Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan for Implementing Recommendations 14/15; Determining Types of Information and Operational Standards Related to Data Collection, 37601-37603 [2015-16185]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD991
Presidential Task Force on Combating
Illegal Unreported and Unregulated
(IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud
Action Plan for Implementing
Recommendations 14/15; Determining
Types of Information and Operational
Standards Related to Data Collection
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
The National Ocean Council
Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood
Fraud (NOC Committee) is seeking
public input on the minimum types of
information necessary for an effective
seafood traceability program to combat
IUU fishing and seafood fraud, as well
as the operational standards related to
collecting, verifying and securing that
data.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
July 31, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2014–0090, by either 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
Melissa Beaudry, Quality Officer, Office
of International Affairs and Seafood
Inspection, 1315 East-West Highway,
Suite 9511, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the
comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
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. Anonymous
comments will be accepted (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required field if you wish to
remain anonymous.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Beaudry, Quality Officer, Office
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Jun 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
of International Affairs and Seafood
Inspection; 301–427–8308.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on
Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood
Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the
Departments of Commerce and State,
published its Action Plan for
Implementing the Task Force
Recommendations (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/
taskforce.html).
The Action Plan articulates the steps
that Federal agencies will take to
implement the recommendations the
Task Force made to the President in
December 2014 on a comprehensive
framework of integrated programs to
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud.
The plan identifies actions that will
strengthen enforcement, create and
expand partnerships with state and
local governments, industry, and nongovernmental organizations, and create
a risk-based traceability program to
track seafood from harvest to point of
entry into U.S. commerce, including the
use of existing traceability mechanisms.
The work initiated by the Task Force is
now under the oversight of a National
Ocean Council (NOC) Committee. The
design of the traceability program will
be led by an interagency working group.
This notice is among the first steps in
implementing Task Force
Recommendations 14 and 15,
specifically, developing types of
information and operational standards
related to data collection. The data
collected will establish a foundation for
the risk-based seafood traceability
program to combat IUU fishing and
seafood fraud from harvest (wildcapture or aquaculture) to point of entry
into U.S. commerce, as described in the
Task Force Action Plan. This data is
being collected for use by appropriate
government officials.
With this notice, the Committee is
soliciting comments on the minimum
types of information that should be
collected and the operational standards
to be applied to this data. The data
collected should include, but is not
limited to, the following information:
(1) Who harvested or produced the
fish?
• Name of harvesting vessel;
• Flag State of harvesting vessel;
• Name of farm or aquaculture
facility;
• Name of processor; and
• Type of fishing gear.
(2) What fish was harvested and
processed?
• Species of fish;
• Product description;
• Name of product;
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37601
• Form of the product; and
• Quantity and/or weight of the
product.
(3) Where and when was the fish
harvested and landed?
• Area of wild-capture or aquaculture
harvest;
• Harvest date(s);
• Name and location of aquaculture
facility;
• Point of first landing;
• Date of first landing;
The Committee also believes the
following information logically should
be considered:
(4) What was the chain of custody of
the fish or fish product through the
supply chain to point of entry into U.S.
commerce including:
• Transshipment of product; and,
• Processing, re-processing, or comingling of product
The Committee seeks comment
regarding the information needed to
answer the four questions posed above,
as well as any additional information
necessary for the implementation of an
effective risk-based seafood traceability
program. An effective traceability
system must be capable of capturing a
complex supply chain which may
involve reprocessing, mixed species,
cold storage holding, trans-shipments,
etc., as well as the simple harvest of a
single species.
Given the scope of the traceability
system anticipated in the Action Plan,
additional data required for fish
harvested in U.S. domestic fisheries is
minimal because domestically harvested
fish enters U.S. commerce at its first
point of landing and, to a large extent,
relevant data are already generated and
reported through existing state and
federal permitting, catch monitoring,
and landing reports implemented under
federal and state fishery management
plans. At-risk species that are harvested
domestically, exported for reprocessing,
and then re-imported to the U.S. may
require traceability throughout that
entire supply chain.
The Operational standards to apply to
the data collected may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
• How the data are to be collected;
• Interoperability with existing
traceability systems;
• Who has responsibility for
collecting the data;
• How the data will be verified; and
• Data security.
Who harvested or produced the fish?
This information establishes the
starting point of the traceability process.
Although this information is
straightforward in many cases,
operational characteristics of some
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37602
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices
fisheries present challenges.
Traceability of an operation in which
easily identified, individual vessels
deliver directly to a buyer or processor
may be relatively simple. However in a
fishery with tender vessels taking
deliveries from many smaller harvesting
boats, collection of this information
could become burdensome. In this
instance, the Committee currently
anticipates requiring only the name of
the tender vessels making traceable
deliveries to a buyer or processor.
Comments are requested as to what
information, if any, is necessary
regarding the harvesting vessel name
and flag state and authorization to
harvest the species in question for the
implementation of an effective
traceability program.
Aquacultured species are easier to
trace back to a particular pond or region,
and the Action Plan states that the
traceability process shall start at the
point of harvest. It is therefore unlikely
that facility information for the raising
of the breeders or the fingerlings,
depending upon the fishery, will be
included in the traceability program.
Also, the body of water for a farm-raised
species could have several aquaculture
facilities in place by different
companies. The Committee requests
comments addressing the whether the
aquaculture facility or the body of water
is appropriate point of origin in a
traceability system for aquacultured
species.
Processor and gear type are common
elements in many fishery traceability
systems. Processors may already be
required to trace their products through
some portion of the supply chain. The
Committee considers information
related to processing and/or
reprocessing of product to be critical to
tracking chain-of-custody, notes that
this information is required for existing
global traceability programs, and
anticipates the requirement of such data
as a part of this traceability program.
This would include information about
primary processors and secondary
processors who maintained custody of
the shipment prior to entering the
United States.
In the context of seafood traceability,
gear information helps to link specific
vessels to the fishery in which they
participate and the species they harvest.
The Committee intends to require gear
type information for the proposed
traceability system and requests
comments as to whether and what gear
type information should be collected for
traceability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Jun 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
What fish was harvested and
processed?
A traceability system to combat IUU
fishing and seafood fraud requires
certain minimal information, including
the species of the fish, the quantity and/
or weight of the catch, and the form of
the product. The state of the shipment
(live, raw/fresh, or frozen) and the type
of product informs the calculation of the
actual amount of fish harvested, as well
as the potential risk for fraud associated
with the product. The Committee
therefore intends to request this
information and seeks comments
regarding its use for traceability
purposes as well as suggestions for
alternative approaches to trace fish and
seafood products in various forms.
The Committee is considering a range
of options with respect to species
identification, including scientific
names, names on the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration approved list, and
common or market names. Use of
scientific names may minimize
confusion at the border. As common or
market names tend to group similar
species, requiring the scientific name
could dramatically increase the number
of species names listed, thereby
increasing the possibility of reporting
error. However, using common or
market names could be used to mask the
import of a species at risk of IUU fishing
or seafood fraud. The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration approved list of
fish names for labeling of fish in the
United States may not cover all fish
entering the United States and adding a
market or common name to that list may
take time. Comments are requested as to
whether scientific names, common,
usual, or market names, or some
combination, should serve as the basis
for species identification in the
traceability program and be utilized for
identifying imported product at the
point of entry into U.S. commerce.
Where and when was the fish harvested
and landed?
Collection of information identifying
the area of harvest or the region in
which an aquaculture facility is located,
and the time at which the harvest took
place, represents the initial ‘‘link’’ in the
supply chain. It represents the action
back to which the at-risk species
entering U.S. commerce will be traced.
For wild-capture fisheries, the
Committee intends to identify area of
harvest by FAO catch area designation
or comparable designation of freshwater sources. The Committee has
identified area or body of water and
facility as data required for establishing
where and when fish was harvested
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from an aquaculture source. The
Committee seeks comments on the
adequacy of this information for
identifying where and when fish is
harvested, alternative data that may be
useful in tracing product to time and
place of harvest, and methods for
verifying the accuracy of data used for
this purpose.
What was the chain of custody through
the supply chain to point of entry into
U.S. commerce?
As described above, identifying the
point of harvest within an area or
aquaculture facility is relatively
straightforward. However, the global
market for fish and seafood products
supports complex supply chains,
including transshipment to one or more
locations prior to entry into U.S.
commerce. Shipments may be comingled with similar species from other
locations, complicating the process of
traceability to point of harvest. An
effective traceability system will require
information on each point of landing,
transshipment and processing
throughout the fish or seafood product’s
chain of custody to point of entry into
U.S. commerce. This would include not
only the harvest for each shipment, but
information regarding any further
processing and transshipment that
occurred prior to entry into U.S.
Commerce. Comments are requested as
to the level of detailed information that
should be required for country of
harvest, transshipment, processing and
re-processing, and co-mingling of
product or species. The Committee
requests comments regarding the
appropriate data and standards for
effective traceability at each stage of the
supply chain from harvest to point of
entry into U.S. commerce.
How the data are to be collected?
The Committee recommends use of
the International Trade Data System
(ITDS) as the data collection portal for
imports of species identified as at-risk of
IUU fishing and seafood fraud. In an
effort to streamline the import and
export process, President Obama signed
an Executive Order in February 2014
that requires ITDS to be completed and
fully utilized by government agencies by
December 2016. ITDS is a ‘‘single
window’’ system which allows
businesses to communicate with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and its Partner Government Agencies
(PGAs) when importing and exporting
goods, eliminating the often duplicative
and paper-based processes used
previously. With ITDS, companies
submit their information electronically,
and the data elements can then be
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices
quickly and efficiently retrieved and
used by the Federal agencies that
require them. More information on ITDS
can be found at www.itds.gov.
Consistency Across Federal Agencies
and Interoperability With Existing
International, Federal, State, and NonGovernmental Information Systems
Data at the border is currently
collected both in electronic and hard
copy formats. Hard copies are often
scanned and then stored for future use.
Use of the ITDS will not only simplify
the collection of data by utilizing an
electronic format, but interoperability of
information is assured between all
Federal agencies as only one data
system is employed. The Committee
anticipates the collection of data in
electronic format using ITDS for ease of
collection. With respect to
interoperability of data captured and
utilized by existing information
systems, it is the Committee’s intent to
avoid, to the extent practicable, the
establishment of redundant data
collection processes or protocols that
undermine the function and
effectiveness of existing systems. While
it is unlikely that ITDS will be capable
of automatically ‘‘retrieving’’ data from
existing databases, the Committee is
interested in comments describing
methods that will facilitate the use of
existing systems to provide data
identified in future traceability rule
making. Comments are also requested
regarding the proposed use of the ITDS,
the potential use of other systems the
Federal agencies should consider at the
border, and if there are any barriers,
known or perceived, in using the ITDS
system.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Who would collect the data?
Use of the ITDS system to collect
proposed data elements for imports of
species identified as at risk of IUU
fishing and seafood fraud would require
the importer (or exporter to the USA) to
enter the information along with any
necessary supporting documentation.
The importer would be responsible for
ensuring that the necessary data
elements are collected along the supply
chain and provided to CBP through
ITDS at the point of entry.
How will the data be verified?
A key element of these operational
standards is data verification. The
operational standards must provide
relevant Federal agencies the ability to
verify that documentation for at-risk
seafood products is complete and
accurate upon entry into U.S.
commerce, and validate country-specific
documents and certifications. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Jun 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
operational standards must also
incorporate a system of data checks and
periodic auditing. A system of traceback audits would determine the quality
and accuracy of the data submitted and
identify missing information and
discrepancies. Comments are requested
regarding a system of audits of the
documentation system for quality and
accuracy.
Data Security
As the additional data elements will
be submitted through the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE)/ITDS
single window as part of an entry filing,
the supplemental data will only be
accessible to the entry filer, CBP, and
Federal agencies with authorization to
review entry filings for the designated
commodities. Consequently, data
security concerns are minimal.
Comments regarding additional
considerations with respect to data
security are requested.
Following the public comment
period, the NOC Committee will take
the input received into consideration
while finalizing recommendations that
will be sent forward for appropriate
agency action by September 2015, as
outlined in the implementation plan for
Task Force Recommendations 14 and
15.
Dated: June 26, 2015.
John Henderschedt,
Director, Office for International Affairs and
Seafood Inspection, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–16185 Filed 6–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Southeast Region
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and
Related Requirements
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before August 31, 2015.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37603
Direct all written comments
to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at JJessup@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Adam Bailey, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th
Ave. S, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, (727)
824–5305, adam.bailey@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
I. Abstract
This request is for revision and
extension of a currently approved
information collection.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
authorizes the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (Gulf Council) and
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (South Atlantic Council) to
prepare and amend fishery management
plans for any fishery in Federal waters
under their respective jurisdictions.
NMFS and the Gulf Council manage the
reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico
(Gulf) under the Reef Fish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). NMFS and the
South Atlantic Council manage the
fishery for rock shrimp in the South
Atlantic under the Shrimp FMP. The
vessel monitoring system (VMS)
regulations for the Gulf reef fish fishery
and the South Atlantic rock shrimp
fishery may be found at 50 CFR 622.28
and 622.205, respectively.
The FMPs contains several areaspecific regulations where fishing is
restricted or prohibited in order to
protect habitat or spawning
aggregations, or to control fishing
pressure. Unlike size, bag, and trip
limits, where the catch can be
monitored on shore when a vessel
returns to port, area restrictions require
at-sea enforcement. However, at-sea
enforcement of offshore area restrictions
is difficult due to the distance from
shore and the limited number of patrol
vessels, resulting in a need to improve
enforceability of area fishing restrictions
through remote sensing methods. In
addition, all fishing gears are subject to
some area fishing restrictions. Because
of the sizes of these areas and the
distances from shore, the effectiveness
of enforcement through over flights and
at-sea interception is limited. An
electronic VMS allows a more effective
means to monitor vessels for intrusions
into restricted areas.
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37601-37603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16185]
[[Page 37601]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD991
Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and
Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan for
Implementing Recommendations 14/15; Determining Types of Information
and Operational Standards Related to Data Collection
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Ocean Council Committee on IUU Fishing and
Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee) is seeking public input on the minimum
types of information necessary for an effective seafood traceability
program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, as well as the
operational standards related to collecting, verifying and securing
that data.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 31, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, by either 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 Melissa Beaudry, Quality
Officer, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, 1315
East-West Highway, Suite 9511, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are 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. Anonymous comments will be accepted (enter ``N/A''
in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Beaudry, Quality Officer,
Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection; 301-427-8308.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task
Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-
chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, published its Action
Plan for Implementing the Task Force Recommendations (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html).
The Action Plan articulates the steps that Federal agencies will
take to implement the recommendations the Task Force made to the
President in December 2014 on a comprehensive framework of integrated
programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The plan identifies
actions that will strengthen enforcement, create and expand
partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and non-
governmental organizations, and create a risk-based traceability
program to track seafood from harvest to point of entry into U.S.
commerce, including the use of existing traceability mechanisms. The
work initiated by the Task Force is now under the oversight of a
National Ocean Council (NOC) Committee. The design of the traceability
program will be led by an interagency working group.
This notice is among the first steps in implementing Task Force
Recommendations 14 and 15, specifically, developing types of
information and operational standards related to data collection. The
data collected will establish a foundation for the risk-based seafood
traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud from
harvest (wild-capture or aquaculture) to point of entry into U.S.
commerce, as described in the Task Force Action Plan. This data is
being collected for use by appropriate government officials.
With this notice, the Committee is soliciting comments on the
minimum types of information that should be collected and the
operational standards to be applied to this data. The data collected
should include, but is not limited to, the following information:
(1) Who harvested or produced the fish?
Name of harvesting vessel;
Flag State of harvesting vessel;
Name of farm or aquaculture facility;
Name of processor; and
Type of fishing gear.
(2) What fish was harvested and processed?
Species of fish;
Product description;
Name of product;
Form of the product; and
Quantity and/or weight of the product.
(3) Where and when was the fish harvested and landed?
Area of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest;
Harvest date(s);
Name and location of aquaculture facility;
Point of first landing;
Date of first landing;
The Committee also believes the following information logically
should be considered:
(4) What was the chain of custody of the fish or fish product
through the supply chain to point of entry into U.S. commerce
including:
Transshipment of product; and,
Processing, re-processing, or co-mingling of product
The Committee seeks comment regarding the information needed to
answer the four questions posed above, as well as any additional
information necessary for the implementation of an effective risk-based
seafood traceability program. An effective traceability system must be
capable of capturing a complex supply chain which may involve
reprocessing, mixed species, cold storage holding, trans-shipments,
etc., as well as the simple harvest of a single species.
Given the scope of the traceability system anticipated in the
Action Plan, additional data required for fish harvested in U.S.
domestic fisheries is minimal because domestically harvested fish
enters U.S. commerce at its first point of landing and, to a large
extent, relevant data are already generated and reported through
existing state and federal permitting, catch monitoring, and landing
reports implemented under federal and state fishery management plans.
At-risk species that are harvested domestically, exported for
reprocessing, and then re-imported to the U.S. may require traceability
throughout that entire supply chain.
The Operational standards to apply to the data collected may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
How the data are to be collected;
Interoperability with existing traceability systems;
Who has responsibility for collecting the data;
How the data will be verified; and
Data security.
Who harvested or produced the fish?
This information establishes the starting point of the traceability
process. Although this information is straightforward in many cases,
operational characteristics of some
[[Page 37602]]
fisheries present challenges. Traceability of an operation in which
easily identified, individual vessels deliver directly to a buyer or
processor may be relatively simple. However in a fishery with tender
vessels taking deliveries from many smaller harvesting boats,
collection of this information could become burdensome. In this
instance, the Committee currently anticipates requiring only the name
of the tender vessels making traceable deliveries to a buyer or
processor. Comments are requested as to what information, if any, is
necessary regarding the harvesting vessel name and flag state and
authorization to harvest the species in question for the implementation
of an effective traceability program.
Aquacultured species are easier to trace back to a particular pond
or region, and the Action Plan states that the traceability process
shall start at the point of harvest. It is therefore unlikely that
facility information for the raising of the breeders or the
fingerlings, depending upon the fishery, will be included in the
traceability program. Also, the body of water for a farm-raised species
could have several aquaculture facilities in place by different
companies. The Committee requests comments addressing the whether the
aquaculture facility or the body of water is appropriate point of
origin in a traceability system for aquacultured species.
Processor and gear type are common elements in many fishery
traceability systems. Processors may already be required to trace their
products through some portion of the supply chain. The Committee
considers information related to processing and/or reprocessing of
product to be critical to tracking chain-of-custody, notes that this
information is required for existing global traceability programs, and
anticipates the requirement of such data as a part of this traceability
program. This would include information about primary processors and
secondary processors who maintained custody of the shipment prior to
entering the United States.
In the context of seafood traceability, gear information helps to
link specific vessels to the fishery in which they participate and the
species they harvest. The Committee intends to require gear type
information for the proposed traceability system and requests comments
as to whether and what gear type information should be collected for
traceability.
What fish was harvested and processed?
A traceability system to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud
requires certain minimal information, including the species of the
fish, the quantity and/or weight of the catch, and the form of the
product. The state of the shipment (live, raw/fresh, or frozen) and the
type of product informs the calculation of the actual amount of fish
harvested, as well as the potential risk for fraud associated with the
product. The Committee therefore intends to request this information
and seeks comments regarding its use for traceability purposes as well
as suggestions for alternative approaches to trace fish and seafood
products in various forms.
The Committee is considering a range of options with respect to
species identification, including scientific names, names on the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approved list, and common or market names.
Use of scientific names may minimize confusion at the border. As common
or market names tend to group similar species, requiring the scientific
name could dramatically increase the number of species names listed,
thereby increasing the possibility of reporting error. However, using
common or market names could be used to mask the import of a species at
risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approved list of fish names for labeling of fish in the
United States may not cover all fish entering the United States and
adding a market or common name to that list may take time. Comments are
requested as to whether scientific names, common, usual, or market
names, or some combination, should serve as the basis for species
identification in the traceability program and be utilized for
identifying imported product at the point of entry into U.S. commerce.
Where and when was the fish harvested and landed?
Collection of information identifying the area of harvest or the
region in which an aquaculture facility is located, and the time at
which the harvest took place, represents the initial ``link'' in the
supply chain. It represents the action back to which the at-risk
species entering U.S. commerce will be traced. For wild-capture
fisheries, the Committee intends to identify area of harvest by FAO
catch area designation or comparable designation of fresh-water
sources. The Committee has identified area or body of water and
facility as data required for establishing where and when fish was
harvested from an aquaculture source. The Committee seeks comments on
the adequacy of this information for identifying where and when fish is
harvested, alternative data that may be useful in tracing product to
time and place of harvest, and methods for verifying the accuracy of
data used for this purpose.
What was the chain of custody through the supply chain to point of
entry into U.S. commerce?
As described above, identifying the point of harvest within an area
or aquaculture facility is relatively straightforward. However, the
global market for fish and seafood products supports complex supply
chains, including transshipment to one or more locations prior to entry
into U.S. commerce. Shipments may be co-mingled with similar species
from other locations, complicating the process of traceability to point
of harvest. An effective traceability system will require information
on each point of landing, transshipment and processing throughout the
fish or seafood product's chain of custody to point of entry into U.S.
commerce. This would include not only the harvest for each shipment,
but information regarding any further processing and transshipment that
occurred prior to entry into U.S. Commerce. Comments are requested as
to the level of detailed information that should be required for
country of harvest, transshipment, processing and re-processing, and
co-mingling of product or species. The Committee requests comments
regarding the appropriate data and standards for effective traceability
at each stage of the supply chain from harvest to point of entry into
U.S. commerce.
How the data are to be collected?
The Committee recommends use of the International Trade Data System
(ITDS) as the data collection portal for imports of species identified
as at-risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. In an effort to streamline
the import and export process, President Obama signed an Executive
Order in February 2014 that requires ITDS to be completed and fully
utilized by government agencies by December 2016. ITDS is a ``single
window'' system which allows businesses to communicate with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Partner Government Agencies
(PGAs) when importing and exporting goods, eliminating the often
duplicative and paper-based processes used previously. With ITDS,
companies submit their information electronically, and the data
elements can then be
[[Page 37603]]
quickly and efficiently retrieved and used by the Federal agencies that
require them. More information on ITDS can be found at www.itds.gov.
Consistency Across Federal Agencies and Interoperability With Existing
International, Federal, State, and Non-Governmental Information Systems
Data at the border is currently collected both in electronic and
hard copy formats. Hard copies are often scanned and then stored for
future use. Use of the ITDS will not only simplify the collection of
data by utilizing an electronic format, but interoperability of
information is assured between all Federal agencies as only one data
system is employed. The Committee anticipates the collection of data in
electronic format using ITDS for ease of collection. With respect to
interoperability of data captured and utilized by existing information
systems, it is the Committee's intent to avoid, to the extent
practicable, the establishment of redundant data collection processes
or protocols that undermine the function and effectiveness of existing
systems. While it is unlikely that ITDS will be capable of
automatically ``retrieving'' data from existing databases, the
Committee is interested in comments describing methods that will
facilitate the use of existing systems to provide data identified in
future traceability rule making. Comments are also requested regarding
the proposed use of the ITDS, the potential use of other systems the
Federal agencies should consider at the border, and if there are any
barriers, known or perceived, in using the ITDS system.
Who would collect the data?
Use of the ITDS system to collect proposed data elements for
imports of species identified as at risk of IUU fishing and seafood
fraud would require the importer (or exporter to the USA) to enter the
information along with any necessary supporting documentation. The
importer would be responsible for ensuring that the necessary data
elements are collected along the supply chain and provided to CBP
through ITDS at the point of entry.
How will the data be verified?
A key element of these operational standards is data verification.
The operational standards must provide relevant Federal agencies the
ability to verify that documentation for at-risk seafood products is
complete and accurate upon entry into U.S. commerce, and validate
country-specific documents and certifications. The operational
standards must also incorporate a system of data checks and periodic
auditing. A system of trace-back audits would determine the quality and
accuracy of the data submitted and identify missing information and
discrepancies. Comments are requested regarding a system of audits of
the documentation system for quality and accuracy.
Data Security
As the additional data elements will be submitted through the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)/ITDS single window as part of an
entry filing, the supplemental data will only be accessible to the
entry filer, CBP, and Federal agencies with authorization to review
entry filings for the designated commodities. Consequently, data
security concerns are minimal. Comments regarding additional
considerations with respect to data security are requested.
Following the public comment period, the NOC Committee will take
the input received into consideration while finalizing recommendations
that will be sent forward for appropriate agency action by September
2015, as outlined in the implementation plan for Task Force
Recommendations 14 and 15.
Dated: June 26, 2015.
John Henderschedt,
Director, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16185 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P