that this rule would significantly affect the overall volume 
of trade or alter trade flows in the U.S. market for fish and fish 
products that are legally harvested and accurately represented.
    NMFS considered several alternatives in this rulemaking: The 
requirements described in the proposed rule, a no-action alternative 
and various combinations of data reporting and recordkeeping for the 
supply chain information applicable to the priority species. NMFS 
prefers the proposed rule approach as it would respond to the NSM-11 
request. In addition, it is consistent with the existing requirement 
that all applicable U.S. Government agencies are required to implement 
the International Trade Data System (ITDS) under the authority of the 
SAFE Port Act and Executive Order 13659, streamlining the Export/Import 
Process (79 FR 10657, February 28, 2014). Also, the proposed rule takes 
into account the burden of data collection from the trade and the 
government requirements for admissibility determinations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule revises an existing collection-of-information 
requirement (Control Number 0648-0732) previously approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This revised requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. 
The information collection burden for the requirements proposed under 
this rule (IFTP, harvest and landing data submitted at entry, and 
provision of records of supply chain information when selected for an 
audit) as applicable to imports of the designated priority is estimated 
to be 23,985 hours. Compliance costs are estimated to total $23,863 for 
the permit application fees, $439,907 for data submission into ACE, 
$391,040 for supply chain recordkeeping, and $34,880 for audit 
response. To determine estimates, NMFS evaluated the entry filings 
imported under the HTS codes of the proposed species, as well as the 
three-alpha species code declared as appropriate. To estimate labor 
costs of respondent burden, NMFS applied the mean wage rate of Buyers 
and Purchasing Agents (Bureau of Labor Statistics Code 13-1020). This 
labor category most closely corresponds to fish importers and customs 
brokers who will be knowledgeable of the origin of the fish products, 
code the message set, submit electronic entries in ACE and respond to 
record requests when selected for audits. As of August 2022, the mean 
wage rate for this occupation series was estimated at $34.88 per hour 
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131020.htm).
    IFTP Requirement: NMFS estimates that approximately 62 percent of 
the 1,269 importing companies of the proposed candidate species already 
have an IFTP (under existing agency requirements).
    The online permit application process, including an abbreviated 
renewals process, is estimated to require 20 minutes on average. The 
increase in the number of annually issued IFTPs is estimated to be 487 
permits, representing an increase of 162 hours and $5,664 in burden 
hours.
    Data Set Submission Requirement: Data sets to be submitted 
electronically to determine product admissibility are, to some extent, 
either already collected by the trade in the course of supply chain 
management, already required to be collected and submitted under 
existing trade monitoring programs (e.g., tuna, swordfish), or 
collected in support of third party certification schemes voluntarily 
adopted by the trade. Incremental costs are likely to consist of 
developing interoperable systems to ensure that the data are 
transmitted along with the product to ensure the information is 
available to the entry filer. NMFS estimates that the number of entries 
for candidate species is approximately 42,040 annually. The estimated 
time to prepare the relevant message set is expected to be consistent 
with 0648-0732, which is a weighted average of 18 minutes to prepare 
and submit the message set to ACE. The additional responses represent 
an increase 12,612 hours and a total annual labor cost of $439,907 (at 
an estimated $34.88/hour labor rate).
    Audit Response: NMFS does not expect the number of entries selected 
for an audit under SIMP to change. Approximately 2,000 entries are 
selected for audit under SIMP annually. NMFS estimates that retrieving 
and submitting records electronically takes about 30 minutes per event 
on average. For 2,000 responses, this represents a burden of 1,000 
hours and a total annual labor cost of $34,880 at an estimated $34.88/
hour labor rate.
    This proposed rule does not anticipate any other information 
collection burden than what is identified in this section, and 
therefore is not requesting approval from OMB for the burden associated 
with any other aspects of the rule. Send comments on these or any other 
aspects of the collection of information to the NMFS Office for 
International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce at the ADDRESSES above,

[[Page 79846]]

and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Illegal, unreported, or 
unregulated fishing, Imports, International trade permits, 
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Treaties.

50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign 
relations, Illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, 
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Statistics.

    Dated: December 16, 2022.
Janet L. Coit,
Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart 
Q, and 50 CFR part 600, subpart H, are proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 
U.S.C. 5501 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.

