Recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud, 75536-75541 [2014-29628]
Download as PDF
75536
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices
these reviews. The Department gave
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results.
We received no comments from
interested parties.
We conducted these reviews in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B)
and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the
antidumping duty order is freshwater
crawfish tail meat, in all its forms
(whether washed or with fat on,
whether purged or un-purged), grades,
and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or
chilled; and regardless of how it is
packed, preserved, or prepared.
Excluded from the scope of the order are
live crawfish and other whole crawfish,
whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled.
Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of
any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater
crawfish tail meat is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item numbers 1605.40.1010 and
1605.40.1090, which are the HTSUS
numbers for prepared foodstuffs,
indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and
other, as introduced by CBP in 2000,
and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.0010 and
0306.29.0000, which are reserved for
fish and crustaceans in general. On
February 10, 2012, the Department
added HTSUS classification number
0306.29.0100 to the scope description
pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP). The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes
only. The written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Final Results of the Review
The Department made no changes to
its calculations announced in the
Preliminary Results. As a result of our
administrative review, we determine
that a weighted-average dumping
margin of 0.00 percent exists for Xiping
Opeck for the POR.
For the final results of the new
shipper review, the Department
determines that a dumping margin of
0.00 percent exists for merchandise
produced and exported by Hubei Nature
for the POR.
Assessment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212
and the Final Modification,2 the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate all appropriate entries for
Xiping Opeck, and Hubei Nature
without regard to antidumping duties
2 See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:23 Dec 17, 2014
Jkt 235001
because their weighted-average
dumping margins in these final results
are zero.3
Pursuant to the Department’s
refinement to its assessment practice in
NME cases,4 for entries that were not
reported in the U.S. sales databases
submitted by companies individually
examined during these reviews, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide
rate.
We intend to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of these final results
of reviews.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of the
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise
exported by Xiping Opeck, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established
in the final results of the administrative
review; because the rate is zero or de
minimis, no cash deposit will be
required for that Xiping Opeck; (2) for
previously investigated companies not
listed above that have separate rates, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
investigation; (3) for all other PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC entity that supplied that non-PRC
exporter.
With respect to Hubei Nature, the
respondent in the new shipper review,
the Department established a
combination cash deposit rate for this
company consistent with its practice as
follows: (1) For subject merchandise
produced and exported by Hubei
Nature, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate established for Hubei Nature in the
final results of the new shipper review;
(2) for subject merchandise exported by
Hubei Nature, but not produced by
Hubei Nature, the cash deposit rate will
3 See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).
4 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76
FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
be the rate for the PRC-wide entity; and
(3) for subject merchandise produced by
Hubei Nature but not exported by Hubei
Nature, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate applicable to the exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of reviews are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv),
751(a)(3), 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h), 351.214 and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 12, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–29660 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD652
Recommendations of the Presidential
Task Force on Combating Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
and Seafood Fraud
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices
On June 17, 2014, the White
House released a Presidential
Memorandum entitled ‘‘Establishing a
Comprehensive Framework to Combat
Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing and Seafood Fraud.’’ Among
other actions, the Memorandum
established a Presidential Task Force on
Combating Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud
(Task Force), co-chaired by the
Departments of State and Commerce
with twelve other Federal agency
members: the Council on Environmental
Quality, Departments of Agriculture,
Defense, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, the
Federal Trade Commission, the Office of
Management and Budget, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, the U.S.
Agency for International Development,
the National Security Council and the
U.S. Trade Representative. The Task
Force is directed to report to the
President within 180 days with
‘‘recommendations for the
implementation of a comprehensive
framework of integrated programs to
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud
that emphasizes areas of greatest need.’’
Those recommendations have now been
provided to the President through the
National Ocean Council. This is a
request for comments from the public to
advise the Task Force on how to most
effectively implement these
recommendations. Specific questions
are posed after some of the
recommendations to help elicit feedback
on potential implementation issues and
concerns which will help inform
development of an implementation plan
in the months ahead.
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2014–0090, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20140090, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Carrie Selberg, 1315 East-West Highway;
Silver Spring, Maryland 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 the Task Force. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:23 Dec 17, 2014
Jkt 235001
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. The Task Force will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Selberg, (301) 427–8021.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The United States is a global leader in
sustainable seafood. Over the course of
the last six years, the United States has
largely ended overfishing in federally
managed waters and successfully rebuilt
a record number of overfished stocks,
with both overfishing and overfished
fish stocks at all-time lows. Effective
management and enforcement of
domestic fishing regulations has
supported near record highs in both
landings and revenue for our domestic
fishing industries. As a result, the
United States’ approach of sciencebased fisheries management is
recognized internationally as a model
for ending overfishing and
implementing sustainable fisheries
management practices.
One of the biggest global threats to the
sustainable management of the world’s
fisheries is illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing
occurs both within nations’ waters and
on the high seas and undermines the
biological and economic sustainability
of fisheries both domestically and
abroad. IUU fishing in other parts of the
world can cause problems in places
where there are strong rules managing
fisheries, such as the United States. By
circumventing conservation and
management measures and cutting or
avoiding the operational costs
associated with sustainable fishing
practices and harvesting levels, entities
engaged in IUU fishing undermine the
sustainability of fish stocks and the
broader ecosystem. Further, IUU fishers
gain an unfair advantage in the
marketplace over law-abiding fishing
operations as they do not pay the true
cost of sustainable production. Global
losses attributable to IUU fishing have
been estimated to be between $10–23
billion annually. Additionally, U.S.
efforts to reduce global hunger,
malnutrition, and coastal risks are being
undermined by IUU fishing in
developing countries. Over 2.5 billion
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75537
people depend upon fish for food and
nutrition, and IUU and unsustainable
fishing threatens valuable food
resources. Combating IUU fishing will
directly contribute to U.S. commitments
and efforts to enhance global food and
nutrition security.
A number of factors including
complex trade systems, comingling, and
broad geographic distribution contribute
to difficulties in documenting the chain
of custody for fish and seafood
products. According to the United
Nations’ Food and Agriculture
Organization, fish and seafood products
are among the most widely traded food
commodities in the world. Additionally,
some seafood is comingled in the global
supply chain as part of processing and
distribution. Once a shipment of
seafood enters U.S. commerce, it is often
distributed widely making it difficult to
document the chain of custody and
guarantee that the product reaching the
consumer has been legally harvested or
is in fact the product it is claimed to be.
While not necessarily related to IUU
fishing, seafood fraud (whereby fish is
mislabeled with respect to its species or
country of origin, quantity, or quality)
has the potential to undermine the
economic viability of U.S. and global
fisheries as well as the ability of
consumers to make informed
purchasing choices. Seafood fraud can
occur at any point along the seafood
supply chain from harvest to market. It
can be driven by diverse motives, from
covering up IUU fishing to avoiding
duties, to increasing a profit margin
through species substitution or
falsification of the country of origin.
While it is difficult to know the extent
of seafood fraud, the frequency of
seafood fraud incidents has received
increasing attention in peer-reviewed
journals, government reports and
private sector reports. Seafood fraud
threatens consumer confidence, serving
to further undermine the reputation and
market competitiveness of law-abiding
fishers and businesses in the seafood
industry.
A number of challenges exist with
respect to information collection,
sharing, and analysis in support of
federal efforts to combat IUU fishing
and seafood fraud: (1) A vast industry
with a large quantity of international
and domestic trade; (2) multiple Federal
agencies responsible for regulating only
a part of this trade and only for
particular issues (e.g., food labeling and
fishing violations); (3) disparate
information collection abilities and
requirements among those agencies with
no specific common collection, analysis
or sharing mechanism; (4) federal
jurisdiction not including the entire
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
75538
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices
supply chain as states manage their own
fisheries and generally have primary
jurisdiction over intrastate sales,
including most retail and restaurant
sales; (5) statutory constraints on the use
and sharing of some information
collected by the federal government;
and (6) weak institutions and poor data
collection and management in some
source countries.
It is in the interest of the United
States to promote a comprehensive
framework that supports sustainable
fishing practices while combating
seafood fraud and the sale of IUU
seafood, including by improving the
transparency and traceability of the
seafood supply chain. To achieve these
objectives, the United States will need
to improve implementation of and
enhance and broaden the tools it has
available to combat IUU fishing and
seafood fraud. The Task Force was
established to identify and achieve these
objectives.
The Task Force initiated a public
engagement process to gain broad input
to inform and advise development of
these recommendations. This process
included two public meetings, two
webinars, input from 32 countries, and
a public comment period noticed in the
Federal Register. The Task Force also
began to analyze the federal
government’s existing authorities to
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud,
and identify potential gaps in those
authorities. Furthermore, it examined
specific areas for improved coordination
among the Task Force agencies
regarding these issues.
Based on this public engagement
process and the Task Force’s analysis of
existing authorities, gaps in those
authorities, and current and potential
levels of interagency coordination, the
Task Force developed recommendations
designed to enhance the tools we have
available to combat IUU fishing and
seafood fraud. Doing so will level the
playing field for legitimate fishers and
businesses in the seafood industry and
increase consumer confidence in
seafood sold in the United States.
Recommendations by the Task Force
fall under four general themes:
• International: Combat IUU fishing
and seafood fraud at the international
level;
• Enforcement: Strengthen
enforcement and enhance enforcement
tools to combat IUU fishing and seafood
fraud;
• Partnerships: Create and expand
partnerships with state and local
governments, industry, and nongovernmental organizations to identify
and eliminate seafood fraud and the sale
of IUU seafood in U.S. commerce; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:23 Dec 17, 2014
Jkt 235001
• Traceability: Create a risk-based
traceability program to track seafood
from harvest to entry into U.S.
commerce to prevent entry of illegal
product into the supply chain and better
inform retailers and consumers.
II. Recommendations
Comment is generally sought on how
to implement the following
recommendations. Specific questions
intended to elicit comment are listed
below some of the recommendations.
Proposed timeframes have been
specified in some of the
recommendations discussed below.
International: Combat IUU fishing and
seafood fraud at the international level
1. The 2009 Agreement on Port State
Measures to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing (PSMA) is the first
binding global instrument focused
specifically on combating IUU fishing.
The PSMA sets minimum standards for
the conduct of port inspections and the
training of inspectors to prevent IUU
seafood products from entering
commercial markets. The PSMA also
requires port States to prevent entry into
or use of ports by vessels that have
engaged in IUU fishing, except for the
purpose of inspection or other
enforcement actions. The PSMA
requires 25 ratifications to enter into
force; to date there are 11. The U.S.
Senate provided its advice and consent
to ratification of the PSMA in 2014.
Before the United States can deposit its
instrument of ratification, however,
Congress must pass legislation to
implement U.S. obligations under the
PSMA. Recommendation: Work with
Congress to pass implementing
legislation for the Port State Measures
Agreement (PSMA). Direct the Secretary
of State to promote entry into force and
full implementation of the PSMA.
2. Many fisheries that exist in the
waters of several nations and/or on the
high seas are managed by Regional
Fisheries Management Organizations
(RFMOs). RFMOs have sought to
promote compliance with the
management measures they have
adopted using a wide variety of tools.
Drawing on experience gained from
participation in various RFMOs, the
United States is in a position to identify
the best practices for combating IUU
fishing through RFMOs and promote the
adoption of such practices in all RFMOs
in which the United States participates.
Some examples include:
(A) Several RFMOs, including the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the
Commission for the Conservation of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Antarctic Marine Living Resources, have
developed catch documentation and
trade tracking requirements that enable
governments to monitor the movement
of fish and fish products through
international commerce. The United
States should develop, in collaboration
with RFMOs, foreign governments, and
other intergovernmental organizations,
best practices for electronic systems that
collect catch information and that track
data across harvest and transport vessels
and fisheries management agencies—
these should include uniform data
elements such as harvest vessel, species
name, gear type, and region of catch.
Best practices should also include
interoperability among U.S. domestic
and foreign national-level
documentation and data tracking
systems, with a view to avoiding
duplication with existing systems.
(B) Article 21 of the 1995 United
Nations Fish Stocks Agreement
(UNFSA) establishes a reciprocal high
seas boarding and inspection regime
that is a critical tool for greater
cooperation in enforcement of RFMOadopted conservation and management
measures. Under this regime, any
UNFSA Party, including the United
States, that is a member of an RFMO can
board and inspect the fishing vessels of
any other UNFSA Party in high seas
areas covered by and subject to
measures adopted by that RFMO, collect
information on any apparent violations
of applicable fisheries management
measures, and provide this information
to the flag State or relevant RFMOs for
follow-up action. To date only the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission (WCPFC) has implemented
measures to the full extent outlined in
UNFSA. The United States should
continue to call upon additional RFMOs
to which it is a party to follow the lead
of the WCPFC, putting particular
pressure on other UNFSA parties to
support such efforts, reminding them of
their obligations under the UNFSA,
while reserving the right of the United
States to use its authority deriving from
UNSA to conduct high seas boardings
and inspections.
(C) Many RFMOs require vessels
above a minimum size to carry satellitebased vessel monitor systems (VMS)
that enable at least the flag States to
monitor the position of vessels at sea on
a real-time basis. The United States
should develop, in collaboration with
RFMOs, foreign governments, and other
intergovernmental organizations, best
practices for implementation of vessel
monitoring systems across all types of
commercial fishing vessels and those
vessels engaged in the fisheries supply
chain (including transshipment and
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices
processing vessels). The United States
should also seek expansion of
international vessel-tracking
requirements to include, where
appropriate, the use of Automatic
Identification System (AIS), VMS,
innovative and low-cost technology
suitable for small vessels, and updated
technical standards to improve
reporting frequency and accessibility of
vessel position data.
