75536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

2See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

3See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the 

Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty 

Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 

(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification). 

4See Non-Market Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 

FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). 

these reviews. The Department gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

We received no comments from 

interested parties. 

We conducted these reviews in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) 

and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or un-purged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater 

crawfish tail meat is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 1605.40.1010 and 

1605.40.1090, which are the HTSUS 

numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 

indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and 

other, as introduced by CBP in 2000, 

and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.0010 and 

0306.29.0000, which are reserved for 

fish and crustaceans in general. On 

February 10, 2012, the Department 

added HTSUS classification number 

0306.29.0100 to the scope description 

pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only. The written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Final Results of the Review 

The Department made no changes to 

its calculations announced in the 

Preliminary Results. As a result of our 

administrative review, we determine 

that a weighted-average dumping 

margin of 0.00 percent exists for Xiping 

Opeck for the POR. 

For the final results of the new 

shipper review, the Department 

determines that a dumping margin of 

0.00 percent exists for merchandise 

produced and exported by Hubei Nature 

for the POR. 

Assessment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 

and the Final Modification,2 the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate all appropriate entries for 

Xiping Opeck, and Hubei Nature 

without regard to antidumping duties 

because their weighted-average 

dumping margins in these final results 

are zero.3

Pursuant to the Department’s 

refinement to its assessment practice in 

NME cases,4 for entries that were not 

reported in the U.S. sales databases 

submitted by companies individually 

examined during these reviews, the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide 

rate. 

We intend to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of reviews. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise 

exported by Xiping Opeck, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate established 

in the final results of the administrative 

review; because the rate is zero or de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required for that Xiping Opeck; (2) for 

previously investigated companies not 

listed above that have separate rates, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

investigation; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC entity that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. 

With respect to Hubei Nature, the 

respondent in the new shipper review, 

the Department established a 

combination cash deposit rate for this 

company consistent with its practice as 

follows: (1) For subject merchandise 

produced and exported by Hubei 

Nature, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate established for Hubei Nature in the 

final results of the new shipper review; 

(2) for subject merchandise exported by 

Hubei Nature, but not produced by 

Hubei Nature, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate for the PRC-wide entity; and 

(3) for subject merchandise produced by 

Hubei Nature but not exported by Hubei 

Nature, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate applicable to the exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

These final results of reviews are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv), 

751(a)(3), 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h), 351.214 and 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 12, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29660 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD652 

Recommendations of the Presidential 

Task Force on Combating Illegal, 

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing 

and Seafood Fraud 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 75537 

SUMMARY: On June 17, 2014, the White 

House released a Presidential 

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Establishing a 

Comprehensive Framework to Combat 

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 

Fishing and Seafood Fraud.’’ Among 

other actions, the Memorandum 

established a Presidential Task Force on 

Combating Illegal, Unreported, and 

Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud 

(Task Force), co-chaired by the 

Departments of State and Commerce 

with twelve other Federal agency 

members: the Council on Environmental 

Quality, Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, the 

Federal Trade Commission, the Office of 

Management and Budget, the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, the U.S. 

Agency for International Development, 

the National Security Council and the 

U.S. Trade Representative. The Task 

Force is directed to report to the 

President within 180 days with 

‘‘recommendations for the 

implementation of a comprehensive 

framework of integrated programs to 

combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud 

that emphasizes areas of greatest need.’’ 

Those recommendations have now been 

provided to the President through the 

National Ocean Council. This is a 

request for comments from the public to 

advise the Task Force on how to most 

effectively implement these 

recommendations. Specific questions 

are posed after some of the 

recommendations to help elicit feedback 

on potential implementation issues and 

concerns which will help inform 

development of an implementation plan 

in the months ahead. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2014–0090, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0090, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Carrie Selberg, 1315 East-West Highway; 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by the Task Force. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. The Task Force will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Selberg, (301) 427–8021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The United States is a global leader in 

sustainable seafood. Over the course of 

the last six years, the United States has 

largely ended overfishing in federally 

managed waters and successfully rebuilt 

a record number of overfished stocks, 

with both overfishing and overfished 

fish stocks at all-time lows. Effective 

management and enforcement of 

domestic fishing regulations has 

supported near record highs in both 

landings and revenue for our domestic 

fishing industries. As a result, the 

United States’ approach of sciencebased fisheries management is 

recognized internationally as a model 

for ending overfishing and 

implementing sustainable fisheries 

management practices. 