Subpart Q--International Trade Documentation and Tracking Programs

0
2. In Sec.  300.321, revise the definitions for ``Aggregated Harvest 
Report'' and ``International Fisheries Trade Permit'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  300.321  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Aggregated Harvest Report means the record described in Sec.  
300.324(g).
* * * * *
    International Fisheries Trade Permit (or IFTP) means the permit 
issued by NMFS under Sec.  300.322.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  300.322, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.322  International Fisheries Trade Permit.

    (a) General. Any person who imports, as defined in Sec.  300.321, 
exports, or re-exports fish or fish products regulated under this 
subpart from any ocean area must possess a valid International 
Fisheries Trade Permit (IFTP) issued under this section. Fish or fish 
products regulated under this subpart may not be imported into, or 
exported or re-exported from, the United States unless the IFTP holder 
files electronically the documentation and the data sets required under 
this subpart with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) via ACE at 
the time of, or in advance of, importation, exportation, or re-
exportation. The importer of record and IFTP holder identified in an 
entry filing must be the same entity. If authorized under other 
applicable laws and regulations, a representative or agent of the IFTP 
holder may make the electronic filings on behalf of the IFTP holder. 
Only persons residing in the United States are eligible to apply for 
the IFTP. A resident agent of a nonresident corporation (see 19 CFR 
141.18) may apply for an IFTP.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  300.323, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.323  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Reporting. Any person who imports, exports, or re-exports fish 
or fish products regulated under this subpart must file all data sets, 
reports, and documentation as required under the AMLR trade program, 
HMS ITP, TTVP, and Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), and under 
other regulations in this title that adopt the requirements of this 
subpart. For imports, specific instructions for electronic filing are 
found in Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) 
Appendix PGA (https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/appendix-pga). For 
exports, specific instructions for electronic filing are found in 
Automated Export System Trade Interface Requirements (AESTIR) Appendix 
Q (https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/aestir-draft-appendix-q-pga-record-formats). For fish and fish products regulated under this 
subpart, an ACE entry filing or AES export filing, as applicable, is 
required, except in cases where CBP provides alternate means of 
collecting NMFS-required data and/or document images.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec.  300.324 to read as follows:


Sec.  300.324  Seafood Traceability Program.

    This section establishes a Seafood Traceability Program (also known 
as the Seafood Import Monitoring Program) which has data reporting 
requirements at the time of entry for imported fish or fish products 
and recordkeeping requirements for fish or fish products entered into 
U.S. commerce. The data reported and retained will facilitate 
enforcement of section 307(1)(Q) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 
exclusion of products from entry into U.S. commerce that are 
misrepresented or the product of illegal or unreported fishing. The 
data reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the program enable 
verification of the supply chain of the product offered for entry back 
to the harvesting event(s). In addition, the permitting requirements of 
Sec.  300.322 pertain to importers of products within the scope of the 
program.
    (a)(1) For species or species groups subject to this Seafood 
Traceability Program, data is required to be reported and retained 
under this program for all fish and fish products, whether fresh, 
frozen, canned, pouched, or otherwise prepared in a manner that allows, 
including through label or declaration, the identification of the 
species contained in the product and the harvesting event. Data is not 
required to be reported or retained under this program for fish oil, 
slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, pudding and other similar fish 
products for which it is not technically or economically feasible to 
identify the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting 
event(s) contributing to the product in the shipment.
    (2) The following species or species groups are subject to this 
Seafood Import Monitoring Program: Abalone (Haliotis spp.); Cod, 
Atlantic (Gadus morhua); Cod, Pacific (Gadus macrocephalus); Conch, 
Queen (Family Strombidae); Crab, Atlantic Blue (Callinectes sapidus); 
Crab, Red King (Paralithodes camtschaticus); Dolphinfish (Coryphaena 
hippurus); Eel (Anguilla spp.); Grouper (Family Serranidae); Lobster 
(Panulirus spp., Family Scyllaridae); Octopus (Order Octopoda); Sea 
Cucumber (Class Holothuroidea); Snapper (Family Lutjanidae); Shark 
(Orders Squaliformes, Hexanchiformes, Carcharhiniformes, Lamniformes, 
Orectolobiformes, Heterodontiformes, Pristiophorimormes); Shrimp (Order 
Natantia); Squid and Cuttlefish--Cuttlefish (Order Sepiida), Coastal 
squid (Order Myopsida), and Neritic squid (Order Oegopsida); Swordfish 
(Xiphias

