FR 2021-01473

The Federal Register document titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; West Coast Region Gear Identification Requirements" is an official communication from the Department of Commerce, specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It invites feedback from the public and other federal entities on the data-gathering process related to identifying fishing gear on the West Coast. The objective of this exercise is to enhance fisheries management and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.

Summary of the Document

The document outlines a proposal for extending the current information collection practices related to gear identification in West Coast fisheries. The NOAA emphasizes the importance of these identification measures in enforcing regulations and providing a mechanism to trace fishing gear back to the respective vessel owners. This step is crucial for effective fisheries management, supporting legal compliance, and preventing unauthorized fishing activities.

To streamline this information collection effort, NOAA is soliciting comments to assess the necessity and effectiveness of current practices. Comments are also sought to evaluate the perceived time and cost burden on respondents and explore how these can be minimized. The public is given until March 26, 2021, to submit their responses.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A few significant issues arise from the document. Firstly, the document does not elaborate on how these gear-marking regulations will be enforced or the repercussions of non-compliance, potentially leading to uncertainty among the stakeholders. Secondly, there is a lack of transparency regarding the calculated annual cost of $3,236 to the public, as the method of estimation is not disclosed, raising questions about its accuracy.

Moreover, the assumption that each gear marking takes 15 minutes is not substantiated, disregarding possible time variations based on individual cases. Another convoluted point is the document's stance on privacy; while it mentions the public availability of submitted comments, it lacks a comprehensive guideline on protecting personal information.

Additionally, the absence of consideration for alternative methods to physical gear marking, like digital identification systems, neglects the potential for innovation that might ease the burden on respondents. The document also fails to discuss any strategies for combating inefficiencies or unnecessary expenditures in implementing these regulations.

Lastly, there is no clarification on whether the stated costs and burdens apply exclusively to this specific information collection requirement or if they overlap with other federal mandates imposed on the same respondents.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

The broader public, particularly stakeholders involved in the West Coast fishing industry, are directly impacted by these information collection practices. On a positive note, the requirement for marked gear could enhance transparency and contribute to fairer practices within the fisheries, deterring illegal fishing activities and improving sustainable fisheries management.

For fishermen and vessel owners, the implication of fully complying with these regulations could mean an operational shift that demands consistency in marking techniques. While the long-term goal aids their industry by combating unauthorized fishing, the short-term procedural burdens, including potential financial costs and administrative adjustments, may lead to some resistance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the document aims to seek input on improving information gathering in the fisheries sector, it leaves significant areas unexplored or inadequately addressed. A more detailed explanation of enforcement mechanisms, a transparent breakdown of associated costs, and consideration of modern technology alternatives could help stakeholders better understand and support the regulatory framework. Balancing the need for effective fisheries management with minimizing the reporting and compliance burdens placed on the public is crucial for overall acceptance and success.

The Federal Register document highlights activities relating to the collection of information by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and identifies financial implications for the public as part of implementing gear identification requirements on the West Coast. One of the primary financial references involves an estimated total annual cost to the public of $3,236.

Financial Summary

The document provides an estimate of the total annual cost to the public as $3,236. This figure represents the monetary burden associated with compliance of the gear marking requirements by businesses or other for-profit organizations, specifically within the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. The stated cost takes into account the physical marking of fishing buoys, estimated to require about 15 minutes per gear marking.

Issues Related to Financial References

The document, while specifying the $3,236 annual cost, does not elaborate on the methodology used for calculating this cost. This lack of transparency raises questions regarding the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the estimate. Providing clarity on cost calculation, such as explaining how the time estimate per gear marking was derived, would enhance understanding and trust in the estimate.

Furthermore, there is an absence of exploration into alternative methods that could potentially reduce the financial burden on respondents. For instance, the adoption of digital identification systems might offer cost savings to both the agency and the fishermen, an aspect that remains unexplored within the document.

Lastly, there remains a general ambiguity about whether this cost is solely tied to this specific gear identification requirement, or if there might be overlaps with other federal obligations. Clarifying this would help stakeholders better understand their financial commitments and possible cumulative burdens from related regulations.

Conclusion

Overall, the document's reference to the annual cost of $3,236 provides a specific financial figure but lacks context and details about its derivation and potential implications. Addressing these gaps would not only improve transparency but might also foster better compliance through a clearer understanding of financial implications.