One of the biggest global threats to the 

sustainable management of the world’s 

fisheries is illegal, unreported, and 

unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing 

occurs both within nations’ waters and 

on the high seas and undermines the 

biological and economic sustainability 

of fisheries both domestically and 

abroad. IUU fishing in other parts of the 

world can cause problems in places 

where there are strong rules managing 

fisheries, such as the United States. By 

circumventing conservation and 

management measures and cutting or 

avoiding the operational costs 

associated with sustainable fishing 

practices and harvesting levels, entities 

engaged in IUU fishing undermine the 

sustainability of fish stocks and the 

broader ecosystem. Further, IUU fishers 

gain an unfair advantage in the 

marketplace over law-abiding fishing 

operations as they do not pay the true 

cost of sustainable production. Global 

losses attributable to IUU fishing have 

been estimated to be between $10–23 

billion annually. Additionally, U.S. 

efforts to reduce global hunger, 

malnutrition, and coastal risks are being 

undermined by IUU fishing in 

developing countries. Over 2.5 billion 

people depend upon fish for food and 

nutrition, and IUU and unsustainable 

fishing threatens valuable food 

resources. Combating IUU fishing will 

directly contribute to U.S. commitments 

and efforts to enhance global food and 

nutrition security. 

A number of factors including 

complex trade systems, comingling, and 

broad geographic distribution contribute 

to difficulties in documenting the chain 

of custody for fish and seafood 

products. According to the United 

Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization, fish and seafood products 

are among the most widely traded food 

commodities in the world. Additionally, 

some seafood is comingled in the global 

supply chain as part of processing and 

distribution. Once a shipment of 

seafood enters U.S. commerce, it is often 

distributed widely making it difficult to 

document the chain of custody and 

guarantee that the product reaching the 

consumer has been legally harvested or 

is in fact the product it is claimed to be. 

While not necessarily related to IUU 

fishing, seafood fraud (whereby fish is 

mislabeled with respect to its species or 

country of origin, quantity, or quality) 

has the potential to undermine the 

economic viability of U.S. and global 

fisheries as well as the ability of 

consumers to make informed 

purchasing choices. Seafood fraud can 

occur at any point along the seafood 

supply chain from harvest to market. It 

can be driven by diverse motives, from 

covering up IUU fishing to avoiding 

duties, to increasing a profit margin 

through species substitution or 

falsification of the country of origin. 

While it is difficult to know the extent 

of seafood fraud, the frequency of 

seafood fraud incidents has received 

increasing attention in peer-reviewed 

journals, government reports and 

private sector reports. Seafood fraud 

threatens consumer confidence, serving 

to further undermine the reputation and 

market competitiveness of law-abiding 

fishers and businesses in the seafood 

industry. 

A number of challenges exist with 

respect to information collection, 

sharing, and analysis in support of 

federal efforts to combat IUU fishing 

and seafood fraud: (1) A vast industry 

with a large quantity of international 

and domestic trade; (2) multiple Federal 

agencies responsible for regulating only 

a part of this trade and only for 

particular issues (e.g., food labeling and 

fishing violations); (3) disparate 

information collection abilities and 

requirements among those agencies with 

no specific common collection, analysis 

or sharing mechanism; (4) federal 

jurisdiction not including the entire 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

supply chain as states manage their own 

fisheries and generally have primary 

jurisdiction over intrastate sales, 

including most retail and restaurant 

sales; (5) statutory constraints on the use 

and sharing of some information 

collected by the federal government; 

and (6) weak institutions and poor data 

collection and management in some 

source countries. 