[[Page 79847]]

gladius); and Tuna--Albacore (Thunnus alalunga), Atlantic bluefin tuna 
(Thunnus thynnus), Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), Blackfin tuna (T. 
atlanticus), Black skipjack tuna (E. lineatus), Bullet tuna (Auxis 
rochei), Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis), 
Longtail tuna (T. tonggol), Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), 
Spotted tunny (E. alletteratus) Slender tuna (Allothunnus fallai), 
Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii), Skipjack (Katsuwonus 
pelamis), Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares), and Bonito--sometimes marketed 
as dogtooth tuna-(Gymnosarda unicolor), escolar--sometimes marketed as 
white tuna--(Lepidocybium flavobrunneum), hamachi/yellowtail/
amberjack--sometimes marketed as racing tuna--(Seriola quinqueradiata), 
or other species marked or described as ``tuna''. The harmonized tariff 
schedule (HTS) numbers applicable to these species or species groups 
are listed in the documents referenced in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (3) The following species or species groups are also subject to 
this Seafood Traceability Program: Abalone and Shrimp. The harmonized 
tariff schedule (HTS) numbers applicable to these species or species 
groups are listed in the documents referenced in paragraph (c) of this 
section. The Seafood Traceability Program for these species or species 
groups consists of two components:
    (i) The data reporting requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) and (c) of this section in conjunction with Sec.  300.323(a); and
    (ii) The permit requirements of Sec.  300.322, the IFTP number 
reporting requirement in paragraph (b)(4) of this section in 
conjunction with Sec.  300.323(a), and the recordkeeping requirements 
of Sec.  300.323(b) which includes the recordkeeping of all information 
specified in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section.
    (b) In addition to data reporting requirements applicable, pursuant 
to other authorities and requirements set out elsewhere in U.S. law and 
regulation (e.g., under other NMFS programs or U.S. CBP requirements), 
to the particular commodity offered for entry, the importer of record 
is required to provide the following data set in ACE at the time of 
entry into U.S. commerce for each entry containing the species or 
species groups listed under paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) Information on the entity(ies) harvesting or producing the 
fish: Name and flag state of harvesting vessel(s) and evidence of 
fishing authorization; Unique vessel identifier(s) (if available); 
Type(s) of fishing gear used to harvest the fish; Name(s) of farm or 
aquaculture facility. Vessel-, farm-, or aquaculture facility-specific 
information is not required if the importer of record provides 
information from an Aggregated Harvest Report as provided under 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) and (g) of this section, unless the product 
offered for entry is subject to another NMFS program that requires data 
reporting or documentation at an individual vessel, farm, or 
aquaculture facility level.
    (2) Information on the fish that was harvested and processed: 
Species of fish (Aquatic Sciences Fishery Information System 3-alpha 
code as listed at https://www.fao.org/); product form(s) at the point 
of first landing whether unprocessed or processed prior to landing/
delivery; and quantity and/or weight of the product(s) as landed/
delivered. When an Aggregated Harvest Report is used, the importer must 
provide all of the information required under this paragraph (b)(2), 
but may provide the total quantity and/or weight of the product(s) 
landed/delivered on the date of the report.
    (3) Information on where and when the fish were harvested and 
landed: Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location; location of 
aquaculture facility; point(s) of first landing; date(s) of first 
landing, transshipment, or delivery; and name of entity(ies) 
(processor, dealer, vessel) to which fish was landed or delivered. When 
an Aggregated Harvest Report is used, the importer must provide all of 
the information under this paragraph (b)(3). Some product offered for 
entry may be comprised of products from more than one harvest event and 
each such harvest event relevant to the contents of the shipment must 
be documented; however, specific links between portions of the shipment 
and a particular harvest event are not required.
    (4) The NMFS-issued IFTP number for the importer of record.
    (c) The importer of record, either directly or through an entry 
filer, is required to submit the data under paragraph (b) of this 
section through ACE as a message set and/or image files in conformance 
with the procedures and formats prescribed by the NMFS Implementation 
Guide and CBP and made available at: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair. All harvest events contributing to the inbound shipment must be 
reported, but links between portions of the shipment and particular 
harvest events are not required.
    (d) Imported shipments of fish or fish products subject to this 
program may be selected for inspection and/or the information or 
records supporting entry may be selected for audit, on a pre- or post-
release basis, in order to verify the information submitted at entry 
and/or determine compliance with this part. To support such inspection 
and audits, the importer of record must make all records required to be 
maintained under paragraph (e) of this section available for audit or 
inspection, at the importer's place of business for a period of two 
years from the date of the import. In addition, upon request by NMFS, 
the importer of record (IOR) must transmit records in the manner 
specified to [email protected] or National Seafood Inspection 
Laboratory, 3209 Frederic St, Pascagoula, MS 39567. Unless otherwise 
specified by NMFS, requested records must be submitted within five days 
from receipt of the record request if the importer of record choose to 
transmit the records via electronic means over email or using a secure 
file sharing service as identified by the agency. If the importer of 
record chooses to transmit the records via secured shipping such as 
UPS, FedEx or U.S. Post Office, the agency must receive the records 
within ten days from receipt of the record request, unless otherwise 
specified by NMFS.
    (e) In addition to the entry recordkeeping requirements specified 
at 19 CFR part 163, the importer of record is required to maintain 
records of the information reported at entry under paragraph (b) of 
this section, as well as records containing information on the chain of 
custody of the fish or fish products sufficient to trace the fish or 
fish product from point of entry into U.S. commerce back to the point 
of harvest, including individual or Aggregated Harvest Reports, if any, 
and information that identifies each custodian of the fish or fish 
product (such as any transshipper, processor, storage facility, or 
distributor). The latter may include widely used commercial documents 
such as declarations by the harvesting/carrier vessels or bills of 
lading. The importer of record must retain records of information 
reported at entry and chain-of-custody in electronic or paper format, 
and make them available at the importer of record's place of business 
for a period of two years from the date of product entry.
    (f) Product coming into the Pacific Insular Area, as defined in 16 
U.S.C. 1802(35), is subject to all requirements of this section except 
the ACE filings required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 
However, when product is moved from the Pacific Insular Area to any 
place within the customs territory

[[Page 79848]]

of the United States, all requirements of this section apply.
    (g) An Aggregated Harvest Report, as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (3) of this section, may be used to record aggregated catches from 
small-scale fishing vessels made at a single collection point on a 
single calendar day, or aggregated deliveries from small-scale 
aquaculture facilities made at a single collection point or processing 
facility on a single calendar day.
    (1) A small-scale fishing vessel, for purposes of this section, is 
no more than 20 measured gross tons or less than 12 meters in length 
overall. An Aggregated Harvest Report may also be used for catches 
landed by a vessel to which the catches of one or more small-scale 
fishing vessels were transferred at sea. Aggregated Harvest Reports 
must include the number of vessels contributing to the collection point 
for that day.
    (2) A small-scale aquaculture facility, for purposes of this 
section, delivers no more than 1,000 kilograms to the same collection 
point or processing facility on the single calendar day specified in an 
Aggregated Harvest Report. Aggregated Harvest Reports must include the 
number of aquaculture facilities contributing to the collection point 
or processing facility for that day.
    (3) An Aggregated Harvest Report may be used for catches by fishing 
vessels less than 20 measured gross tons or less than 12 meters in 
length overall, from catches collected from multiple locations or 
landed on the same calendar day; or aquaculture facility deliveries of 
less than 1,000 kilograms, or deliveries made at multiple locations or 
on the same calendar day.
0
6. In Sec.  300.325:
0
a. Remove the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b);
0
b. Remove the period at the end of paragraph (c) and add ``; and'' in 
its place; and
0
c. Add paragraph (d).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  300.325  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Submit an entry filing under Sec.  300.324(b) that includes an 
IFTP number assigned by NMFS to an entity other than the importer of 
record.

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

0
7. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Subpart H--General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries

0
8. In Sec.  600.725, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.725  General prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) Possess, have custody or control of, ship, transport, offer for 
sale, sell, purchase, land, import, export, or re-export, any fish or 
parts thereof taken or retained in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act or any other statute administered by NMFS or any NMFS regulation in 
this title or permit issued thereunder, or import, export, transport, 
sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce 
any fish taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any 
foreign law or regulation, or any treaty or in contravention of a 
binding conservation measure adopted by an international agreement or 
organization to which the United States is a party.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-27741 Filed 12-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P