6210 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(L). 

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/

participation by affected local entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. Consultation and participation 

by affected local entities is authorized 

by the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 

1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12–9–5(b)(17)) 

and the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 

391–3–1–.15—‘‘Transportation 

Conformity’’, which defines the 

consultation procedures for areas 

subject to transportation conformity. 

Furthermore, GAEPD has demonstrated 

consultation with, and participation by, 

affected local entities through its work 

with local political subdivisions during 

the developing of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and has worked with 

the Federal Land Managers as a 

requirement of the regional haze rule. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Georgia’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with affected local entities 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is 

proposing to approve Georgia’s October 

22, 2013, SIP submission as 

supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above 

described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve Georgia’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS because the submission is 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 12, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02303 Filed 2–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 600 

[Docket No. 150507434–5999–01] 

RIN 0648–BF09 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act; 

Seafood Import Monitoring Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), this proposed 

rule would establish filing and 

recordkeeping procedures relating to the 

importation of certain fish and fish 

products, in order to implement the 

MSA’s prohibition on the import and 

trade, in interstate or foreign commerce, 

of fish taken, possessed, transported or 

sold in violation of any foreign law or 

regulation. The information to be filed 

is proposed to be collected at the time 

of entry, and makes use of an electronic 

single window consistent with the 

Safety and Accountability for Every 

(SAFE) Port Act of 2006 and other 

applicable statutes. Specifically, NMFS 

proposes to integrate collection of catch 

and landing documentation for certain 

fish and fish products within the 

government-wide International Trade 

Data System (ITDS) and require 

electronic information collection 

through the Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE) maintained by the 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Under these procedures, NMFS would 

require an annually renewable 

International Fisheries Trade Permit 

(IFTP) and specific data for certain fish 

and fish products to be filed and 

retained as a condition of import to 

enable the United States to exclude the 

entry into commerce of products of 

illegal fishing activities. The 

information to be collected and retained 

will help authorities verify that the fish 

or fish products were lawfully acquired 

by providing information that traces 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6211 

each import shipment from point of 

harvest to entry-into commerce. The 

rule will also decrease the incidence of 

seafood fraud by collecting information 

at import and requiring retention of 

documentation so that the information 

reported (e.g., regarding species and 

harvest location) can be verified. This 

proposed rule stipulates the catch and 

landing data for imports of certain fish 

and fish products which would be 

required to be submitted electronically 

to NMFS through ACE and the 

requirements for recordkeeping 

concerning such imports. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by April 5, 2016. Public 

webinars will take place from 3:00 to 

5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on 

February 18 and 24, 2016. An in-person 

public listening session will be held in 

Boston, Massachusetts from 11:00 a.m. 

to 1:00 p.m. eastern standard time on 

March 7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this 

action, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2015–0122, may be submitted by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0122, click 

the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

• Mail: Mark Wildman, International 

Fisheries Division, Office for 

International Affairs and Seafood 

Inspection, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (for example, name and 

address) voluntarily submitted by the 

commenter may be publicly accessible. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS 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, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable 

document file (PDF) formats only. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to the NOAA 

Fisheries Office for International Affairs 

and Seafood Inspection and by email to 

OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to (202) 395–7285. 

Information on how to participate in 

the February 18 and 24, 2016 public 

webinars will be posted online at 

www.iuufishing.noaa.gov. The March 7, 

2016 public listening session will take 

place at the Seafood Expo North 

America, Boston Convention and 

Exhibition Center, Room 104A, 415 

Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210. All 

information about these public 

information sessions will be posted 

online at www.iuufishing.noaa.gov. 

Special Accommodations 

The March 7, 2016 public listening 

session is physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Mark Wildman, at (301) 427–8350, at 

least 5 days prior to the meeting date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Wildman, Office for International 

Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA 

Fisheries (phone (301) 427–8350, or 

email mark.wildman@noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 

(IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task 

Force), co-chaired by the Departments of 

State and Commerce, with membership 

including a number of other Federal 

agency and White House offices: The 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, 

Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Interior, and Justice; the 

Federal Trade Commission; the U.S. 

Agency for International Development; 

the Council on Environmental Quality; 

the Office of Management and Budget; 

the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy; the National Security Council; 

and the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative. 

The Task Force was directed to report 

to the President ‘‘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 were provided 

to the President through the National 

Ocean Council, and NMFS requested 

comments from the public on how to 

effectively implement the 

recommendations of the Task Force (79 

FR 75536, December 18, 2014). 

Oversight for implementing the 

recommendations of the Task Force has 

been charged to the National Ocean 

Council Standing Committee on IUU 

Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC 

Committee). 

Recommendation 14 concerns the 

development of a risk-based traceability 

program (including defining operational 

standards and the types of information 

to be collected) as a means to combat 

IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 

Recommendation 15 calls for the 

implementation of the first phase of that 

risk-based traceability program that 

tracks fish and fish products identified 

as being at risk of IUU fishing or seafood 

fraud from point of harvest to point of 

entry into U.S. commerce. The first step 

taken to address Recommendations 14 

and 15 was the identification of those 

species likely to be at risk of IUU fishing 

or seafood fraud. See At-Risk Species 

section below for further detail. The 

second step taken is this proposed 

rulemaking, which would establish data 

reporting and related operational 

requirements at the point of entry into 

U.S. commerce for imported fish and 

fish products of at-risk species. The data 

reporting requirements would apply to 

importers of record. The importers of 

record are the importers as identified in 

CBP entry filings for shipments 

containing the designated at-risk 

species. Customs brokers may fulfill 

these requirements on behalf of the 

importer of record at the importer of 

record’s request. This rule implements 

MSA section 307(1)(Q), which makes it 

unlawful to import, export, transport, 

sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in 

interstate or foreign commerce any fish 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any foreign law or 

regulation or any treaty or binding 

conservation measure to which the 

United States is a party. See 16 U.S.C. 

1857(1)(Q). 

As indicated in the Task Force’s 

recommendations to the President, it is 

the goal of the U.S. government ‘‘to 

eventually expand the program to all 

seafood at first point of sale or import.’’ 

The process for expansion will account 

for, among other factors, consideration 

of authorities needed for more robust 

implementation, stakeholder input, and 

the cost-effectiveness of program 

expansion. By December 2016, the NOC 

Committee will issue a report that 

includes an evaluation of the program as 

set out in a final rule and implemented 

to date, as well as recommendations of 

how and under what timeframe it would 

be expanded. 

International Trade Data System (ITDS) 

The SAFE Port Act (Pub. L. 109–347) 

requires all Federal agencies with a role 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6212 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

in import admissibility decisions to 

participate in a single window system 

that allows information to be collected 

electronically through ITDS. 

Department of the Treasury has the U.S. 

Government lead on ITDS development 

and partner government agency 

integration. CBP developed the 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) as single window for the 

collection and dissemination of 

information to support ITDS. To comply 

with SAFE Port Act, NMFS is in the 

process of establishing ITDS as the 

electronic means of collecting NMFSrequired catch and trade data at the 

point of entry for imports subject to 

existing trade monitoring programs. (80 

FR 81251, December 29, 2015.) NMFS 

anticipates completing the final ITDS 

rule prior to finalizing this rule that 

would require entry filers, when 

importing at-risk species, to submit data 

elements at the point of entry into U.S. 

commerce and use the CBP ACE portal 

for submission of import data and/or 

document images (as applicable for HTS 

codes covered under multiple 

programs). 

This proposed rule would also require 

the importer of record to obtain a permit 

to import a designated at-risk species 

(see International Fisheries Trade 

Permit section below for more detail). 

At-risk species, and some products 

derived from such species, would be 

identified by Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) codes (in combination 

with other codes where applicable), and 

entries filed under these codes would be 

subject to the additional data 

requirements set forth in this proposed 

rule. While some HTS codes will have 

a direct correspondence to the at-risk 

species, other applicable HTS codes, 

particularly for processed products, may 

be broader (i.e., potentially including 

species other than those designated atrisk.) In such cases, supplementary 

product identifiers supplied at entry 

filing (e.g., acceptable market name, 

scientific name) would be used to 

determine if the shipment includes atrisk species and is subject to additional 

data collection. NMFS is proposing to 

exclude highly processed fish products 

(fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, 

cakes, puddings, and other similar 

highly processed fish products) from the 

additional data requirements in cases 

for which the species of fish comprising 

the product or the harvesting event(s) or 

aquaculture operation(s) of the 

shipment of the product cannot be 

feasibly identified. 