It is in the interest of the United 

States to promote a comprehensive 

framework that supports sustainable 

fishing practices while combating 

seafood fraud and the sale of IUU 

seafood, including by improving the 

transparency and traceability of the 

seafood supply chain. To achieve these 

objectives, the United States will need 

to improve implementation of and 

enhance and broaden the tools it has 

available to combat IUU fishing and 

seafood fraud. The Task Force was 

established to identify and achieve these 

objectives. 

The Task Force initiated a public 

engagement process to gain broad input 

to inform and advise development of 

these recommendations. This process 

included two public meetings, two 

webinars, input from 32 countries, and 

a public comment period noticed in the 

Federal Register. The Task Force also 

began to analyze the federal 

government’s existing authorities to 

combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, 

and identify potential gaps in those 

authorities. Furthermore, it examined 

specific areas for improved coordination 

among the Task Force agencies 

regarding these issues. 

Based on this public engagement 

process and the Task Force’s analysis of 

existing authorities, gaps in those 

authorities, and current and potential 

levels of interagency coordination, the 

Task Force developed recommendations 

designed to enhance the tools we have 

available to combat IUU fishing and 

seafood fraud. Doing so will level the 

playing field for legitimate fishers and 

businesses in the seafood industry and 

increase consumer confidence in 

seafood sold in the United States. 

Recommendations by the Task Force 

fall under four general themes: 

• International: Combat IUU fishing 

and seafood fraud at the international 

level; 

• Enforcement: Strengthen 

enforcement and enhance enforcement 

tools to combat IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud; 

• Partnerships: Create and expand 

partnerships with state and local 

governments, industry, and nongovernmental organizations to identify 

and eliminate seafood fraud and the sale 

of IUU seafood in U.S. commerce; and 

• Traceability: Create a risk-based 

traceability program to track seafood 

from harvest to entry into U.S. 

commerce to prevent entry of illegal 

product into the supply chain and better 

inform retailers and consumers. 

II. Recommendations 

Comment is generally sought on how 

to implement the following 

recommendations. Specific questions 

intended to elicit comment are listed 

below some of the recommendations. 

Proposed timeframes have been 

specified in some of the 

recommendations discussed below. 

International: Combat IUU fishing and 

seafood fraud at the international level 

1. The 2009 Agreement on Port State 

Measures to Prevent, Deter and 

Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and 

Unregulated Fishing (PSMA) is the first 

binding global instrument focused 

specifically on combating IUU fishing. 

The PSMA sets minimum standards for 

the conduct of port inspections and the 

training of inspectors to prevent IUU 

seafood products from entering 

commercial markets. The PSMA also 

requires port States to prevent entry into 

or use of ports by vessels that have 

engaged in IUU fishing, except for the 

purpose of inspection or other 

enforcement actions. The PSMA 

requires 25 ratifications to enter into 

force; to date there are 11. The U.S. 

Senate provided its advice and consent 

to ratification of the PSMA in 2014. 

Before the United States can deposit its 

instrument of ratification, however, 

Congress must pass legislation to 

implement U.S. obligations under the 

PSMA. Recommendation: Work with 

Congress to pass implementing 

legislation for the Port State Measures 

Agreement (PSMA). Direct the Secretary 

of State to promote entry into force and 

full implementation of the PSMA. 

2. Many fisheries that exist in the 

waters of several nations and/or on the 

high seas are managed by Regional 

Fisheries Management Organizations 

(RFMOs). RFMOs have sought to 

promote compliance with the 

management measures they have 

adopted using a wide variety of tools. 

Drawing on experience gained from 

participation in various RFMOs, the 

United States is in a position to identify 

the best practices for combating IUU 

fishing through RFMOs and promote the 

adoption of such practices in all RFMOs 

in which the United States participates. 

