Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fishery Capacity Reduction Program Buyback Requests
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Commerce is asking people to share their thoughts about a program that pays fishermen to stop fishing in certain areas. They want to make sure the process is fair and not too confusing or hard for everyone involved.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce is asking for feedback on their collection of information regarding the Fishery Capacity Reduction Program. This request is part of efforts to manage the burden of reporting on the public, as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The main goal of the program is to reduce fishing capacity by compensating fishermen to give up their fishing permits or vessels. The public is encouraged to send their comments by March 23, 2021, to help evaluate and improve the information collection process.
Abstract
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a notice from the Department of Commerce, specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), seeking public comment on the Fishery Capacity Reduction Program. This particular program is aimed at reducing excess fishing capacity by compensating fishermen to give up their permits or vessels. The intention behind this effort is to enhance fishery management, maximize economic returns, and increase conservation efforts by cutting down on overfishing.
General Summary
The Department of Commerce, through this notice, is reaching out to the general public and other federal agencies to provide feedback on the collection of data related to the Fishery Capacity Reduction Program. This request is part of a broader strategy to align with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which aims to streamline the information-gathering process and lessen the reporting burden on the public. The deadline for public comment on this proposal is March 23, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues pertinent to the structure and transparency of the program emerge from this document:
Selection Criteria: There is no clear guideline on selecting participants for the buyback program. This omission could lead to perceptions of undue favoritism, raising fairness concerns among stakeholders.
Cost Estimates: The document presents relatively low cost estimates concerning the public's reporting burden, contrasting sharply with the high annual burden hours. This discrepancy suggests potential underestimation of the actual costs faced by the public.
Funding Transparency: Details regarding the allocation of funds from industry-funded or appropriations-funded buybacks are not specified. This lack of transparency may cause concern about how these programs are financed and managed.
State Involvement in Fisheries: The document offers sparse information on the role of state-managed fisheries in the buyback program. There is a lack of clarity on what obligations states must meet, leading to possible inconsistencies in program execution across different regions.
Complex Language: The document often employs complex legal jargon and processes, which may not be easily understood by the general public. Simplifying these terms could broaden stakeholder engagement and understanding.
Privacy Concerns: While comments on this notice may be publicly recorded, including personal information, the document lacks a thorough explanation of privacy safeguards. This could dissuade individuals from participating in the feedback process.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this document mostly serves an informational purpose, inviting them to engage with the process of fishery management. However, the impact may be diminished because of the document's complexity and potential lack of clarity on certain issues. Additionally, individuals who wish to provide comments might be wary due to insufficient privacy assurances regarding submitted information.
Stakeholder Impact
For specific stakeholders within the fishing industry, the program could offer significant economic incentives through buybacks. However, fishermen who may face underrepresentation or lack clarity on participation requirements could feel excluded. State governments dealing with state-managed fisheries also stand to experience challenges given the vague directives concerning their involvement.
The Department of Commerce’s efforts to solicit feedback represent a positive step towards inclusive policy-making, but the notice could be improved by addressing the transparency and communication concerns highlighted. Enhanced clarity and simplicity in these areas could foster greater trust and participation from the public and directly impacted stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The document refers to an information collection effort related to the Fishery Capacity Reduction Program, commonly known as the buyback program. This initiative aims to reduce excess fishing capacity by offering financial compensation to fishermen who surrender their fishing permits and, in some cases, their vessels. The mechanism primarily involves either appropriations from the government or long-term loans repaid by the fishing industry.
Estimated Costs to the Public
The document states that the "Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public" is $1,596 in recordkeeping and reporting costs. This figure implies that participants in the buyback program may incur expenses related to maintaining records and submitting the necessary reports as mandated by the program.
Links to Identified Issues
One of the most pressing issues highlighted is the low estimate of public costs given the high burden hours of 15,838 annually. With such a significant time investment required — including tasks such as developing implementation plans and submitting reports — the stated public cost of $1,596 appears understated. This raises concerns about whether the financial implications on individuals and businesses have been thoroughly assessed, potentially leading to an underestimation of the true financial burden placed on program participants.
Additionally, transparency regarding the allocation of funds in industry-funded versus appropriations-funded buybacks is not well-articulated. The lack of detail on the allocation and management of these funds could create confusion among participants and the general public about how the program is financed and whether funds are being used effectively. Participants might also question whether the costs they incur, even if reported as minimal, are justified by the benefits of the program itself. The absence of explicit criteria or procedures for participant selection can further exacerbate these perceptions, suggesting that financial decisions may not be equitably distributed.
While the financial elements outlined in the document suggest efforts to streamline participation and minimize reporting costs, the opaque explanation of funding mechanisms and cost estimates may leave stakeholders wary about the program’s fiscal integrity. Therefore, potential conflicts in financial management and public perceptions of transparency need to be clarified to reinforce trust in the program's operations.
Issues
• The document does not specify specific criteria or procedures for selecting participants in the buyback program, which could lead to perceptions of favoritism.
• The cost estimates provided for the burden on the public seem low given the high estimated annual burden hours; this discrepancy could imply potential underestimation of costs.
• There is no detail on how the funding from either industry-funded or appropriations-funded buybacks is allocated, which could raise concerns about transparency.
• Language around the process for State involvement in State-managed fisheries is vague, and it is unclear what specific requirements the States need to fulfill.
• The abstract and supplementary information sections describe complex processes without simplifying them for better understanding by the general public.
• The potential conflict of interest in advising holders/owners of accepted bids is mentioned but not explained, which could lead to misunderstandings about how conflicts are managed.
• The potential for public comments to be made publicly available, including personal information, raises privacy concerns that are not fully addressed in the document.