Additional species and products may 

be subsequently identified for inclusion 

in the Seafood Traceability Program as 

part of the continuing process to 

implement Recommendations 14 and 

15. Use of ITDS and the ACE portal is 

envisioned as the mechanism for 

implementing additional data collection 

requirements for imports of all fish 

species, if a decision is made to expand 

the Seafood Traceability Program, 

through future rulemaking, to include 

all fish species. 

Entry Into U.S. Commerce 

This proposed rule addresses only the 

collection of information on imported 

fish and fish products at the point of 

entry into U.S. commerce. For imported 

fish and fish products, entry into 

commerce is the landing on, bringing 

into, or introduction into, or attempted 

landing on, bringing into, or 

introduction into, any place subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States, 

whether or not such landing, bringing, 

or introduction constitutes an 

importation within the meaning of the 

customs laws of the United States. See 

16 U.S.C. 1802(22) (A) and (B). 

‘‘Imported fish and fish products’’ do 

not include transit shipments that are 

not being imported into the United 

States and therefore do not enter U.S. 

commerce. However, the permitting, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of this proposed rule 

would apply only in cases of entries for 

consumption, withdrawals from a 

bonded warehouse for consumption or 

withdrawals from a foreign trade zone 

for consumption. 

For U.S. domestic wild capture 

fisheries, entry into U.S. commerce 

occurs at the first point of landing or 

sale or transfer to a dealer or processor 

in the United States. In the case of 

harvesting vessels that process at-sea, 

transfer their catch to a processor at-sea, 

transfer their catch to a carrier or tender 

vessel at-sea, or transship their catch in 

port, entry into commerce is the 

offloading of the transferred and/or 

processed product for transshipment in 

an established U.S. port or roadstead. 

For U.S. domestic aquaculture products, 

entry into U.S. commerce is the first sale 

to a processing facility or directly to a 

consumer market. 

For the designated at-risk species, 

equivalent information is already being 

collected at the point of entry into 

commerce for the products of U.S. 

domestic fisheries pursuant to various 

Federal and/or State fishery 

management and reporting programs. 

For this reason, this proposed rule does 

not duplicate data reporting and record 

retention requirements already in place 

for products of U.S. domestic fisheries, 

and instead focuses on accessing the 

data necessary to establish traceability 

from point of harvest to entry into U.S. 

commerce for imported fish and fish 

products. Together, the requirements 

already in place for products of U.S. 

domestic fisheries and the requirements 

proposed in this rule for imported fish 

and fish products provide a framework 

for the designated at-risk species to trace 

seafood, whether domestic or imported, 

back to the point of harvest or capture 

to verify that seafood entering U.S. 

commerce is both legally caught and not 

fraudulently represented. 

With respect to aquaculture, U.S. 

domestic aquaculture is largely 

regulated at the state level. NOAA 

understands that U.S. states generally 

do not collect with respect to products 

of U.S. aquaculture operations the data 

this rule proposes to collect on imports. 

This is a concern as the IUU Task Force 

Action Plan calls for a traceability 

program that applies without regard to 

whether seafood is domestic or 

imported to ensure that seafood entering 

U.S. commerce is not the product of 

IUU fishing or fraud. NMFS is aware of 

gaps in the collection of traceability 

information for domestic aquacultureraised shrimp and abalone, and is 

working with its federal and state 

partners to identify and implement 

measures to address those gaps. While 

it remains NMFS’ full intention to 

include shrimp and abalone in the final 

rule, implementation of measures to 

address those gaps may affect the timing 

of implementation of the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for imports 

of shrimp and abalone. In particular, if 

gaps remain unaddressed by the time of 

publication of a final rule, NMFS 

intends to delay implementation of the 

rule for shrimp and abalone until such 

time as, working with its state and 

federal partners, it is able to determine 

that the gaps have been addressed and 

publishes a notice in the Federal 

Register specifying implementation of 

this rule for those species. 

At-Risk Species 

A working group including 

representatives from NMFS and other 

Federal agency partners solicited 

comment on principles to be applied in 

the identification of fish species likely 

to be most at risk of IUU fishing or 

seafood fraud (80 FR 24246, April 30, 

2015). Taking into consideration public 

comment received, the working group 

evaluated the strength and utility of 

various indicators of IUU fishing or 

seafood fraud as well as their 

measurability and the robustness of data 

available to assess them. The working 

group endeavored to minimize overlap 

of principles to ensure that alignment 

with multiple principles did not 

overstate associated risk, and also to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6213 

distinguish between risk of IUU fishing 

and risk of seafood fraud. 

The working group identified the 

following draft principles: Enforcement 

capability, existence of a catch 

documentation scheme, complexity of 

the supply chain, known species 

substitution, history of mislabeling 

(other than misidentification of species), 

and history of fisheries violations. 

Applying those principles to a base list 

of species, thirteen fish species/species 

groups were identified as likely to be 

most at risk of IUU fishing or seafood 

fraud. NMFS solicited public comment 

on the draft principles and draft list of 

at-risk species (80 FR 45955, August 3, 

2015). After taking into consideration 

public comment, NMFS issued final 

principles and applied those principles 

to determine a list of at-risk species (80 

FR 66867, October 30, 2015). Public 

comments received in response to each 

of the above notices can be viewed 

through the docket created on the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090. 

Pursuant to the process described 

above, NMFS issued a list of at-risk 

species and species groups that 

includes: Abalone; Atlantic Cod; Pacific 

Cod; Blue Crab; Red King Crab; 

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); Grouper; Red 

Snapper; Sea Cucumber; Shrimp; 

Sharks; Swordfish; and Albacore, 

Bigeye, Skipjack, and Yellowfin Tuna. 

Although bluefin tuna species were 

determined to be at a lower risk of IUU 

fishing and seafood fraud than other 

tuna species and were not included on 

the list of at-risk species, the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements 

proposed in this rule apply to HTS 

codes for fish and fish products of all 

tuna species including bluefin tuna. 

NMFS notes that bluefin tuna was 

historically a target of IUU fishing, and 

in response, two regional fisheries 

organizations implemented a catch 

documentation scheme which together 

include two of the three species worldwide. While NMFS continues to view 

the bluefin tuna to be at considerably 

lower risk of IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud than other tuna species and has 

made no modification to the list of atrisk species published on October 30, it 

proposes to cover bluefin tuna in this 

proposed rule (and has therefore 

included the HTS codes for bluefin tuna 

in the above list) in order to establish 

consistent treatment of tuna species, 

and avoid possible concerns that one 

species of tuna may be treated less 

favorably than others. 

Although NOAA has, as discussed, 

previously sought comment on the list 

of species to which this rule will apply 

(80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015), NOAA 

recognizes that the public may further 

comment on the list of species and 

species groups, including whether any 

species should be added or deleted. It 

would be helpful if such comments 

include information on the factors 

established in Recommendations 14 and 

15 of the IUU Task Force Action Plan. 

Because NOAA responded on October 

30, 2015 (80 FR 66867) to comments 

received on the proposed list that was 

published on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 

45955), NOAA requests that comments 

not be submitted on this proposal that 

are duplicative of those submitted on 

the list of species and contain no new 

information. 

Under this proposed rule, importers 

would therefore be subject to the 

permitting, reporting and recording 

keeping requirements, which are 

described below, with respect to 

imports of the species and species 

groups as proposed, subject to revision 

at the time of issuance of the final rule. 

Entries of the fish and fish product of 

species covered by this rule filed under 

the following HTS codes would be 

designated in ACE as requiring the 

additional data in order to obtain release 

of the inbound shipment: 

HTS code Commodity description 

0301940100 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN ATLANTIC, PACIFIC LIVE. 

0301950000 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN SOUTHERN LIVE. 

0302310000 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE FRESH. 

0302320000 ............................................................................... TUNA YELLOWFIN FRESH. 

0302330000 ............................................................................... TUNA SKIPJACK FRESH. 

0302340000 ............................................................................... TUNA BIGEYE FRESH. 

0302350100 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN ATLANTIC, PACIFIC FRESH. 

0302360000 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN SOUTHERN FRESH. 

0302470010 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH STEAKS FRESH. 

0302470090 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH FRESH. 

0302510010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC FRESH. 

0302510090 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FRESH. 

0302810010 ............................................................................... SHARK DOGFISH FRESH. 

0302810090 ............................................................................... SHARK NSPF FRESH. 

0302895058 ............................................................................... SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FRESH. 

0302895061 ............................................................................... GROUPER FRESH. 

0302895072 ............................................................................... DOLPHINFISH FRESH. 

0303410000 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE FROZEN. 

0303420020 ............................................................................... TUNA YELLOWFIN WHOLE FROZEN. 

0303420040 ............................................................................... TUNA YELLOWFIN EVISCERATED HEAD-ON FROZEN. 

0303420060 ............................................................................... TUNA YELLOWFIN EVISCERATED HEAD-OFF FROZEN. 

0303430000 ............................................................................... TUNA SKIPJACK FROZEN. 

0303440000 ............................................................................... TUNA BIGEYE FROZEN. 

0303450110 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN ATLANTIC FROZEN. 

0303450150 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN PACIFIC FROZEN. 

0303460000 ............................................................................... TUNA BLUEFIN SOUTHERN FROZEN. 

0303490200 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF FROZEN. 

0303570010 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH STEAKS FROZEN. 

0303570090 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH FROZEN. 

0303630010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC FROZEN. 

0303630090 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FROZEN. 

0303810010 ............................................................................... SHARK DOGFISH FROZEN. 

0303810090 ............................................................................... SHARK NSPF FROZEN. 

0303890067 ............................................................................... SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FROZEN. 

0303890070 ............................................................................... GROUPER FROZEN. 

0304440010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC FILLET FRESH. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6214 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

HTS code Commodity description 

0304440015 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET FRESH. 

0304450000 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH FILLET FRESH. 

0304530010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC MEAT FRESH. 

0304530010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC MEAT FRESH. 

0304530015 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MEAT FRESH. 

0304530015 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MEAT FRESH. 

0304540000 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH MEAT FRESH. 

0304711000 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN >4.5KG. 

0304711000 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN >4.5KG. 

0304715000 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET FROZEN. 

0304715000 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET FROZEN. 

0304870000 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF FILLET FROZEN. 

0304895055 ............................................................................... DOLPHINFISH FILLET FROZEN. 

0304895055 ............................................................................... DOLPHINFISH FILLET FROZEN. 

0304911000 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH MEAT FROZEN >6.8KG. 

0304919000 ............................................................................... SWORDFISH MEAT FROZEN NOT >6.8KG. 

0304951010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MINCED FROZEN >6.8KG. 

0304951010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MINCED FROZEN >6.8KG. 

0304991190 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF MEAT FROZEN >6.8KG. 

0305320010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 

0305494020 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD, CUSK, HADDOCK, HAKE, POLLOCK SMOKED. 

0305510000 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF DRIED. 

0305620010 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT >50%. 

0305620025 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT BET 45–50%. 

0305620030 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT BET 43–45%. 

0305620045 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT NOT >43%. 

0305620050 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE >50%. 

0305620060 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT 45–50%. 

0305620070 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT 43–45%. 

0305620080 ............................................................................... GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE NOT >43%. 

0305710000 ............................................................................... SHARK FINS. 

0306142000 ............................................................................... CRABMEAT NSPF FROZEN. 

0306144010 ............................................................................... CRAB KING FROZEN. 

0306144090 ............................................................................... CRAB NSPF FROZEN. 

0306160003 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN <15.

0306160006 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 15/20. 

0306160009 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 21/25. 

0306160012 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 26/30. 

0306160015 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 31/40. 

0306160018 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 41/50. 

0306160021 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 51/60. 

0306160024 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 61/70. 

0306160027 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN >70.

0306160040 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER PEELED FROZEN. 

0306170003 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN <15.

0306170006 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 15/20. 

0306170009 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 21/25. 

0306170012 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 26/30. 

0306170015 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 31/40. 

0306170018 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 41/50. 

0306170021 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 51/60. 

0306170024 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 61/70. 

0306170027 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN >70.

0306170040 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FROZEN. 

0306260020 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 

0306260040 ............................................................................... SHRIMP COLD-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 

0306270020 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 

0306270040 ............................................................................... SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 

0308110000 ............................................................................... SEA CUCUMBERS LIVE/FRESH. 

0308190000 ............................................................................... SEA CUCUMBERS FROZEN/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 

1604141010 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) IN OIL. 

1604141091 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (OTHER) IN OIL. 

1604141099 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF IN ATC (OTHER) IN OIL. 

1604142251 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 

1604142259 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 

1604142291 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 

1604142299 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 

1604143051 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (FOIL/FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 

1604143059 ............................................................................... TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 

1604143091 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 

1604143099 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 

1604144000 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF NOT IN ATC NOT IN OIL >6.8KG. 

1604145000 ............................................................................... TUNA NSPF NOT IN ATC NOT IN OIL NOT >6.8KG. 

1605100510 ............................................................................... CRAB PRODUCTS PREPARED DINNERS IN ATC.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6215 

HTS code Commodity description 

1605100590 ............................................................................... CRAB PRODUCTS PREPARED DINNERS NOT IN ATC. 

1605102010 ............................................................................... CRABMEAT KING IN ATC. 

1605102051 ............................................................................... CRABMEAT SWIMMING (CALLINECTES) IN ATC. 

1605104002 ............................................................................... CRABMEAT KING FROZEN. 

1605104025 ............................................................................... CRABMEAT SWIMMING (CALLINECTES) FROZEN. 

1605104025 ............................................................................... CRABMEAT SWIMMING (CALLINECTES) FROZEN. 

1605211000 ............................................................................... SHRIMPS AND PRAWNS, NOT IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS. 

1605291000 ............................................................................... SHRIMPS AND PRAWNS, OTHER. 

1605570500 ............................................................................... ABALONE PRODUCTS PREPARED DINNERS. 

1605576000 ............................................................................... ABALONE PREPARED/PRESERVED. 

For the above listed HTS codes that 

may be used to make entry for 

designated at-risk species and for 

species which are not so designated, the 

scientific name of the species in the 

shipment, or a disclaimer, will be 

required to discern whether the 

shipment offered for entry is subject to 

additional data collection under the 

proposed traceability program. This 

proposed rule does not cover highly 

processed fish products (fish oil, slurry, 

sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, puddings, 

and other similar highly processed fish 

products) for which the species of fish 

comprising the product or the 

harvesting event(s) or aquaculture 

operation(s) of the shipment of the 

product cannot be feasibly identified 

and therefore HTS codes for such fish 

and fish products have not been 

included in the list above. However 

other program requirements (e.g., TTVP) 

may have data reporting requirements 

applicable to these codes. 

Regulatory requirements for reporting 

and recordkeeping already exist for 

certain products subject to this rule. In 

particular, tuna products would be 

subject to this proposed rule and are 

now subject to the Tuna Tracking and 

Verification Program (TTVP) (See http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/dolphinsafe/

tunaHTScodes.htm), which monitors 

compliance under the Dolphin 

Protection Consumer Information Act 

(DPCIA) (16 U.S.C. 1385). NMFS seeks 

to avoid any duplication of reporting 

and recordkeeping by ensuring that 

those entities currently subject to the 

TTVP requirements will only have to 

report the required information to the 

ACE portal once (and, similarly, those 

entities subject to both sets of 

requirements will only keep one set of 

records for purposes of tracking and 

verification). Furthermore, in light of 

the similarity in underlying reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements of the 

IUU fishing seafood fraud traceability 

program and the TTVP program, which 

verifies whether tuna product marketed 

as ‘‘dolphin safe’’ meets the eligibility 

conditions for the dolphin safe label, 

NMFS intends to ensure that any future 

changes to the IUU fishing and risk of 

seafood fraud requirements such as 

converting certain recordkeeping 

requirements to a reporting requirement, 

as discussed below, will be replicated in 

the TTVP program (through the 

inclusion of appropriate HTS codes) so 

that entities serving the U.S. tuna 

product market will not be subject to 

conflicting reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. Comments regarding HTS 

codes should address the extent to 

which the listed codes accurately reflect 

the potential universe of products 

associated with the list of at-risk species 

and the cost effectiveness of including 

more or fewer codes. 