Some examples include: 

(A) Several RFMOs, including the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources, have 

developed catch documentation and 

trade tracking requirements that enable 

governments to monitor the movement 

of fish and fish products through 

international commerce. The United 

States should develop, in collaboration 

with RFMOs, foreign governments, and 

other intergovernmental organizations, 

best practices for electronic systems that 

collect catch information and that track 

data across harvest and transport vessels 

and fisheries management agencies— 

these should include uniform data 

elements such as harvest vessel, species 

name, gear type, and region of catch. 

Best practices should also include 

interoperability among U.S. domestic 

and foreign national-level 

documentation and data tracking 

systems, with a view to avoiding 

duplication with existing systems. 

(B) Article 21 of the 1995 United 

Nations Fish Stocks Agreement 

(UNFSA) establishes a reciprocal high 

seas boarding and inspection regime 

that is a critical tool for greater 

cooperation in enforcement of RFMOadopted conservation and management 

measures. Under this regime, any 

UNFSA Party, including the United 

States, that is a member of an RFMO can 

board and inspect the fishing vessels of 

any other UNFSA Party in high seas 

areas covered by and subject to 

measures adopted by that RFMO, collect 

information on any apparent violations 

of applicable fisheries management 

measures, and provide this information 

to the flag State or relevant RFMOs for 

follow-up action. To date only the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission (WCPFC) has implemented 

measures to the full extent outlined in 

UNFSA. The United States should 

continue to call upon additional RFMOs 

to which it is a party to follow the lead 

of the WCPFC, putting particular 

pressure on other UNFSA parties to 

support such efforts, reminding them of 

their obligations under the UNFSA, 

while reserving the right of the United 

States to use its authority deriving from 

UNSA to conduct high seas boardings 

and inspections. 

(C) Many RFMOs require vessels 

above a minimum size to carry satellitebased vessel monitor systems (VMS) 

that enable at least the flag States to 

monitor the position of vessels at sea on 

a real-time basis. The United States 

should develop, in collaboration with 

RFMOs, foreign governments, and other 

intergovernmental organizations, best 

practices for implementation of vessel 

monitoring systems across all types of 

commercial fishing vessels and those 

vessels engaged in the fisheries supply 

chain (including transshipment and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 75539 

processing vessels). The United States 

should also seek expansion of 

international vessel-tracking 

requirements to include, where 

appropriate, the use of Automatic 

Identification System (AIS), VMS, 

innovative and low-cost technology 

suitable for small vessels, and updated 

technical standards to improve 

reporting frequency and accessibility of 

vessel position data. 

(D) The United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) has 

been working to develop a Global 

Record of Fishing Vessels and Fishing 

Support Vessels. The United States 

should continue to support the FAO’s 

design and implementation of Phase 

One of the Global Record of Fishing 

Vessels (vessels greater than or equal to 

100GT, 100GRT, or 24m) to ensure that 

implementation is accomplished as 

soon as possible. At the same time, the 

United States should continue to 

advance measures in the RFMOs to 

require International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) numbers for all 

eligible vessels, and to work with the 

IMO and other relevant organization to 

expand the category of commercial 

vessels that are eligible for IMO 

numbers, to ensure that all commercial 

fishing vessels can be tracked even as 

they change owners, flags, or names. 

Recommendation: Direct the Task 

Force to develop, within one year (and 

refined as appropriate in subsequent 

years), best practices for catch 

documentation and data tracking; high 

seas boarding and inspection; 

monitoring, control, and surveillance 

measures (including observer programs, 

vessel tracking systems, authorized 

vessel lists); port state control; and 

compliance monitoring and promote 

their adoption in each of the Regional 

Fishery Management Organizations 

(RFMOs) of which the U.S. is a member. 

Question: Are there any categories of 

best practices to be developed by the 

U.S. government missing from the list 

above? 

3. Various U.S. government agencies 

are engaged in initiatives with foreign 

governments to support broader 

maritime domain awareness such as 

regional law enforcement activities to 

counter trafficking of people, drugs or 

weapons. IUU fishing should be 

included in these activities to capitalize 

upon current efforts and resources and 

foster comprehensive maritime domain 

awareness. Recommendation: Direct the 

Secretaries of Defense and Homeland 

Security to include IUU fishing threat 

analysis and monitoring as a component 

of U.S. and international efforts to 

increase overall maritime domain 

awareness. 

Question: What regions or fisheries 

should be prioritized for threat analysis 

and monitoring? What technical tools or 

analytical approaches are most needed? 

4. The vast majority of U.S. Free 

Trade Agreements (FTAs) contain 

obligations that require U.S trading 

partners to ‘‘effectively enforce’’ their 

environmental and labor laws, 

including laws that protect and 

conserve natural resources, such as 

marine fisheries, and that protects 

certain internationally recognized labor 

rights. These obligations are subject to 

dispute settlement under the trade 

agreement, and the U.S. Trade 

Representative has authority to monitor 

and review implementation of these and 

other FTA commitments. The United 

States is currently seeking commitments 

in two FTAs, the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic 

Trade and Investment Partnership 

(TTIP), to address IUU fishing activities. 

Further, looking beyond existing 

negotiations and to future agreements, it 

will be important to pursue 

commitments from trading partners to 

effectively enforce conservation and 

management measures they have 

adopted pursuant to RFMOs. 

Recommendation: Direct the U.S. Trade 

Representative to use existing Free 

Trade Agreements and future FTAs to 

combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, 

including through enhanced 

cooperation with our trading partners 

and commitments to enforce 

environmental and labor laws. 

5. Some governments continue to 

provide subsidies to their fisheries 

sectors that encourage overfishing or 

contribute to excess capacity of fishing 

fleets. Such subsidies also undermine 

the effectiveness of fisheries 

management regimes and can contribute 

to IUU fishing. Recommendation: Direct 

the U.S. Trade Representative, and the 

Secretaries of State and Commerce to 

pursue international commitments to 

eliminate fisheries subsidies that 

contribute to excess fishing capacity, 

overfishing and IUU fishing by 2020. 

6. Especially in developing nations, 

increased national-level capacity is 

needed to strengthen fisheries 

governance and transparency, 

implement the Port State Measures 

Agreement (PSMA), enforce fisheries 

laws, and prosecute fisheries violations 

and related criminal activities. Nations 

that register fishing and support vessels 

need the capacity to exercise their 

responsibilities as flag States, which 

include issuing fishing authorizations, 

monitoring fishing and transshipment at 

sea, conducting enforcement operations, 

inspecting vessels dockside, and 

monitoring landings. Improved 

technological infrastructure is needed 

for collecting information on vessels 

and catch to enable effective 

enforcement, support traceability 

schemes, and foster sustainable fisheries 

management. Efforts to combat IUU 

fishing and seafood fraud need to be 

integrated with international 

development activities, in particular 

food security dialogues and programs. 

Recommendation: Direct the Secretaries 

of Commerce, Defense, Homeland 

Security, State, the Administrator of 

USAID, and the Attorney General to 

coordinate with donors, multilateral 

institutions and foreign governments 

and prioritize building capacity to 

sustainably manage fisheries, combat 

IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 

Question: What are the best ways to 

coordinate in capacity building efforts? 

In which countries and what types of 

capacity building activities would have 

the most impact? 

7. Efforts to address development or 

governance issues related to sustainable 

fisheries benefit greatly from the active 

support of and coordination with senior 

government officials through diplomatic 

channels, engagement in future oceans 

conferences, and engagement in 

influential regional fora. Building these 

key relationships will further encourage 

our foreign government partners to 

enhance their efforts to combat IUU 

fishing as well as work with U.S. 

investigative agencies to ensure that 

illegally caught or fraudulently labeled 

seafood does not enter commerce. 

Recommendation: Direct the Secretary 

of State to maintain combating IUU 

fishing and seafood fraud as a 

diplomatic priority in order to gain the 

support of senior officials in priority 

countries to enhance political will for 

combatting IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud. 

Enforcement: Strengthen Enforcement 

and Enhance Enforcement Tools To 

Combat IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud 

8. Obtaining and sharing information 

is another critical element in preventing 

IUU or fraudulently labeled seafood 

(including false labels, fraudulent 

customs declarations, and other similar 

actions) from entering U.S. commerce 

(whether from domestic or foreign 

sources). Mechanisms to gather, share, 

and analyze information on goods 

entering the United States exist among 

relevant administrative and law 

enforcement agencies, including 

through Customs and Border 

Protection’s Commercial Targeting and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

Analysis Center, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement’s Homeland 

Security Investigations Trade 

Transparency Unit, and through 

forensic capabilities across the Federal 

government. However, certain gaps 

concerning collection, sharing, and 

analysis of fisheries-related information 

remain. Recommendation: Direct the 

Task Force members, to include the 

Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, the Interior, and the Attorney 

General to develop within 180 days a 

strategy with implementation deadlines 

to optimize the collection, sharing, and 

analysis of information and resources to 

prevent IUU or fraudulently labeled 

seafood from entering U.S. commerce. 

This strategy should include a plan to 

increase support and coordination 

across agencies for forensic analysis of 

seafood species and corresponding 

collection, archiving and analysis of 

related reference specimens, as well as 

reflect efforts to increase coordination 

with state and local governments per 

Recommendation 11. 

Question: Which key actions should be 

included in this strategy? 

9. Broader customs enforcement tools 

can also continue to be leveraged to 

combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. 

The U.S. has now signed over 70 

Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement 

(CMAAs) with other customs 

administrations across the world. 

CMAAs are bilateral agreements 

between countries and are effectuated 

by their respective customs 

administrations. They provide the legal 

framework for the cooperation and 

exchange of information and evidence 

to assist countries in the enforcement of 

customs laws, including duty evasion, 

fraud, smuggling, trafficking, 

proliferation, money laundering, and 

terrorism-related activities. CMAAs can 

be used to support IUU fishing and 

seafood fraud investigations, facilitate 

risk-based targeting of illicit seafood 

shipments, and for further cooperation 

with foreign governments to develop 

best practices to prevent IUU or 

fraudulent seafood from reaching our 

borders. Recommendation: Direct the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to 

leverage existing and future CMAAs to 

exchange relevant information and 

encourage foreign customs 

administrations to cooperate in 

combating IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud. 

10. Standardizing rules across the 

U.S. government concerning how to 

properly identify a seafood product’s 

species, common name and origin 

would better support detection and 

enforcement efforts to combat IUU 

fishing and seafood fraud. 

Standardization of this information 

would minimize opportunities to avoid 

detection by exploiting inconsistencies 

across Federal agencies and ambiguities 

in existing requirements and industry 

conventions. Standardized rules would 

also promote better industry compliance 

and reduce inadvertent noncompliance 

by providing clearer guidance to 

industry about how to properly identify 

fish and seafood, including their origin. 

Recommendation: Direct the Secretaries 

of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and 

Human Services, and Homeland 

Security, with input from the Attorney 

General, to standardize and clarify rules 

on identifying the species, common 

name, and origin of seafood. Direct the 

Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland 

Security and the U.S. Trade 

Representative to work with the 

International Trade Commission to 

adjust U.S. tariff codes to enhance 

identification in trade of species subject 

to IUU fishing or seafood fraud 

accordingly. The agencies should aim to 

publish these revised rules and adjusted 

codes not later than one year after the 

adoption of this recommendation. 

Questions: What seafood products could 

benefit most from clarification of 

species, common name and rules of 

origin? What revisions to the tariff codes 

(at the level than can be adjusted for 

U.S. statistics) could help address 

seafood fraud and facilitate monitoring 

of species that may be harvested in IUU 

fisheries? 