(D) The United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) has
been working to develop a Global
Record of Fishing Vessels and Fishing
Support Vessels. The United States
should continue to support the FAO’s
design and implementation of Phase
One of the Global Record of Fishing
Vessels (vessels greater than or equal to
100GT, 100GRT, or 24m) to ensure that
implementation is accomplished as
soon as possible. At the same time, the
United States should continue to
advance measures in the RFMOs to
require International Maritime
Organization (IMO) numbers for all
eligible vessels, and to work with the
IMO and other relevant organization to
expand the category of commercial
vessels that are eligible for IMO
numbers, to ensure that all commercial
fishing vessels can be tracked even as
they change owners, flags, or names.
Recommendation: Direct the Task
Force to develop, within one year (and
refined as appropriate in subsequent
years), best practices for catch
documentation and data tracking; high
seas boarding and inspection;
monitoring, control, and surveillance
measures (including observer programs,
vessel tracking systems, authorized
vessel lists); port state control; and
compliance monitoring and promote
their adoption in each of the Regional
Fishery Management Organizations
(RFMOs) of which the U.S. is a member.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Question: Are there any categories of
best practices to be developed by the
U.S. government missing from the list
above?
3. Various U.S. government agencies
are engaged in initiatives with foreign
governments to support broader
maritime domain awareness such as
regional law enforcement activities to
counter trafficking of people, drugs or
weapons. IUU fishing should be
included in these activities to capitalize
upon current efforts and resources and
foster comprehensive maritime domain
awareness. Recommendation: Direct the
Secretaries of Defense and Homeland
Security to include IUU fishing threat
analysis and monitoring as a component
of U.S. and international efforts to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:23 Dec 17, 2014
Jkt 235001
increase overall maritime domain
awareness.
Question: What regions or fisheries
should be prioritized for threat analysis
and monitoring? What technical tools or
analytical approaches are most needed?
4. The vast majority of U.S. Free
Trade Agreements (FTAs) contain
obligations that require U.S trading
partners to ‘‘effectively enforce’’ their
environmental and labor laws,
including laws that protect and
conserve natural resources, such as
marine fisheries, and that protects
certain internationally recognized labor
rights. These obligations are subject to
dispute settlement under the trade
agreement, and the U.S. Trade
Representative has authority to monitor
and review implementation of these and
other FTA commitments. The United
States is currently seeking commitments
in two FTAs, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), to address IUU fishing activities.
Further, looking beyond existing
negotiations and to future agreements, it
will be important to pursue
commitments from trading partners to
effectively enforce conservation and
management measures they have
adopted pursuant to RFMOs.
Recommendation: Direct the U.S. Trade
Representative to use existing Free
Trade Agreements and future FTAs to
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud,
including through enhanced
cooperation with our trading partners
and commitments to enforce
environmental and labor laws.
5. Some governments continue to
provide subsidies to their fisheries
sectors that encourage overfishing or
contribute to excess capacity of fishing
fleets. Such subsidies also undermine
the effectiveness of fisheries
management regimes and can contribute
to IUU fishing. Recommendation: Direct
the U.S. Trade Representative, and the
Secretaries of State and Commerce to
pursue international commitments to
eliminate fisheries subsidies that
contribute to excess fishing capacity,
overfishing and IUU fishing by 2020.
6. Especially in developing nations,
increased national-level capacity is
needed to strengthen fisheries
governance and transparency,
implement the Port State Measures
Agreement (PSMA), enforce fisheries
laws, and prosecute fisheries violations
and related criminal activities. Nations
that register fishing and support vessels
need the capacity to exercise their
responsibilities as flag States, which
include issuing fishing authorizations,
monitoring fishing and transshipment at
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75539
sea, conducting enforcement operations,
inspecting vessels dockside, and
monitoring landings. Improved
technological infrastructure is needed
for collecting information on vessels
and catch to enable effective
enforcement, support traceability
schemes, and foster sustainable fisheries
management. Efforts to combat IUU
fishing and seafood fraud need to be
integrated with international
development activities, in particular
food security dialogues and programs.
Recommendation: Direct the Secretaries
of Commerce, Defense, Homeland
Security, State, the Administrator of
USAID, and the Attorney General to
coordinate with donors, multilateral
institutions and foreign governments
and prioritize building capacity to
sustainably manage fisheries, combat
IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
Question: What are the best ways to
coordinate in capacity building efforts?
In which countries and what types of
capacity building activities would have
the most impact?
7. Efforts to address development or
governance issues related to sustainable
fisheries benefit greatly from the active
support of and coordination with senior
government officials through diplomatic
channels, engagement in future oceans
conferences, and engagement in
influential regional fora. Building these
key relationships will further encourage
our foreign government partners to
enhance their efforts to combat IUU
fishing as well as work with U.S.
investigative agencies to ensure that
illegally caught or fraudulently labeled
seafood does not enter commerce.
Recommendation: Direct the Secretary
of State to maintain combating IUU
fishing and seafood fraud as a
diplomatic priority in order to gain the
support of senior officials in priority
countries to enhance political will for
combatting IUU fishing and seafood
fraud.
Enforcement: Strengthen Enforcement
and Enhance Enforcement Tools To
Combat IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud
8. Obtaining and sharing information
is another critical element in preventing
IUU or fraudulently labeled seafood
(including false labels, fraudulent
customs declarations, and other similar
actions) from entering U.S. commerce
(whether from domestic or foreign
sources). Mechanisms to gather, share,
and analyze information on goods
entering the United States exist among
relevant administrative and law
enforcement agencies, including
through Customs and Border
Protection’s Commercial Targeting and
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
75540
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis Center, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s Homeland
Security Investigations Trade
Transparency Unit, and through
forensic capabilities across the Federal
government. However, certain gaps
concerning collection, sharing, and
analysis of fisheries-related information
remain. Recommendation: Direct the
Task Force members, to include the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce,
Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, the Interior, and the Attorney
General to develop within 180 days a
strategy with implementation deadlines
to optimize the collection, sharing, and
analysis of information and resources to
prevent IUU or fraudulently labeled
seafood from entering U.S. commerce.
This strategy should include a plan to
increase support and coordination
across agencies for forensic analysis of
seafood species and corresponding
collection, archiving and analysis of
related reference specimens, as well as
reflect efforts to increase coordination
with state and local governments per
Recommendation 11.
Question: Which key actions should be
included in this strategy?
9. Broader customs enforcement tools
can also continue to be leveraged to
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
The U.S. has now signed over 70
Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement
(CMAAs) with other customs
administrations across the world.
CMAAs are bilateral agreements
between countries and are effectuated
by their respective customs
administrations. They provide the legal
framework for the cooperation and
exchange of information and evidence
to assist countries in the enforcement of
customs laws, including duty evasion,
fraud, smuggling, trafficking,
proliferation, money laundering, and
terrorism-related activities. CMAAs can
be used to support IUU fishing and
seafood fraud investigations, facilitate
risk-based targeting of illicit seafood
shipments, and for further cooperation
with foreign governments to develop
best practices to prevent IUU or
fraudulent seafood from reaching our
borders. Recommendation: Direct the
Secretary of Homeland Security to
leverage existing and future CMAAs to
exchange relevant information and
encourage foreign customs
administrations to cooperate in
combating IUU fishing and seafood
fraud.
10. Standardizing rules across the
U.S. government concerning how to
properly identify a seafood product’s
species, common name and origin
would better support detection and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:23 Dec 17, 2014
Jkt 235001
enforcement efforts to combat IUU
fishing and seafood fraud.
Standardization of this information
would minimize opportunities to avoid
detection by exploiting inconsistencies
across Federal agencies and ambiguities
in existing requirements and industry
conventions. Standardized rules would
also promote better industry compliance
and reduce inadvertent noncompliance
by providing clearer guidance to
industry about how to properly identify
fish and seafood, including their origin.
Recommendation: Direct the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and
Human Services, and Homeland
Security, with input from the Attorney
General, to standardize and clarify rules
on identifying the species, common
name, and origin of seafood. Direct the
Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland
Security and the U.S. Trade
Representative to work with the
International Trade Commission to
adjust U.S. tariff codes to enhance
identification in trade of species subject
to IUU fishing or seafood fraud
accordingly. The agencies should aim to
publish these revised rules and adjusted
codes not later than one year after the
adoption of this recommendation.
Questions: What seafood products could
benefit most from clarification of
species, common name and rules of
origin? What revisions to the tariff codes
(at the level than can be adjusted for
U.S. statistics) could help address
seafood fraud and facilitate monitoring
of species that may be harvested in IUU
fisheries?
11. State and local enforcement
authorities have an important role in
regulating fisheries, both through
enforcement in state waters and working
with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
on landings of fish harvested in federal
waters. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration works
with state and local authorities to obtain
and share information with respect to
domestic fisheries. State and local
enforcement authorities also have an
important role in detecting and
preventing seafood fraud, since
intrastate seafood sales, including those
at the restaurant and retail level, are
largely regulated by state and local
authorities. Recommendation: Direct the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce,
Health and Human Services, and
Homeland Security, and the Attorney
General to work with state and local
enforcement authorities to expand
information sharing and develop tools
that address illegal fishing and seafood
fraud at the state and local level.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Question: How can Federal enforcement
agencies expand information sharing
with state and local enforcement
authorities?
12. Additional enforcement tools are
needed by certain enforcement agencies
to address growing concerns over IUU
fishing and the entry of seafood
products from IUU fishing into U.S.
commerce including: Broader and
clearer search and inspection
authorities, investigative subpoena
authority, increased penalties, and civil
judicial enforcement mechanisms.
Recommendation: Work with Congress
to the extent necessary to broaden
agency enforcement authorities,
including those to (1) search, inspect
and seize seafood, both at the point of
entry into U.S. commerce (whether from
foreign or domestic sources) and
throughout the supply chain; and (2)
pursue a full range of judicial
enforcement options for trafficking and
other violations related to IUU fishing
and seafood fraud.
Partnerships: Create Partnerships With
Industry and Non-Governmental
Organizations To Identify and Eliminate
Seafood Fraud and IUU Seafood in U.S.
Commerce
13. Private and public sector
partnerships are essential to preventing
and reducing the entry of fraudulent
seafood products and products from
IUU fishing into U.S. commerce.
Recommendation: Direct the Task Force
to establish a regular forum with
harvesters, importers, dealers, retailers,
processors and non-governmental
organizations to enhance collaboration
in combating IUU fishing and seafood
fraud and to improve understanding of
the levels and nature of IUU fishing and
seafood fraud and related criminal
activities.
Traceability: Create a Risk-Based
Traceability Program To Track Seafood
From Harvest to Entry Into U.S.
Commerce
14. It is in the national interest to
prevent the entry of illegal goods,
including illegal seafood into U.S.
commerce. Creating an information
system that better facilitates data
collection, sharing, and analysis among
relevant regulators and enforcement
authorities would be a significant step
forward in addressing IUU fishing and
seafood fraud. To that end, the United
States should work with industry and
other stakeholders to define the types of
information to be collected regarding
seafood sold in the United States and
the operational standards to be applied
to the collection, retention, and
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
transmission of such information. The
information collected could include:
• Who harvested or produced the fish
(e.g. name and flag State of harvesting
vessel and/or farm facility, type of
fishing gear)?
• What species was harvested (e.g.
species name, form, and quantity of the
product)?
• Where and when was the seafood
harvested and landed (e.g. ocean area of
catch, farm location, date of harvest,
date/point of first landing)?
• Other relevant details, such as
transshipment and/or processing
activity.
The process to develop types of
information and operational standards
under each of the categories above
should allow for input from interested
stakeholders including industry, nongovernmental organizations, supplychain experts, and state, local and
foreign governments. It should also
draw upon and utilize applicable
experience, best practices, and existing
standards where possible. This program
should be developed in a way that
permits all authorized agencies to enter,
analyze, use, and verify the data while
still protecting information consistent
with statutory authorities. The types of
information and operational standards
should apply no less favorably as
between domestic and imported
products. Recommendation: Direct the
Task Force, with input from U.S.
industry and other stakeholders, to
identify and develop within six months
a list of the types of information and
operational standards needed for an
effective seafood traceability program to
combat seafood fraud and IUU seafood
in U.S. commerce.
Question: Accounting for those listed
above, what types of information and
operational standards should be
included in a traceability program?
15. Following Recommendation #14, a
program will be developed and
implemented to establish these types of
information and operational standards
as pre-requisites for entry into
commerce. The program will initially be
applied to certain fish or seafood that
are of particular concern because they
are subject to significant seafood fraud
or because they are at significant risk of
being caught by IUU fishing. However,
the goal would be to eventually expand
the program to all seafood at first point
of sale or import, after consideration of
relevant factors such as input from
stakeholders and cost-effectiveness. To
achieve this:
a. The Secretaries of Commerce,
Health and Human Services, State, and
any other relevant agencies will identify
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:23 Dec 17, 2014
Jkt 235001
certain species of fish or seafood that are
of particular concern because they are
subject to significant seafood fraud or
because they are at significant risk of
being caught by IUU fishing. The
Secretaries of Homeland Security, HHS,
and Commerce, and other agencies, as
appropriate, will work together to
implement Recommendation #14
requirements for the collection of
relevant and necessary data from, and
compliance with operational standards
by, importers of these identified species,
as consistent with existing authorities.
b. The Secretaries of Commerce and
Health and Human Services will then
work with the Regional Fishery
Management Councils, states, and other
partners to require this same
information from these identified
species when they are domestically
harvested or produced.
c. Information collected will be
shared among Federal administrative
and law enforcement agencies for
analysis and other relevant actions to
prevent IUU or fraudulently labeled
seafood from entering U.S. commerce
pursuant to the strategy developed by
the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, and the Interior,
and the Attorney General
(Recommendation #8).
d. The Secretary of Homeland
Security will collaborate with the
Secretary of Commerce and other
agencies as relevant to assist in
developing a voluntary Commerce
Trusted Trader Program for importers of
these identified species. The Program
will provide benefits such as reduced
targeting and inspections and enhanced
streamlined entry into the United States
for certified importers.
e. Implementation of this risk-based
traceability program will be evaluated
regularly, beginning within one year of
requiring the types of information for atrisk species, to identify whether it is
meeting the intended objectives in the
most effective way possible, while
considering costs and benefits. The Task
Force will consider the next steps in
expanding the program to other seafood
entering U.S. commerce. This
evaluation will include input from
stakeholders and identify any additional
resources or legal authorities that may
be necessary to cover additional species
and types of product, and to make the
information available to the consumer.
f. Within one year of requiring the
types of information for at-risk species,
the Task Force will develop further
recommendations on how certain types
of information within the traceability
system (e.g. species; geographic origin;
means of production, such as wild-
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75541
caught versus aquaculture; and gear
type) could be made available to the
consumer.
Recommendation: Direct the Task
Force to establish, within 18 months,
the first phase of a risk-based
traceability program to track seafood
from point of harvest to entry into the
U.S. commerce.
Questions for Recommendation #15:
(a) Which species are currently at
highest risk of IUU fishing and seafood
fraud and what factors contribute to
species becoming at high risk in the
future?
(b) What are the specific
characteristics and workings of the
global seafood supply chain that should
be taken into account when requiring
information?
(c) What are the best approaches for
expanding the risk-based program to
incorporate other fish and seafood
products entering into U.S. commerce?
(d) How often should the risk-based
program be evaluated?
(e) What roles should government and
private sectors serve in managing and
evaluating the program?
Reporting: Where a timeframe is not
specifically noted under a
recommendation, the relevant agencies
will report to the Task Force on the
progress of implementing that
recommendation in one year from
receiving guidance from the President.
In addition, recognizing that a valuable
and extensive body of information on
fisheries and seafood products would be
created by the recommendations above,
the Task Force will report annually to
the President, via the National Ocean
Council, on seafood trends, key issues
related to IUU fishing and seafood
fraud, and progress on development and
implementation of a comprehensive and
risk-based traceability program.
Dated: December 15, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–29628 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
[Docket ID USA–2014–0047]
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of
Records.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75536-75541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29628]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD652
Recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combating
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75537]]
SUMMARY: On June 17, 2014, the White House released a Presidential
Memorandum entitled ``Establishing a Comprehensive Framework to Combat
Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud.'' Among
other actions, the Memorandum established a Presidential Task Force on
Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood
Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of State and Commerce
with twelve other Federal agency members: the Council on Environmental
Quality, Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, the U.S. Agency for International Development,
the National Security Council and the U.S. Trade Representative. The
Task Force is directed to report to the President within 180 days with
``recommendations for the implementation of a comprehensive framework
of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud that
emphasizes areas of greatest need.'' Those recommendations have now
been provided to the President through the National Ocean Council. This
is a request for comments from the public to advise the Task Force on
how to most effectively implement these recommendations. Specific
questions are posed after some of the recommendations to help elicit
feedback on potential implementation issues and concerns which will
help inform development of an implementation plan in the months ahead.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Carrie Selberg, 1315
East-West Highway; Silver Spring, Maryland 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 the Task Force. All comments received are a
part of the public record and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. The Task Force will accept
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted
in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Selberg, (301) 427-8021.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The United States is a global leader in sustainable seafood. Over
the course of the last six years, the United States has largely ended
overfishing in federally managed waters and successfully rebuilt a
record number of overfished stocks, with both overfishing and
overfished fish stocks at all-time lows. Effective management and
enforcement of domestic fishing regulations has supported near record
highs in both landings and revenue for our domestic fishing industries.
As a result, the United States' approach of science-based fisheries
management is recognized internationally as a model for ending
overfishing and implementing sustainable fisheries management
practices.
One of the biggest global threats to the sustainable management of
the world's fisheries is illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU)
fishing. IUU fishing occurs both within nations' waters and on the high
seas and undermines the biological and economic sustainability of
fisheries both domestically and abroad. IUU fishing in other parts of
the world can cause problems in places where there are strong rules
managing fisheries, such as the United States. By circumventing
conservation and management measures and cutting or avoiding the
operational costs associated with sustainable fishing practices and
harvesting levels, entities engaged in IUU fishing undermine the
sustainability of fish stocks and the broader ecosystem. Further, IUU
fishers gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace over law-abiding
fishing operations as they do not pay the true cost of sustainable
production. Global losses attributable to IUU fishing have been
estimated to be between $10-23 billion annually. Additionally, U.S.
efforts to reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and coastal risks are
being undermined by IUU fishing in developing countries. Over 2.5
billion people depend upon fish for food and nutrition, and IUU and
unsustainable fishing threatens valuable food resources. Combating IUU
fishing will directly contribute to U.S. commitments and efforts to
enhance global food and nutrition security.
A number of factors including complex trade systems, comingling,
and broad geographic distribution contribute to difficulties in
documenting the chain of custody for fish and seafood products.
According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization,
fish and seafood products are among the most widely traded food
commodities in the world. Additionally, some seafood is comingled in
the global supply chain as part of processing and distribution. Once a
shipment of seafood enters U.S. commerce, it is often distributed
widely making it difficult to document the chain of custody and
guarantee that the product reaching the consumer has been legally
harvested or is in fact the product it is claimed to be.
While not necessarily related to IUU fishing, seafood fraud
(whereby fish is mislabeled with respect to its species or country of
origin, quantity, or quality) has the potential to undermine the
economic viability of U.S. and global fisheries as well as the ability
of consumers to make informed purchasing choices. Seafood fraud can
occur at any point along the seafood supply chain from harvest to
market. It can be driven by diverse motives, from covering up IUU
fishing to avoiding duties, to increasing a profit margin through
species substitution or falsification of the country of origin. While
it is difficult to know the extent of seafood fraud, the frequency of
seafood fraud incidents has received increasing attention in peer-
reviewed journals, government reports and private sector reports.
Seafood fraud threatens consumer confidence, serving to further
undermine the reputation and market competitiveness of law-abiding
fishers and businesses in the seafood industry.
A number of challenges exist with respect to information
collection, sharing, and analysis in support of federal efforts to
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud: (1) A vast industry with a large
quantity of international and domestic trade; (2) multiple Federal
agencies responsible for regulating only a part of this trade and only
for particular issues (e.g., food labeling and fishing violations); (3)
disparate information collection abilities and requirements among those
agencies with no specific common collection, analysis or sharing
mechanism; (4) federal jurisdiction not including the entire
[[Page 75538]]
supply chain as states manage their own fisheries and generally have
primary jurisdiction over intrastate sales, including most retail and
restaurant sales; (5) statutory constraints on the use and sharing of
some information collected by the federal government; and (6) weak
institutions and poor data collection and management in some source
countries.
It is in the interest of the United States to promote a
comprehensive framework that supports sustainable fishing practices
while combating seafood fraud and the sale of IUU seafood, including by
improving the transparency and traceability of the seafood supply
chain. To achieve these objectives, the United States will need to
improve implementation of and enhance and broaden the tools it has
available to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The Task Force was
established to identify and achieve these objectives.
The Task Force initiated a public engagement process to gain broad
input to inform and advise development of these recommendations. This
process included two public meetings, two webinars, input from 32
countries, and a public comment period noticed in the Federal Register.
The Task Force also began to analyze the federal government's existing
authorities to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, and identify
potential gaps in those authorities. Furthermore, it examined specific
areas for improved coordination among the Task Force agencies regarding
these issues.
Based on this public engagement process and the Task Force's
analysis of existing authorities, gaps in those authorities, and
current and potential levels of interagency coordination, the Task
Force developed recommendations designed to enhance the tools we have
available to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Doing so will level
the playing field for legitimate fishers and businesses in the seafood
industry and increase consumer confidence in seafood sold in the United
States.
Recommendations by the Task Force fall under four general themes:
International: Combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud at the
international level;
Enforcement: Strengthen enforcement and enhance
enforcement tools to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud;
Partnerships: Create and expand partnerships with state
and local governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations to
identify and eliminate seafood fraud and the sale of IUU seafood in
U.S. commerce; and
Traceability: Create a risk-based traceability program to
track seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce to prevent entry
of illegal product into the supply chain and better inform retailers
and consumers.
II. Recommendations
Comment is generally sought on how to implement the following
recommendations. Specific questions intended to elicit comment are
listed below some of the recommendations. Proposed timeframes have been
specified in some of the recommendations discussed below.
International: Combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud at the
international level
1. The 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA) is the
first binding global instrument focused specifically on combating IUU
fishing. The PSMA sets minimum standards for the conduct of port
inspections and the training of inspectors to prevent IUU seafood
products from entering commercial markets. The PSMA also requires port
States to prevent entry into or use of ports by vessels that have
engaged in IUU fishing, except for the purpose of inspection or other
enforcement actions. The PSMA requires 25 ratifications to enter into
force; to date there are 11. The U.S. Senate provided its advice and
consent to ratification of the PSMA in 2014. Before the United States
can deposit its instrument of ratification, however, Congress must pass
legislation to implement U.S. obligations under the PSMA.
Recommendation: Work with Congress to pass implementing legislation for
the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA). Direct the Secretary of State
to promote entry into force and full implementation of the PSMA.
2. Many fisheries that exist in the waters of several nations and/
or on the high seas are managed by Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations (RFMOs). RFMOs have sought to promote compliance with the
management measures they have adopted using a wide variety of tools.
Drawing on experience gained from participation in various RFMOs, the
United States is in a position to identify the best practices for
combating IUU fishing through RFMOs and promote the adoption of such
practices in all RFMOs in which the United States participates. Some
examples include:
(A) Several RFMOs, including the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Commission for the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, have developed catch
documentation and trade tracking requirements that enable governments
to monitor the movement of fish and fish products through international
commerce. The United States should develop, in collaboration with
RFMOs, foreign governments, and other intergovernmental organizations,
best practices for electronic systems that collect catch information
and that track data across harvest and transport vessels and fisheries
management agencies--these should include uniform data elements such as
harvest vessel, species name, gear type, and region of catch. Best
practices should also include interoperability among U.S. domestic and
foreign national-level documentation and data tracking systems, with a
view to avoiding duplication with existing systems.
(B) Article 21 of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement
(UNFSA) establishes a reciprocal high seas boarding and inspection
regime that is a critical tool for greater cooperation in enforcement
of RFMO-adopted conservation and management measures. Under this
regime, any UNFSA Party, including the United States, that is a member
of an RFMO can board and inspect the fishing vessels of any other UNFSA
Party in high seas areas covered by and subject to measures adopted by
that RFMO, collect information on any apparent violations of applicable
fisheries management measures, and provide this information to the flag
State or relevant RFMOs for follow-up action. To date only the Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has implemented
measures to the full extent outlined in UNFSA. The United States should
continue to call upon additional RFMOs to which it is a party to follow
the lead of the WCPFC, putting particular pressure on other UNFSA
parties to support such efforts, reminding them of their obligations
under the UNFSA, while reserving the right of the United States to use
its authority deriving from UNSA to conduct high seas boardings and
inspections.
(C) Many RFMOs require vessels above a minimum size to carry
satellite-based vessel monitor systems (VMS) that enable at least the
flag States to monitor the position of vessels at sea on a real-time
basis. The United States should develop, in collaboration with RFMOs,
foreign governments, and other intergovernmental organizations, best
practices for implementation of vessel monitoring systems across all
types of commercial fishing vessels and those vessels engaged in the
fisheries supply chain (including transshipment and
[[Page 75539]]
processing vessels). The United States should also seek expansion of
international vessel-tracking requirements to include, where
appropriate, the use of Automatic Identification System (AIS), VMS,
innovative and low-cost technology suitable for small vessels, and
updated technical standards to improve reporting frequency and
accessibility of vessel position data.
(D) The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has
been working to develop a Global Record of Fishing Vessels and Fishing
Support Vessels. The United States should continue to support the FAO's
design and implementation of Phase One of the Global Record of Fishing
Vessels (vessels greater than or equal to 100GT, 100GRT, or 24m) to
ensure that implementation is accomplished as soon as possible. At the
same time, the United States should continue to advance measures in the
RFMOs to require International Maritime Organization (IMO) numbers for
all eligible vessels, and to work with the IMO and other relevant
organization to expand the category of commercial vessels that are
eligible for IMO numbers, to ensure that all commercial fishing vessels
can be tracked even as they change owners, flags, or names.
Recommendation: Direct the Task Force to develop, within one year
(and refined as appropriate in subsequent years), best practices for
catch documentation and data tracking; high seas boarding and
inspection; monitoring, control, and surveillance measures (including
observer programs, vessel tracking systems, authorized vessel lists);
port state control; and compliance monitoring and promote their
adoption in each of the Regional Fishery Management Organizations
(RFMOs) of which the U.S. is a member.
Question: Are there any categories of best practices to be developed by
the U.S. government missing from the list above?
3. Various U.S. government agencies are engaged in initiatives with
foreign governments to support broader maritime domain awareness such
as regional law enforcement activities to counter trafficking of
people, drugs or weapons. IUU fishing should be included in these
activities to capitalize upon current efforts and resources and foster
comprehensive maritime domain awareness. Recommendation: Direct the
Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to include IUU fishing
threat analysis and monitoring as a component of U.S. and international
efforts to increase overall maritime domain awareness.
Question: What regions or fisheries should be prioritized for threat
analysis and monitoring? What technical tools or analytical approaches
are most needed?
4. The vast majority of U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) contain
obligations that require U.S trading partners to ``effectively
enforce'' their environmental and labor laws, including laws that
protect and conserve natural resources, such as marine fisheries, and
that protects certain internationally recognized labor rights. These
obligations are subject to dispute settlement under the trade
agreement, and the U.S. Trade Representative has authority to monitor
and review implementation of these and other FTA commitments. The
United States is currently seeking commitments in two FTAs, the Trans-
Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP), to address IUU fishing activities. Further, looking
beyond existing negotiations and to future agreements, it will be
important to pursue commitments from trading partners to effectively
enforce conservation and management measures they have adopted pursuant
to RFMOs. Recommendation: Direct the U.S. Trade Representative to use
existing Free Trade Agreements and future FTAs to combat IUU fishing
and seafood fraud, including through enhanced cooperation with our
trading partners and commitments to enforce environmental and labor
laws.
5. Some governments continue to provide subsidies to their
fisheries sectors that encourage overfishing or contribute to excess
capacity of fishing fleets. Such subsidies also undermine the
effectiveness of fisheries management regimes and can contribute to IUU
fishing. Recommendation: Direct the U.S. Trade Representative, and the
Secretaries of State and Commerce to pursue international commitments
to eliminate fisheries subsidies that contribute to excess fishing
capacity, overfishing and IUU fishing by 2020.
6. Especially in developing nations, increased national-level
capacity is needed to strengthen fisheries governance and transparency,
implement the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), enforce fisheries
laws, and prosecute fisheries violations and related criminal
activities. Nations that register fishing and support vessels need the
capacity to exercise their responsibilities as flag States, which
include issuing fishing authorizations, monitoring fishing and
transshipment at sea, conducting enforcement operations, inspecting
vessels dockside, and monitoring landings. Improved technological
infrastructure is needed for collecting information on vessels and
catch to enable effective enforcement, support traceability schemes,
and foster sustainable fisheries management. Efforts to combat IUU
fishing and seafood fraud need to be integrated with international
development activities, in particular food security dialogues and
programs. Recommendation: Direct the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense,
Homeland Security, State, the Administrator of USAID, and the Attorney
General to coordinate with donors, multilateral institutions and
foreign governments and prioritize building capacity to sustainably
manage fisheries, combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
Question: What are the best ways to coordinate in capacity building
efforts? In which countries and what types of capacity building
activities would have the most impact?
7. Efforts to address development or governance issues related to
sustainable fisheries benefit greatly from the active support of and
coordination with senior government officials through diplomatic
channels, engagement in future oceans conferences, and engagement in
influential regional fora. Building these key relationships will
further encourage our foreign government partners to enhance their
efforts to combat IUU fishing as well as work with U.S. investigative
agencies to ensure that illegally caught or fraudulently labeled
seafood does not enter commerce. Recommendation: Direct the Secretary
of State to maintain combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud as a
diplomatic priority in order to gain the support of senior officials in
priority countries to enhance political will for combatting IUU fishing
and seafood fraud.
Enforcement: Strengthen Enforcement and Enhance Enforcement Tools To
Combat IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud
8. Obtaining and sharing information is another critical element in
preventing IUU or fraudulently labeled seafood (including false labels,
fraudulent customs declarations, and other similar actions) from
entering U.S. commerce (whether from domestic or foreign sources).
Mechanisms to gather, share, and analyze information on goods entering
the United States exist among relevant administrative and law
enforcement agencies, including through Customs and Border Protection's
Commercial Targeting and
[[Page 75540]]
Analysis Center, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland
Security Investigations Trade Transparency Unit, and through forensic
capabilities across the Federal government. However, certain gaps
concerning collection, sharing, and analysis of fisheries-related
information remain. Recommendation: Direct the Task Force members, to
include the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and the Attorney General to
develop within 180 days a strategy with implementation deadlines to
optimize the collection, sharing, and analysis of information and
resources to prevent IUU or fraudulently labeled seafood from entering
U.S. commerce. This strategy should include a plan to increase support
and coordination across agencies for forensic analysis of seafood
species and corresponding collection, archiving and analysis of related
reference specimens, as well as reflect efforts to increase
coordination with state and local governments per Recommendation 11.
Question: Which key actions should be included in this strategy?
9. Broader customs enforcement tools can also continue to be
leveraged to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The U.S. has now
signed over 70 Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement (CMAAs) with other
customs administrations across the world. CMAAs are bilateral
agreements between countries and are effectuated by their respective
customs administrations. They provide the legal framework for the
cooperation and exchange of information and evidence to assist
countries in the enforcement of customs laws, including duty evasion,
fraud, smuggling, trafficking, proliferation, money laundering, and
terrorism-related activities. CMAAs can be used to support IUU fishing
and seafood fraud investigations, facilitate risk-based targeting of
illicit seafood shipments, and for further cooperation with foreign
governments to develop best practices to prevent IUU or fraudulent
seafood from reaching our borders. Recommendation: Direct the Secretary
of Homeland Security to leverage existing and future CMAAs to exchange
relevant information and encourage foreign customs administrations to
cooperate in combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
10. Standardizing rules across the U.S. government concerning how
to properly identify a seafood product's species, common name and
origin would better support detection and enforcement efforts to combat
IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Standardization of this information
would minimize opportunities to avoid detection by exploiting
inconsistencies across Federal agencies and ambiguities in existing
requirements and industry conventions. Standardized rules would also
promote better industry compliance and reduce inadvertent noncompliance
by providing clearer guidance to industry about how to properly
identify fish and seafood, including their origin. Recommendation:
Direct the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human
Services, and Homeland Security, with input from the Attorney General,
to standardize and clarify rules on identifying the species, common
name, and origin of seafood. Direct the Secretaries of Commerce and
Homeland Security and the U.S. Trade Representative to work with the
International Trade Commission to adjust U.S. tariff codes to enhance
identification in trade of species subject to IUU fishing or seafood
fraud accordingly. The agencies should aim to publish these revised
rules and adjusted codes not later than one year after the adoption of
this recommendation.
Questions: What seafood products could benefit most from clarification
of species, common name and rules of origin? What revisions to the
tariff codes (at the level than can be adjusted for U.S. statistics)
could help address seafood fraud and facilitate monitoring of species
that may be harvested in IUU fisheries?
11. State and local enforcement authorities have an important role
in regulating fisheries, both through enforcement in state waters and
working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
on landings of fish harvested in federal waters. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration works with state and local authorities
to obtain and share information with respect to domestic fisheries.