Data for Reporting and Recordkeeping 

The working group considered the 

minimum types of information that 

should be reported in order to 

determine that imports of at-risk species 

are not products of illegal fishing or are 

fraudulently represented. The area of 

harvest or the location of the 

aquaculture facility, and the time at 

which the harvest took place, represents 

the initial ‘‘link’’ in the supply chain. 

At-risk species entering U.S. commerce 

will be traced to their harvest and its 

authorization. Information on each 

point of transshipment and processing 

throughout the fish or fish product’s 

chain of custody culminating at the 

point of entry into U.S. commerce can 

also be used to trace product back to 

point of harvest. 

The data to be reported for at-risk 

species would be in addition to the 

information required by CBP as part of 

normal entry processing via the ACE 

portal. To avoid duplication, the 

interagency working group considered 

data that are already collected by CBP 

on the entry/entry summary, and data 

that are, or will be, collected via ACE by 

NMFS and other ITDS partner 

government agencies (e.g., Food and 

Drug Administration, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of State). 

NMFS issued a notice (80 FR 37601, 

July 1, 2015) to request 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. A number of respondents from the 

trade community expressed concern 

that any additional documentation and 

the electronic collection of data would 

create a burden to the industry, and 

could compromise the confidential 

relationships between buyers and 

suppliers. While changes will need to be 

made that may pose a challenge in the 

near term for some industry members, it 

is anticipated that the long-term benefits 

of electronic data collection will 

outweigh these challenges. To address 

concerns about data confidentiality, 

data security will be given the highest 

priority. Information collected via ACE 

and maintained in CBP systems is 

highly sensitive commercial, financial 

and proprietary information, generally 

exempt from disclosure pursuant to the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(4)) and prohibited from 

disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act 

(18 U.S.C. 1905). NMFS further notes 

that information required to be 

submitted to the agency under the MSA 

is subject to MSA confidentiality of 

information requirements at 16 U.S.C. 

1881a(b). 

Several comments expressed the 

desire for all fish species to be included 

in the initial phase of the traceability 

program, not just the subset of identified 

at-risk species. Others commented that 

monitoring and control should not stop 

at the point of entry into U.S. 

commerce, but carry all the way through 

to the final retail consumer, where many 

feel that most fraud occurs, especially in 

terms of mislabeling. Although this 

proposed rule is the initial phase, and 

is designed in such a way that it can be 

expanded to eventually include all 

species, as warranted by risk analysis, it 

is not designed to expand traceability 

from the point of entry into commerce 

to the final consumer. As noted earlier, 

the MSA makes it unlawful to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce any fish taken, possessed, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6216 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

transported or sold in violation of any 

foreign law or regulation. Other state 

and Federal agencies have broader 

authority regarding mislabeling and 

other misrepresentation of food 

products and consumer protection that 

may be applied at other points in the 

supply chain up to the final sale. 

The comments reflected almost 

universal support for the use of 

scientific names for accurate species 

identification, with the addition of FDAapproved market names on consumer 

labeling for user-friendliness. Many of 

the comments suggested that the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO) Fishing Area alone 

is not sufficient to identify a precise 

location of harvest, and that fishing 

location should be more closely defined 

by including the country of origin (for 

product harvested within another 

country’s waters), regional designation, 

or even GPS coordinates. 

The domestic fishing community also 

expressed the desire for importers to be 

held to the same documentation 

standards that apply to U.S. fisheries 

because they feel that they ‘‘already 

provide a staggering amount of 

information and demonstrate a high 

degree of traceability.’’ The NOC 

Committee agrees that data regarding 

fish and fish products from both 

domestic and foreign sources must be 

required to enable officials to determine 

lawful harvest and, also, reduce the 

incidence of fraud. Much of the data 

needed to combat IUU fishing is already 

being collected in many foreign 

fisheries, and using the single-window 

ITDS system at the point of entry would 

help streamline and unify the data 

reporting and verification process, and 

provide the needed inter-operability of 

information exchange across the supply 

chain. 

After consideration of comments as 

outlined above, NMFS proposes that, at 

the point of entry for species covered by 

this rule, importers of record would be 

required to report the following 

information for each entry in addition to 

other information that CBP and other 

agencies, including NMFS, currently 

require: 

• Information on the entity(ies) 

harvesting or producing the fish (as 

applicable): Name and flag state of 

harvesting vessel(s) and evidence of 

authorization; Unique vessel 

identifier(s) (if available); Type(s) of 

fishing gear; Name(s) of farm or 

aquaculture facility. 

• Information on the fish that was 

harvested and processed, including: 

Species of fish (scientific name, 

acceptable market name, and ASFIS 

number); Product description(s); 

Name(s) of product; Quantity and/or 

weight of the product(s). 

• Information on where and when the 

fish were harvested and landed: Area(s) 

of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest; 

Harvest date(s); Location(s) of 

aquaculture facility; Point of first 

landing; Date of first landing; Name of 

entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) to 

which fish was landed. Such 

information may be contained, for 

example, in catch certificates, landing 

reports, and port inspection reports. 

Entries may comprise products from 

more than one harvest event and each 

event relevant to entry must be reported. 

• The NMFS IFTP number issued to 

the importer of record for the entry. 

Additional information on each point 

in the chain of custody regarding the 

shipment of the fish or fish product to 

point of entry into U.S. commerce 

would be established as a recordkeeping 

requirement on the part of the importer 

of record to ensure that information is 

readily available to NMFS to allow it to 

trace the fish or fish product from the 

point of entry into U.S. commerce back 

to the point of harvest to verify the 

information that is reported upon entry. 

Such information would include 

records regarding each custodian of the 

fish and fish product, including, as 

applicable, transshippers, processors, 

storage facilities, and distributors. The 

information contained in the records 

must be provided to NMFS upon 

request and be sufficient for NMFS to 

conduct a trace back to verify the 

veracity of the information that is 

reported on entry. NMFS expects that 

typical supply chain records that are 

kept in the normal course of businesses, 

including declarations by harvesting/

carrier vessels, bills of lading and forms 

voluntarily used or required under 

foreign government or international 

monitoring programs which include 

such information as the identity of the 

custodian, the type of processing, and 

the weight of the product, would 

provide sufficient information for NMFS 

to conduct a trace back. In addition to 

relying on such records, the trade may 

choose to use model forms that NMFS 

has developed to track and document 

chain of custody information through 

the supply chain. NMFS seeks 

comments on proposed model forms it 

has developed for this purpose which 

are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov. 

Due to technological limitations of 

automated data processing for imaged 

documents and requirements associated 

with the phase-in of ITDS, this proposed 

rule requires that chain of custody 

information be retained by the importer 

of record and made available to NMFS 

upon request. However, NMFS 

recognizes the conservation value of 

requiring reporting of key chain of 

custody data elements for the purpose of 

real-time verification and compliance 

risk assessment if those data can be 

accessed and analyzed using automated 

processes. While constraints on the 

expansion of information collected 

through message sets prior to full 

operationalization of ITDS by December 

31, 2016 preclude the inclusion in this 

proposed rule of a reporting 

requirement for chain of custody 

information in that manner, NMFS will 

identify (including based on its 

experience with audits conducted 

pursuant to this rule) key chain of 

custody data elements that pose 

conservation benefits for real-time 

reporting by one year from full 

implementation of the final rule, and 

implement through subsequent 

rulemaking the reporting of key chain of 

custody data via message set into the 

ITDS system. 

As explained above, NMFS proposes 

that the importer of record, or entry filer 

acting on their behalf, report the data 

required under the proposed program 

via the ACE portal as part of the CBP 

entry/entry summary process. To this 

end, importers of record who enter the 

designated at-risk species would be 

required to supply the data required to 

be reported under this proposed rule 

electronically through the ACE Partner 

Government Agency Message Set for 

NMFS (NMFS Message Set) and/or the 

DIS. The format for the NMFS Message 

Set would be designated for each of the 

affected commodities (by HTS code) and 

specified in the following documents 

that would be jointly developed by 

NMFS and CBP and made available to 

importers and other entry filers by CBP 

(http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair): 

• CBP and Trade Automated Interface 

Requirements—Appendix PGA 

• CBP and Trade Automated Interface 

Requirements—PGA Message Set 

• Automated Broker Interface (ABI) 

Requirements—Implementation 

Guide for NMFS 

In developing software for assembling 

and transferring the additional data to 

ACE, importers may wish to consider 

interoperability with existing 

traceability systems that are prevalent in 

the private sector supply chain or which 

may exist for certain commodities 

subject to catch/trade documentation 

schemes under the auspices of a 

regional fishery management 

organization (RFMO). While NMFS does 

not endorse any particular private sector 

traceability system, use of such systems 

may facilitate the collection of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6217 

required information along the supply 

chain in order to report this information 

through ACE. However, importers of 

record are still responsible for the 

accuracy of the information in their 

import transactions, irrespective of 

whether integration software or other 

automated supply chain solutions are 

utilized. 

Where RFMO catch/documentation 

schemes apply to the affected at-risk 

species, including those that have been 

implemented by NMFS through 

regulation (e.g., the swordfish statistical 

document of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas), it is anticipated that 

compliance with the entry data 

collection requirements of these 

schemes would for the most part meet 

the data reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of the traceability program 

proposed here. However, ITDS provides 

sufficient flexibility to collect additional 

data in cases where the data 

requirements of the seafood traceability 

program proposed by this rule would 

exceed those of an RFMO scheme 

applicable to the same species. NMFS 

will work with CBP to avoid duplication 

of reporting requirement in cases where 

more than one reporting program 

applies to a particular fish or fish 

product, and to ensure that all the data 

are reported to meet the requirements of 

each applicable reporting program. 

International Fisheries Trade Permit 

(IFTP) 

The ITDS proposed rule would 

establish the IFTP to consolidate 

existing permits under the highly 

migratory species international trade 

program (HMS ITP) and Antarctic 

marine living resources (AMLR) 

program, and would require a permit for 

the TTVP. (80 FR 81251, December 29, 

2015). (See Intersection with Other 

Applicable Requirements section below 

for further detail on the existing trade 

monitoring programs.) This proposed 

rule would extend the IFTP requirement 

in the ITDS proposed rule to include 

importers of record identified in CBP 

entry filings for shipments containing 

the designated at-risk species covered 

by this rule. Requiring the IFTP would 

allow NMFS to identify, and have 

current contact information for, 

importers of the at-risk species covered 

by this rule. This will enable NMFS to 

provide information about data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements applicable to at-risk 

species; alert permit holders in advance 

of any pending changes to data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, including additional data 

elements or at-risk species; and 

minimize the potential for disruptions 

in trade and costly delays in release of 

shipments. 

To obtain the IFTP, U.S. importers of 

record for designated at-risk species 

covered by this rule and seafood 

products derived from such species 

would electronically submit their 

application and fee for the IFTP via the 

National Permitting System Web site 

designated by NMFS. The fee charged 

for the IFTP would be calculated, at 

least annually, in accordance with 

procedures set forth in Chapter 9 of the 

NOAA Finance Handbook for 

determining the administrative costs for 

special products and services (http://

www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/

finance/Finance%20Handbook.html); 

the permit fee would not exceed such 

costs. An importer of record who is 

required to have an IFTP only needs one 

IFTP. Separate permits are not required, 

for example, if the imported species are 

covered under more than one program 

or the importer trades in more than one 

covered species. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

This proposed rule would require that 

an IFTP holder (i.e., importer of record 

as identified on CBP entry/entry 

summary) report certain data for entries 

of at-risk species covered by this rule. 

NMFS would provide detailed 

information to permit holders regarding 

submission of such data, as well as on 

recordkeeping, in a compliance guide 

for industry that will be prepared in 

advance of NMFS’ implementation of a 

final rule. (The guide may include 

information on electronic filing through 

ITDS.) The IFTP holder/importer of 

record would be required to maintain or 

have access to, and make available for 

inspection, electronic or paper versions 

of records associated with an entry for 

at-risk species at their place of business 

for a period of five years after the date 

of entry. 

NMFS believes the costs of this rule 

will be relatively minor. Nonetheless, 

NMFS recognizes that the public may 

comment on this aspect of the proposed 

rule and possibly suggest alternative 

approaches. Section 2.6 of the Draft 

Regulatory Impact Review and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

discusses several alternatives that were 

considered and ultimately rejected by 

NMFS. Any comments on these 

alternatives or any other modifications 

to the proposed reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements should 

explain how they maintain the rule’s 

effectiveness at combating IUU fishing 

and seafood fraud. 

This proposed rule recognizes that the 

importer of record may be different from 

the entity that actually completes CBP 

entry filings (i.e., customs broker). An 

importer of record must obtain an IFTP 

and is responsible for complying with 

all of the requirements of this rule. The 

importer could arrange for a customs 

broker to submit required data elements 

for at-risk species through ACE. The 

customs broker would have to report the 

IFTP number of the importer of record 

along with the other required data 

elements for the specific entry but 

would not need to obtain an IFTP. 

However, the importer of record must 

still comply with the record keeping 

and inspection requirements of this 

rule. 

Verification of Entries 

To implement this proposed 

regulation, business rules would be 

programmed into ACE to automatically 

validate that the importer of record has 

satisfied all of the NMFS Message Set 

and document image requirements as 

applicable to HTS codes subject to 

multiple programs (e.g., all data fields 

are populated and conform to format 

and coding specifications, required 

image files are attached). Absent 

validation of the NMFS requirements in 

ACE, the entry filed would be rejected 

and the entry filer would be notified of 

the deficiencies that must be addressed 

in order for the entry to be certified by 

ACE prior to release by NMFS and CBP. 

In addition to automated validation of 

the data submitted, entries may be 

subject to verification by NMFS that the 

supplied data elements are true and can 

be corroborated via auditing procedures 

(e.g., vessel was authorized by the flag 

state, legal catch was landed to an 

authorized entity, processor receipts 

correspond to outputs). For shipments 

selected for verification, if verification 

of the data cannot be completed by 

NMFS pre-release, NMFS may request 

that CBP place a hold on a shipment 

pending verification by NMFS or allow 

conditional release, contingent upon 

timely provision of records by the 

importer of record to allow data 

verification. Entries for which timely 

provision of records is not provided to 

NMFS or that cannot be verified as 

lawfully acquired and non-fraudulent 

by NMFS, will be subject to 

enforcement or other appropriate action 

by NMFS in coordination with CBP. 

Such responses could include a redelivery order for the shipment, 

exclusion from entry into commerce of 

the shipment, or enforcement action 

against the entry filer or importer of 

record. 

To select entries for verification, 

NMFS would work with CBP to develop 

a specific program within ITDS to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6218 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

screen information for the covered 

commodities based on risk criteria. For 

example, risk-based screening and 

targeting procedures can be 

programmed to categorize entries by 

volume and certain attributes (e.g., 

ocean area of catch, vessel type or gear), 

and then randomly select entries for 

verification on a percentage basis within 

groups of entries defined by the 

associated attributes. In applying these 

procedures, NMFS would implement a 

verification scheme, including levels of 

inspection sufficient to assure that 

imports of the at-risk species are not 

products of illegal fisheries and are not 

fraudulently represented. Given the 

volume of imports, and the perishable 

nature of seafood, it would not likely be 

cost-effective for most verifications to be 

conducted on a pre-release basis. 

However, the verification scheme may 

involve targeted operations on a prerelease basis that are focused on 

particular products or ports of concern. 

A verification program as described 

above will facilitate a determination of 

whether imported seafood has been 

lawfully acquired and not 

misrepresented and deter the infiltration 

of illegally harvested and 

misrepresented seafood into the supply 

chain. In addition to market access 

deterrence, there may be price effects in 

that illegal or would be fraudulent 

seafood must be diverted to lower value 

markets. Taken together, market access 

and price effects would reduce the 

incentives for illegal fishing operations 

and for seafood fraud. Conversely, 

authorized fisheries stand to benefit 

from import monitoring programs that 

aim to identify and exclude products of 

IUU fishing and seafood fraud, both 

through enhanced market share and 

potentially higher prices. 

Voluntary Third Party Certifications 

and Trusted Trader Program 

NMFS is considering how voluntary 

third party seafood certification 

programs could simplify entry filing for 

designated at-risk species or could be 

used to meet reporting requirements 

under this proposed rule. NMFS 

requests comment on how 

interoperability of third party data 

systems could be applied to meet the 

data reporting requirements on a prearrival basis or at the point of entry. 