11. State and local enforcement 

authorities have an important role in 

regulating fisheries, both through 

enforcement in state waters and working 

with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

on landings of fish harvested in federal 

waters. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration works 

with state and local authorities to obtain 

and share information with respect to 

domestic fisheries. State and local 

enforcement authorities also have an 

important role in detecting and 

preventing seafood fraud, since 

intrastate seafood sales, including those 

at the restaurant and retail level, are 

largely regulated by state and local 

authorities. Recommendation: Direct the 

Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Health and Human Services, and 

Homeland Security, and the Attorney 

General to work with state and local 

enforcement authorities to expand 

information sharing and develop tools 

that address illegal fishing and seafood 

fraud at the state and local level. 

Question: How can Federal enforcement 

agencies expand information sharing 

with state and local enforcement 

authorities? 

12. Additional enforcement tools are 

needed by certain enforcement agencies 

to address growing concerns over IUU 

fishing and the entry of seafood 

products from IUU fishing into U.S. 

commerce including: Broader and 

clearer search and inspection 

authorities, investigative subpoena 

authority, increased penalties, and civil 

judicial enforcement mechanisms. 

Recommendation: Work with Congress 

to the extent necessary to broaden 

agency enforcement authorities, 

including those to (1) search, inspect 

and seize seafood, both at the point of 

entry into U.S. commerce (whether from 

foreign or domestic sources) and 

throughout the supply chain; and (2) 

pursue a full range of judicial 

enforcement options for trafficking and 

other violations related to IUU fishing 

and seafood fraud. 

Partnerships: Create Partnerships With 

Industry and Non-Governmental 

Organizations To Identify and Eliminate 

Seafood Fraud and IUU Seafood in U.S. 

Commerce 

13. Private and public sector 

partnerships are essential to preventing 

and reducing the entry of fraudulent 

seafood products and products from 

IUU fishing into U.S. commerce. 

Recommendation: Direct the Task Force 

to establish a regular forum with 

harvesters, importers, dealers, retailers, 

processors and non-governmental 

organizations to enhance collaboration 

in combating IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud and to improve understanding of 

the levels and nature of IUU fishing and 

seafood fraud and related criminal 

activities. 

Traceability: Create a Risk-Based 

Traceability Program To Track Seafood 

From Harvest to Entry Into U.S. 

Commerce 

14. It is in the national interest to 

prevent the entry of illegal goods, 

including illegal seafood into U.S. 

commerce. Creating an information 

system that better facilitates data 

collection, sharing, and analysis among 

relevant regulators and enforcement 

authorities would be a significant step 

forward in addressing IUU fishing and 

seafood fraud. To that end, the United 

States should work with industry and 

other stakeholders to define the types of 

information to be collected regarding 

seafood sold in the United States and 

the operational standards to be applied 

to the collection, retention, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 75541 

transmission of such information. The 

information collected could include: 

• Who harvested or produced the fish 

(e.g. name and flag State of harvesting 

vessel and/or farm facility, type of 

fishing gear)? 

• What species was harvested (e.g. 

species name, form, and quantity of the 

product)? 

• Where and when was the seafood 

harvested and landed (e.g. ocean area of 

catch, farm location, date of harvest, 

date/point of first landing)? 

• Other relevant details, such as 

transshipment and/or processing 

activity. 

The process to develop types of 

information and operational standards 

under each of the categories above 

should allow for input from interested 

stakeholders including industry, nongovernmental organizations, supplychain experts, and state, local and 

foreign governments. It should also 

draw upon and utilize applicable 

experience, best practices, and existing 

standards where possible. This program 

should be developed in a way that 

permits all authorized agencies to enter, 

analyze, use, and verify the data while 

still protecting information consistent 

with statutory authorities. The types of 

information and operational standards 

should apply no less favorably as 

between domestic and imported 

products. Recommendation: Direct the 

Task Force, with input from U.S. 

industry and other stakeholders, to 

identify and develop within six months 

a list of the types of information and 

operational standards needed for an 

effective seafood traceability program to 

combat seafood fraud and IUU seafood 

in U.S. commerce. 

Question: Accounting for those listed 

above, what types of information and 

operational standards should be 

included in a traceability program? 

15. Following Recommendation #14, a 

program will be developed and 

implemented to establish these types of 

information and operational standards 

as pre-requisites for entry into 

commerce. The program will initially be 

applied to certain fish or seafood that 

are of particular concern because they 

are subject to significant seafood fraud 

or because they are at significant risk of 

being caught by IUU fishing. However, 

the goal would be to eventually expand 

the program to all seafood at first point 

of sale or import, after consideration of 

relevant factors such as input from 

stakeholders and cost-effectiveness. To 

achieve this: 

a. The Secretaries of Commerce, 

Health and Human Services, State, and 

any other relevant agencies will identify 

certain species of fish or seafood that are 

of particular concern because they are 

subject to significant seafood fraud or 

because they are at significant risk of 

being caught by IUU fishing. The 

Secretaries of Homeland Security, HHS, 

and Commerce, and other agencies, as 

appropriate, will work together to 

implement Recommendation #14 

requirements for the collection of 

relevant and necessary data from, and 

compliance with operational standards 

by, importers of these identified species, 

as consistent with existing authorities. 

b. The Secretaries of Commerce and 

Health and Human Services will then 

work with the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, states, and other 

partners to require this same 

information from these identified 

species when they are domestically 

harvested or produced. 

c. Information collected will be 

shared among Federal administrative 

and law enforcement agencies for 

analysis and other relevant actions to 

prevent IUU or fraudulently labeled 

seafood from entering U.S. commerce 

pursuant to the strategy developed by 

the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, and the Interior, 

and the Attorney General 

(Recommendation #8). 

d. The Secretary of Homeland 

Security will collaborate with the 

Secretary of Commerce and other 

agencies as relevant to assist in 

developing a voluntary Commerce 

Trusted Trader Program for importers of 

these identified species. The Program 

will provide benefits such as reduced 

targeting and inspections and enhanced 

streamlined entry into the United States 

for certified importers. 

e. Implementation of this risk-based 

traceability program will be evaluated 

regularly, beginning within one year of 

requiring the types of information for atrisk species, to identify whether it is 

meeting the intended objectives in the 

most effective way possible, while 

considering costs and benefits. The Task 

Force will consider the next steps in 

expanding the program to other seafood 

entering U.S. commerce. This 

evaluation will include input from 

stakeholders and identify any additional 

resources or legal authorities that may 

be necessary to cover additional species 

and types of product, and to make the 

information available to the consumer. 

f. Within one year of requiring the 

types of information for at-risk species, 

the Task Force will develop further 

recommendations on how certain types 

of information within the traceability 

system (e.g. species; geographic origin; 

means of production, such as wildcaught versus aquaculture; and gear 

type) could be made available to the 

consumer. 

Recommendation: Direct the Task 

Force to establish, within 18 months, 

the first phase of a risk-based 

traceability program to track seafood 

from point of harvest to entry into the 

U.S. commerce. 

Questions for Recommendation #15: 

(a) Which species are currently at 

highest risk of IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud and what factors contribute to 

species becoming at high risk in the 

future? 

(b) What are the specific 

characteristics and workings of the 

global seafood supply chain that should 

be taken into account when requiring 

information? 

(c) What are the best approaches for 

expanding the risk-based program to 

incorporate other fish and seafood 

products entering into U.S. commerce? 

(d) How often should the risk-based 

program be evaluated? 

(e) What roles should government and 

private sectors serve in managing and 

evaluating the program? 

Reporting: Where a timeframe is not 

specifically noted under a 

recommendation, the relevant agencies 

will report to the Task Force on the 

progress of implementing that 

recommendation in one year from 

receiving guidance from the President. 

In addition, recognizing that a valuable 

and extensive body of information on 

fisheries and seafood products would be 

created by the recommendations above, 

the Task Force will report annually to 

the President, via the National Ocean 

Council, on seafood trends, key issues 

related to IUU fishing and seafood 

fraud, and progress on development and 

implementation of a comprehensive and 

risk-based traceability program. 

Dated: December 15, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29628 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

[Docket ID USA–2014–0047] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to alter a System of 

Records. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES