[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