Such interoperable systems would have 

to provide the information necessary for 

NMFS to trace product to the harvest 

event and therefore be sufficient to 

identify product that is the result of IUU 

fishing or is misrepresented. 

Additionally, NMFS is considering 

how a Trusted Trader program might be 

used to streamline entry processing for 

designated at-risk species. The Trusted 

Trader Program is intended to 

streamline entry processing consistent 

with ensuring that all traders in the 

supply chain comply with applicable 

U.S. regulations. Participants in the 

Trusted Trader Program would collect 

or have access to the same data as nonparticipants, but may not need to 

provide it prior to entry. NMFS requests 

comment regarding the potential design 

and use of a Trusted Trader Program in 

connection with the requirements 

proposed in this rule, in particular how 

it could be used to streamline entry 

while allowing the United States to 

determine that imported seafood has 

been lawfully acquired and not 

misrepresented and to deter the 

infiltration of illegally harvested and 

misrepresented seafood into the supply 

chain. 

Consideration of the European Union 

Catch Certification Scheme 

The European Union (EU) adopted the 

IUU Regulation on September 29, 2008, 

which included a catch certification 

scheme for importation and exportation 

of fishery products. The EU’s IUU 

regulations do not include a traceability 

scheme equivalent to that as 

contemplated by the IUU Task Force 

and as proposed in this rule. However, 

NMFS is interested in comments on 

how some of the elements inherent in 

the EU’s IUU regulations may be 

adapted to this rule as a means of 

facilitating compliance and reducing 

burden for exporters, either through the 

design of the traceability process itself 

or as part of a trusted trader program. 

Implementation Timeframe 

NMFS requests specific comment on 

the implementation date for the data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for at-risk species under 

this proposed rule. While some firms 

may have adequate information systems 

already in place, other firms may need 

lead time to develop and implement 

mechanisms for transmitting the 

required information along the supply 

chain so that the data are available for 

entry filers to submit via ACE. NMFS 

anticipates that this proposed rule 

would become effective in September 

2016, consistent with timeframes 

described in the IUU and Seafood Fraud 

Task Force Action Plan, but that the 

date by which importers are required to 

comply with the requirements in the 

rule will be sometime after that. NMFS 

seeks comment on an appropriate 

implementation date or dates, taking 

into account any time firms may require 

to adapt to their practices to comply 

with the requirements of this rule as 

well as logistical considerations such as 

compliance with anticipated revisions 

to ITDS that will allow chain of custody 

information to be submitted 

electronically. As an initial estimate, 

NMFS anticipates that firms may need 

between 90 days and 12 months to 

adapt their practices to comply with the 

requirements of this rule and proposes 

an implementation date of somewhere 

between 90 days and 12 months 

following publication of the final rule. 

In addition to seeking comments on 

the implementation timeframe for this 

first phase of the traceability program, 

feedback is also sought on the lead time 

needed for seafood trade participants to 

implement potential expansion of this 

rule, either by inclusion of additional 

species and/or additional data elements. 

NMFS proposes to implement changes 

to reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements for species and data 

elements through notice and comment 

rulemaking procedures. Future 

proposed rules would specify the 

changes to reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements and would direct 

potentially affected parties to the 

pertinent CBP documents (Appendix 

PGA, PGA Message Set, Implementation 

Guide for NMFS) as described in the 

Customs and Trade Automated Interface 

Requirements (CATAIR) available at: 

http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/ACE%20NMFS%20PGA

%20MS%20Guidelines%20-%20July

%2022%202015.pdf) that would be 

developed jointly by NMFS and CBP to 

provide the implementation details (e.g., 

species by HTS code, data elements, 

message set format, DIS requirements). 

International Cooperation and 

Assistance 

Subject to the availability of 

resources, NMFS intends to provide 

assistance to exporting nations to 

support compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed rule, 

including by providing assistance to 

build capacity to: (1) Undertake 

effective fisheries management; (2) 

strengthen fisheries governance 

structures and enforcement bodies to 

combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud; 

and (3) establish, maintain, or support 

systems to enable export shipments of 

fish and fish products to be traced back 

to point of harvest. 

Intersection With Other Applicable 

Requirements 

The proposed requirements for 

additional data collection at entry into 

U.S. commerce for imported at-risk 

species could intersect with data 

collection requirements applicable to 

imports of those same species under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6219 

several other authorities. Some of these 

authorities are related to combating IUU 

fishing, while other authorities are 

aimed at other concerns such as 

managing bycatch. 

NMFS has previously issued 

regulations to implement programs for 

fishery products subject to RFMO 

documentation requirements and/or 

catch documentation under domestic 

laws. These regulations pertain to trade 

monitoring under three main programs: 

The HMS ITP, which regulates trade in 

specified commodities of tuna, 

swordfish, billfish, and shark fins under 

the MSA and requirements adopted by 

several tuna RFMOs to which the 

United States is a contracting party; the 

AMLR program, which regulates trade 

in Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish 

and other fishery products managed 

under the Convention on the 

Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources (CCAMLR); and TTVP, which 

regulates trade of purse seine harvested 

in frozen and/or processed tuna 

products under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. Monitoring authority, 

conducted under the TTVP, is also 

provided for tuna products by the 

DPCIA, which specifies the conditions 

under which tuna products are eligible 

to be labeled as dolphin-safe. 

Many of these monitoring programs 

require parties who import into or 

export, and/or re-export from the U.S. 

regulated species to: Obtain a permit 

from NMFS, obtain documentation on 

the flag-nation authorization for the 

harvest from the foreign exporter, and 

submit this information to NMFS. 

Depending on the commodity, specific 

information may also be required, for 

example: The flag nation of the 

harvesting vessel, the ocean area of 

catch, the fishing gear used, the name of 

the harvesting vessel and details and 

authorizations related to harvest, 

landing, transshipment and export/reexport. 

In addition to these three programs, 

NMFS may implement or recommend 

trade measures for certain commodities 

under several other authorities. The 

High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 

Protection Act (HSDFMPA) (16 U.S.C. 

1826d–k) sets forth a process for 

identification and certification of 

nations for IUU fishing, bycatch of 

protected living marine resources, and 

unsustainable shark fishing. Certain fish 

and fish products from identified 

nations that do not receive positive 

certifications could be subject to denial 

of port privileges and/or import 

prohibitions under the authority 

provided in the High Seas Driftnet 

Fisheries Enforcement Act (HSDFEA) 

(16 U.S.C. 1826a–c). There are also 

identification and/or certification 

procedures in other statutes, including 

the Pelly Amendment to the 

Fishermen’s Protective Act (22 U.S.C. 

1978) and the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 

et seq.). These procedures may result in 

trade restrictions or other measures for 

fishery products from a certified country 

that are associated with the activity that 

resulted in the certification. Further, 

import prohibitions for certain fishery 

products could also be applied under 

provisions of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 

et seq.) and other statutes, depending on 

the circumstances of the fish harvest 

and the conservation concerns of the 

United States. 

Multilateral efforts to combat IUU 

fishing may also result in requirements 

to take trade action. The United States 

is a member or contracting party to 

several RFMOs that have established 

procedures to identify nations and/or 

vessels whose fishing activities 

undermine the effectiveness of the 

conservation and management measures 

adopted by the organization. Fishery 

products exported by such nations or 

harvested by such vessels may be 

subject to import prohibitions. Relevant 

RFMO statutes include the Atlantic 

Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.), the Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Convention Act (AMLRCA) 

(16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act (WCPFCIA) (16 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and the Tuna 

Conventions Act (TCA) (16 U.S.C. 951 et 

seq.). Implementation of such RFMOderived trade measures may require the 

collection of information about certain 

fish products from certain countries, 

including the United States, and some 

of these existing measures do involve 

the at-risk species designated in this 

proposed rule. 