State and local enforcement authorities also have an important role in
detecting and preventing seafood fraud, since intrastate seafood sales,
including those at the restaurant and retail level, are largely
regulated by state and local authorities. Recommendation: Direct the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and
Homeland Security, and the Attorney General to work with state and
local enforcement authorities to expand information sharing and develop
tools that address illegal fishing and seafood fraud at the state and
local level.
Question: How can Federal enforcement agencies expand information
sharing with state and local enforcement authorities?
12. Additional enforcement tools are needed by certain enforcement
agencies to address growing concerns over IUU fishing and the entry of
seafood products from IUU fishing into U.S. commerce including: Broader
and clearer search and inspection authorities, investigative subpoena
authority, increased penalties, and civil judicial enforcement
mechanisms. Recommendation: Work with Congress to the extent necessary
to broaden agency enforcement authorities, including those to (1)
search, inspect and seize seafood, both at the point of entry into U.S.
commerce (whether from foreign or domestic sources) and throughout the
supply chain; and (2) pursue a full range of judicial enforcement
options for trafficking and other violations related to IUU fishing and
seafood fraud.
Partnerships: Create Partnerships With Industry and Non-Governmental
Organizations To Identify and Eliminate Seafood Fraud and IUU Seafood
in U.S. Commerce
13. Private and public sector partnerships are essential to
preventing and reducing the entry of fraudulent seafood products and
products from IUU fishing into U.S. commerce. Recommendation: Direct
the Task Force to establish a regular forum with harvesters, importers,
dealers, retailers, processors and non-governmental organizations to
enhance collaboration in combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud and to
improve understanding of the levels and nature of IUU fishing and
seafood fraud and related criminal activities.
Traceability: Create a Risk-Based Traceability Program To Track Seafood
From Harvest to Entry Into U.S. Commerce
14. It is in the national interest to prevent the entry of illegal
goods, including illegal seafood into U.S. commerce. Creating an
information system that better facilitates data collection, sharing,
and analysis among relevant regulators and enforcement authorities
would be a significant step forward in addressing IUU fishing and
seafood fraud. To that end, the United States should work with industry
and other stakeholders to define the types of information to be
collected regarding seafood sold in the United States and the
operational standards to be applied to the collection, retention, and
[[Page 75541]]
transmission of such information. The information collected could
include:
Who harvested or produced the fish (e.g. name and flag
State of harvesting vessel and/or farm facility, type of fishing gear)?
What species was harvested (e.g. species name, form, and
quantity of the product)?
Where and when was the seafood harvested and landed (e.g.
ocean area of catch, farm location, date of harvest, date/point of
first landing)?
Other relevant details, such as transshipment and/or
processing activity.
The process to develop types of information and operational
standards under each of the categories above should allow for input
from interested stakeholders including industry, non-governmental
organizations, supply-chain experts, and state, local and foreign
governments. It should also draw upon and utilize applicable
experience, best practices, and existing standards where possible. This
program should be developed in a way that permits all authorized
agencies to enter, analyze, use, and verify the data while still
protecting information consistent with statutory authorities. The types
of information and operational standards should apply no less favorably
as between domestic and imported products. Recommendation: Direct the
Task Force, with input from U.S. industry and other stakeholders, to
identify and develop within six months a list of the types of
information and operational standards needed for an effective seafood
traceability program to combat seafood fraud and IUU seafood in U.S.
commerce.
Question: Accounting for those listed above, what types of information
and operational standards should be included in a traceability program?
15. Following Recommendation #14, a program will be developed and
implemented to establish these types of information and operational
standards as pre-requisites for entry into commerce. The program will
initially be applied to certain fish or seafood that are of particular
concern because they are subject to significant seafood fraud or
because they are at significant risk of being caught by IUU fishing.
However, the goal would be to eventually expand the program to all
seafood at first point of sale or import, after consideration of
relevant factors such as input from stakeholders and cost-
effectiveness. To achieve this:
a. The Secretaries of Commerce, Health and Human Services, State,
and any other relevant agencies will identify certain species of fish
or seafood that are of particular concern because they are subject to
significant seafood fraud or because they are at significant risk of
being caught by IUU fishing. The Secretaries of Homeland Security, HHS,
and Commerce, and other agencies, as appropriate, will work together to
implement Recommendation #14 requirements for the collection of
relevant and necessary data from, and compliance with operational
standards by, importers of these identified species, as consistent with
existing authorities.
b. The Secretaries of Commerce and Health and Human Services will
then work with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, states, and
other partners to require this same information from these identified
species when they are domestically harvested or produced.
c. Information collected will be shared among Federal
administrative and law enforcement agencies for analysis and other
relevant actions to prevent IUU or fraudulently labeled seafood from
entering U.S. commerce pursuant to the strategy developed by the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, and the Interior, and the Attorney General
(Recommendation #8).
d. The Secretary of Homeland Security will collaborate with the
Secretary of Commerce and other agencies as relevant to assist in
developing a voluntary Commerce Trusted Trader Program for importers of
these identified species. The Program will provide benefits such as
reduced targeting and inspections and enhanced streamlined entry into
the United States for certified importers.
e. Implementation of this risk-based traceability program will be
evaluated regularly, beginning within one year of requiring the types
of information for at-risk species, to identify whether it is meeting
the intended objectives in the most effective way possible, while
considering costs and benefits. The Task Force will consider the next
steps in expanding the program to other seafood entering U.S. commerce.
This evaluation will include input from stakeholders and identify any
additional resources or legal authorities that may be necessary to
cover additional species and types of product, and to make the
information available to the consumer.
f. Within one year of requiring the types of information for at-
risk species, the Task Force will develop further recommendations on
how certain types of information within the traceability system (e.g.
species; geographic origin; means of production, such as wild-caught
versus aquaculture; and gear type) could be made available to the
consumer.
Recommendation: Direct the Task Force to establish, within 18
months, the first phase of a risk-based traceability program to track
seafood from point of harvest to entry into the U.S. commerce.
Questions for Recommendation #15:
(a) Which species are currently at highest risk of IUU fishing and
seafood fraud and what factors contribute to species becoming at high
risk in the future?
(b) What are the specific characteristics and workings of the
global seafood supply chain that should be taken into account when
requiring information?
(c) What are the best approaches for expanding the risk-based
program to incorporate other fish and seafood products entering into
U.S. commerce?
(d) How often should the risk-based program be evaluated?
(e) What roles should government and private sectors serve in
managing and evaluating the program?
Reporting: Where a timeframe is not specifically noted under a
recommendation, the relevant agencies will report to the Task Force on
the progress of implementing that recommendation in one year from
receiving guidance from the President. In addition, recognizing that a
valuable and extensive body of information on fisheries and seafood
products would be created by the recommendations above, the Task Force
will report annually to the President, via the National Ocean Council,
on seafood trends, key issues related to IUU fishing and seafood fraud,
and progress on development and implementation of a comprehensive and
risk-based traceability program.
Dated: December 15, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-29628 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P