For existing programs involving 

collection and reporting of trade 

information that overlap with the at-risk 

species proposed for data collection in 

this current rulemaking, NMFS has 

examined the data required under those 

existing programs and has adjusted the 

NMFS Message Set specified in the ABI 

Implementation Guide to ensure that all 

regulatory requirements are met while 

avoiding duplication. Likewise, NMFS 

has avoided duplication between the atrisk species data reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in this proposed rule and any 

documentation requirements affecting 

designated at-risk species that have been 

implemented pursuant to other existing 

programs. Should future trade 

monitoring requirements be applied for 

designated at-risk species under any 

statutory authority, NMFS will consider 

how to avoid duplication of data 

collection accordingly. However, entry 

filers should carefully examine the data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule and other applicable rules, as 

further explained in the ABI 

Implementation Guide, for the 

commodities that comprise the 

shipment to ensure that all regulatory 

requirements are met for all traderelated programs that are applicable. 

The ABI Implementation Guide will be 

updated by NMFS and CBP to provide 

the trade with a single comprehensive 

resource addressing all applicable 

program requirements for imports of 

fish and fish products subject to data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements under NMFS statutory 

authority. NMFS would welcome public 

comment as to whether there are any 

additional duplicative data reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements which have 

not been identified. 

Classification 

This proposed rule is published under 

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed action is consistent 

with the provisions of this and other 

applicable laws, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866 because it may raise novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. 

NMFS has prepared a regulatory impact 

review of this action, which is available 

from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This 

analysis describes the economic impact 

this proposed action, if adopted, would 

have on U.S. businesses and consumers. 

NMFS invites the public to comment on 

this proposal and the supporting 

analysis. 

The regulatory action being 

considered, and its legal basis, is 

described in the preamble of this 

proposed rule. This proposed rule 

would require a permit (IFTP) for 

importers of at-risk species. 

Additionally, information pertaining to 

the harvest and landing of the product 

prior to U.S. import would be required 

at the point of entry into U.S. 

commerce, and certain records must be 

retained. With regard to the possible 

economic effects of this action, NMFS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6220 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

anticipates that U.S. entities would not 

be significantly affected by this action 

because it does not directly restrict trade 

in the designated at-risk species and 

does not pose entirely new burdens 

with regard to the collection and 

submission of information necessary to 

determine product admissibility. Some 

of the data proposed to be collected at 

entry or to be subject to recordkeeping 

requirements is already collected by the 

seafood industry in order to comply 

with food safety and product labeling 

requirements. In addition, the majority 

of the countries exporting fish and fish 

products derived from the designated atrisk species to the U.S. market also 

export a number of these same fish and 

fish products to the European Union 

(E.U.) market. Consequently, many 

harvesting states, port states, and 

intermediary/exporting states that 

would be affected by this rule may 

already have comparable information 

collection systems in place to satisfy the 

requirements of E.U. regulation on IUU 

fishing. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866 because it may raise novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. 

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

this proposed rule will have on small 

entities and includes a description of 

the action, why it is being considered, 

and the legal basis for this action. The 

purpose of the RFA is to relieve small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental entities of 

burdensome regulations and 

recordkeeping requirements. Major 

goals of the RFA are: (1) To increase 

agency awareness and understanding of 

the impact of their regulations on small 

business, (2) to require agencies to 

communicate and explain their findings 

to the public, and (3) to encourage 

agencies to use flexibility and to provide 

regulatory relief to small entities. The 

RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on 

small entities as a group distinct from 

other entities and the consideration of 

alternatives that may minimize the 

impacts while still achieving the stated 

objective of the action. Below is a 

summary of the IRFA for the proposed 

rule which was prepared in conjunction 

with a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). 

The IRFA/RIR is available from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). 

The primary objective of this 

proposed rule is to collect or have 

access to additional data on imported 

fish and fish products to determine that 

it has been lawfully acquired and is not 

fraudulent and to deter illegally caught 

or misrepresented seafood from entering 

into U.S. commerce. These data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements affect inter alia importers 

of seafood products, many of which are 

small businesses. Given the level of 

imports contributing to the annual 

supply of seafood, collecting and 

evaluating information about fish and 

fish products sourced overseas are a part 

of normal business practices for U.S. 

seafood dealers. The permitting, 

electronic reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements proposed by this 

rulemaking would build on current 

business practices (e.g., information 

systems to facilitate product recalls, to 

maintain product quality, or to reduce 

risks of food borne illnesses) and are not 

estimated to pose significant adverse or 

long-term economic impacts on small 

entities. 

If this rule is finalized, NMFS 

estimates there will be approximately 

2,000 new applicants for the IFTP, with 

an estimated industry-wide increase in 

annual costs to importers of $60,000 in 

permit fees. Data sets to be submitted 

electronically to determine product 

admissibility are, to some extent, either 

already collected by the trade in the 

course of supply chain management, 

already required to be collected and 

submitted under existing trade 

monitoring programs (e.g., tuna, 

swordfish, toothfish), or collected in 

support of third party certification 

schemes voluntarily adopted by the 

trade. Incremental costs are likely to 

consist of developing interoperable 

systems to ensure that the data are 

transmitted along with the product to 

ensure the information is available to 

the entry filer. 

The proposed rule would apply to 

U.S. entities that import fish and fish 

products derived from the designated atrisk species. This proposed rule would 

be implemented so as to avoid 

duplication or conflict with any other 

Federal rules. To the extent that the 

proposed requirements overlap with 

other reporting requirements applicable 

to the designated at-risk species, this 

will be been taken into account to avoid 

collecting data more than once or by 

means other than the single window 

(ACE portal). As stated above, this rule 

is intended to allow NMFS to determine 

that imported seafood has been lawfully 

acquired and is not fraudulently 

represented and to deter illegally caught 

or misrepresented seafood from entering 

into U.S. commerce. Given the large 

volume of fish and fish product imports 

to the U.S. market, the number of 

exporting countries, and the fact that 

traceability systems are being 

increasingly used within the seafood 

industry, it is not expected that this rule 

would significantly affect the overall 

volume of trade or alter trade flows in 

the U.S. market for fish and fish 

products that are legally harvested and 

accurately represented. 

NMFS considered several alternatives 

in this rulemaking: The requirements 

described in the proposed rule, a noaction alternative and various 

combinations of data reporting and 

recordkeeping for the supply chain 

information applicable to the at-risk 

species. NMFS prefers the proposed rule 

approach, because it would implement 

the initial phase of a traceability 

program as envisioned by 

Recommendations 14 and 15 of the Task 

Force. In addition, it is consistent with 

the existing requirement that all 

applicable U.S. government agencies are 

required to implement ITDS under the 

authority of the SAFE Port Act and 

Executive Order 13659, Streamlining 

the Export/Import Process (79 FR 10657, 

February 28, 2014). Also, the proposed 

traceability program takes into account 

the burden of data collection from the 

trade and the government requirements 

for admissibility determinations. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Under NOAA Administrative Order 

(NAO 216–6), the promulgation of 

regulations that are procedural and 

administrative in nature are 

categorically excluded from the 

requirement to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment. These 

proposed regulations to implement a 

seafood traceability program are 

procedural and administrative in nature 

in that they would impose reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for ongoing 

authorized catch and trade activities. 

Fishing activity and trade in seafood 

products are not further restricted 

relative to any existing laws or 

regulations, either foreign or domestic. 

Given the procedural and administrative 

nature of this rulemaking, an 

Environmental Assessment was not 

prepared. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

submitted to OMB for approval. The 

information collection burden for the 

requirements proposed under this rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6221 

(IFTP, harvest and landing data 

submitted at entry, image files 

submitted at entry, and provision of 

records of supply chain information) as 

applicable to imports of the designated 

at-risk species are estimated to be an 

increase of 18,542 hours and $278,130. 

Recordkeeping/reporting costs (permit 

application fees at $30 each) will total 

$60,000. This proposed rule does not 

anticipate any other information 

collection burden than what is 

identified in this section, and therefore 

is not requesting approval from OMB for 

the burden associated with any other 

aspects of the rule. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

Whether this proposed data reporting is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

The public may also wish to comment 

on how alternative compliance 

schedules for these reporting and record 

keeping requirements may affect 

burden. Draft model forms are also 

available on both www.regulations.gov 

and www.reginfo.gov for public review 

and comment. Send comments on these 

or any other aspects of the collection of 

information to the NOAA Fisheries 

Office for International Affairs and 

Seafood Inspection at the ADDRESSES

above, and by email to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 

395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 300 

Exports, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing 

vessels, Illegal, unreported or 

unregulated fishing, Foreign relations, 

Imports, International trade permits, 

Treaties. 

50 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing 

vessels, Foreign relations, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Statistics. 

Dated: February 1, 2016. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart R, 

as proposed to be added December 29, 

2015, (80 FR 81251), is proposed to be 

further amended and 50 CFR part 600 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

50 CFR CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 300 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 

2431 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq. 

■ 2. Further amend § 300.321, proposed 

to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 

81251), by adding a definition for 

‘‘Seafood Traceability Program’’ in 

alphabetical order, and revising the 

definitions of ‘‘Catch and Statistical 

Document/Documentation’’, 

‘‘Documentation and data sets required 

under this subpart’’ and ‘‘Fish or fish 

products regulated under this subpart’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 300.321 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Catch and Statistical Document/

Documentation means a document or 

documentation, in paper or electronic 

form, accompanying regulated seafood 

imports and exports that is submitted by 

importers and exporters to document 

compliance with TTVP, AMLR, and 

HMS ITP trade documentation programs 

as described in § 216.24(f) of this title, 

and subparts G and M of this part, or the 

Seafood Traceability Program as 

described in this subpart. 

Documentation and data sets required 

under this subpart refers to 

documentation and data that must be 

submitted by an importer or exporter to 

NMFS at the time of, or in advance of, 

the import, export, or re-export, as well 

as documentation and data that must be 

retained by the importer or exporter of 

record in conjunction with a filing, for 

seafood products regulated under the 

TTVP, AMLR, and HMS ITP programs 

as described in § 216.24(f) of this title, 

and subparts G and M of this part, or the 

Seafood Traceability Program as 

described in this subpart. 

Fish or fish products regulated under 

this subpart means species and products 

containing species regulated under this 

subpart, the AMLR program, the HMS 

ITP, or the TTVP. 

* * * * * 

Seafood Traceability Program means 

the data reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements established under 

§ 300.324 of this title. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Further revise § 300.323, proposed 

to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 

81251), to read as follows: 

§ 300.323 Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements. 

A person entering for consumption or 

withdrawal from a foreign trade zone or 

bonded warehouse for consumption, 

exporting, or re-exporting fish or fish 

products regulated under this subpart 

from any ocean area, or any area of 

jurisdiction for aquaculture facilities, 

must file all data sets, reports, and 

documentation required under the 

AMLR program, HMS ITP, TTVP and 

Seafood Traceability Program and under 

other regulations that incorporate by 

reference the requirements of this 

subpart. A paper or electronic copy of 

all required reports and documentation, 

and all supporting records upon which 

an entry filing or export declaration is 

made, must be maintained by the 

importer of record, and made available 

for inspection, at the importer of 

record’s place of business for a period 

of five years from the date of the import, 

export or re-export. 

■ 4. Further redesignate § 300.324, 

proposed to be added December 29, 

2015, (80 FR 81251), as § 300.325 and 

add new § 300.324 to read as follows: 

§ 300.324 Seafood Traceability Program. 

This section establishes a Seafood 

Traceability Program which comprises 

data reporting requirements at point of 

entry for imported fish or fish products 

and recordkeeping requirements. The 

data reported and retained will 

facilitate: A determination that the fish 

or fish products are not misrepresented 

or the product of IUU fishing, including 

that they were not taken in violation of 

any foreign law or regulation, and 

exclusion of products from entry into 

U.S. commerce that are misrepresented 

or the product of IUU fishing. The data 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements under the program enable 

verification of the product offered for 

entry back to the harvesting event(s). 

(a) The following species or species 

groups are subject to this Seafood 

Traceability Program: Abalone; Atlantic 

Cod; Pacific Cod; Blue Crab; Red King 

Crab; Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); 

Grouper; Red Snapper; Sea Cucumber; 

Shrimp Sharks; Swordfish; Tunas 

(Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6222 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

and Bluefin). The harmonized tariff 

schedule numbers applicable to these 

species or species groups are listed in 

the documents referenced in paragraph 

(c) of this section. Data required to be 

reported and retained under this 

program is not required for HTS codes 

applicable to fish oil, slurry, sauces, 

sticks, balls, cakes, pudding and other 

similar highly processed fish products 

for which the species of fish comprising 

the product or the harvesting event(s) or 

aquaculture operation(s) of the 

shipment of the product cannot 

currently be feasibly identified. 

(b) In addition to data reporting 

requirements applicable pursuant to 

other authorities and requirements set 

out elsewhere in U.S. law and 

regulation (e.g., under other NMFS 

programs or CBP requirements) to the 

particular commodity offered for entry, 

the importer of record is required to 

provide the following data set in ACE at 

the time of entry for each entry 

containing the species or species groups 

listed under paragraph (a) of this 

section: 

(1) Information on the entity(ies) 

harvesting or producing the fish: Name 

and flag state of harvesting vessel(s) and 

evidence of authorization; Unique 

vessel identifier(s) (if available); Type(s) 

of fishing gear; Name(s) of farm or 

aquaculture facility. 

(2) Information on the fish that was 

harvested and processed: Species of fish 

(scientific name, acceptable market 

name, and ASFIS number); Product 

description(s); Name of product(s); 

Quantity and/or weight of the 

product(s). 

(3) Information on where and when 

the fish were harvested and landed: 

Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture 

location; Date(s) of harvest or trip(s); 

Location of aquaculture facility; Point(s) 

of first landing; Date(s) of first landing; 

Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, 

vessel) to which fish was landed. Some 

entries may comprise products from 

more than one harvest event and each 

event relevant to the shipment must be 

documented. 

(4) The NMFS-issued IFTP number for 

the importer of record. 

(c) The importer of record, either 

directly or through an entry filer, is 

required to submit the data under 

paragraph (b) of this section through 

ACE as a message set and/or image files 

in conformance with the procedures and 

formats prescribed by NMFS and 

Customs and Border Protection and 

made available at: http://www.cbp.gov/

trade/ace/catair. 

(d) Import shipments of fish or fish 

products subject to this program may be 

selected for inspection and/or the 

information or records supporting entry 

may be selected for audit, on a pre- or 

post- release basis, in order to verify the 

information submitted at entry. 

(e) In addition to the entry 

recordkeeping requirements specified at 

19 CFR part 16, the importer of record 

is required to maintain records 

containing information on the chain of 

custody of the fish or fish products 

sufficient to trace the fish or fish 

product from point of entry into U.S. 

commerce to the point of harvest, 

including information that identifies 

each custodian of the fish or fish 

product (such as any transshipper, 

processor, storage facility or distributor). 

Such records may include widely used 

commercial documents such as 

declarations by the harvesting/carrier 

vessels or bills of lading. Regardless of 

whether data is reported at entry or 

maintained by the importer, the 

importer must retain records in 

electronic or paper format under the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

§ 300.323. 

■ 5. Revise redesignated § 300.325, 

proposed to be added December 29, 

2015, (80 FR 81251), as § 300.324, to 

read as follows: 

§ 300.325 Prohibitions. 

In addition to the prohibitions 

specified in § 300.4, § 300.117, 

§ 300.189, § 600.725 and § 635.71 of this 

title, it is unlawful for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to: 

(a) violate any provision of this 

subpart, or any permit issued under this 

subpart. 

(b) Import species listed in 

§ 300.324(a) without a valid IFTP or 

without submitting complete and 

accurate information as required under 

§ 300.324(b)–(c). 

50 CFR CHAPTER VI—FISHERY 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. 

■ 7. In § 600.725, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.725 General prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Possess, have custody or control 

of, ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, 

purchase, land, import, export or reexport, any fish or parts thereof taken or 

retained in violation of the MagnusonStevens Act or any other statute 

administered by NOAA or any 

regulation or permit issued there under, 

or import, export, transport, sell, 

receive, acquire, or purchase in 

interstate or foreign commerce any fish 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any foreign law or 

regulation, or any treaty or in 

contravention of binding conservation 

measure adopted by an international 

agreement or organization to which the 

United States is a party. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–02216 Filed 2–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–BE70 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 35 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 35 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (FMP) for review, approval, and 

implementation by NMFS. Amendment 

35 would remove black snapper, 

mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and 

schoolmaster from the FMP; and clarify 

the Council’s intent regarding the 

golden tilefish longline endorsement 

program. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on Amendment 35 identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0076’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS