FR 2021-03366

The document announced by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a call to the public and federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection. This process is part of the US Department of Commerce's routine under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The focus here is on the Southeast Region Vessel and Gear Identification Requirements, aiming to facilitate regulation enforcement and ensure lawful fisheries practices across the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic regions.

Summary

The proposed information collection requests involve marking vessels and fishing gear with an identification number, helping enforcement personnel to monitor activities and ensure compliance with regulations. This practice also aids in linking any gear found to a specific vessel owner, proving useful in legal and civil matters concerning fisheries. The intention is to extend these requirements without changes, as they are deemed crucial for effective fishery management.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A notable issue raised by the document is the lack of transparency regarding costs and burden estimates. The total annual cost, estimated at $673,277, lacks detailed justification, raising questions about whether this financial burden on fishers is justified. Additionally, the calculations that arrived at the sizeable figure of 51,070 total annual hours needed for vessel and gear marking are not thoroughly explained. Such opaque estimations could undermine confidence in the necessity and efficiency of the requirements.

The language used in the document, typical of many government notices, includes jargon such as references to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which might not be straightforward for a general audience. This lack of clear, accessible language could hinder comprehension and meaningful participation from the public.

Another concern involves the public comment process, where the potentially non-confidential handling of personal information could discourage individuals from providing feedback. For those concerned about privacy, this aspect of the process might deter engagement.

Public Impact

For the public, especially those involved in fishing industries, these requirements are designed to aid regulatory compliance, potentially reducing unlawful fishing practices. However, the cost and time associated with compliance are significant considerations that might impact these stakeholders negatively. Fisheries must incorporate these expenses and effort into their operations without detailed clarity on the direct benefits they might receive as a result.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Specifically, business owners and operators in the Southeast U.S. fishing industry might find these regulations both beneficial and burdensome. Positively, the markings can help safeguard against illegal competition and ensure a level playing field. Conversely, the mandatory compliance requirement can place an additional strain on smaller fishing operations that may lack resources compared to larger entities.

This document does not fully address possible biases or intricacies in how enforcement might unevenly affect certain groups, potentially favoring those with more resources to understand and comply with complex regulations. Without specific outlining of potential biases, this notice might maintain or even exacerbate existing disparities within the industry.

In sum, while the document pursues the noble goal of efficient fishery management, it could benefit from enhanced clarity and more detailed insights into financial and operational impacts on the affected public. This would not only engage the audience it aims to impact but might also ensure fairer and more effective implementation of these important regulatory measures.

In the reviewed document, the primary financial reference concerns the estimated total annual cost to the public, which amounts to $673,277. This figure is associated with the recordkeeping and reporting costs related to the vessel and gear identification requirements in the Southeast Region.

Summary of Financial Reference:

The document briefly mentions that the $673,277 is the estimated total annual cost to the public for complying with the information collection requirements imposed by federal regulations. These costs are likely intended to cover expenses that businesses or individuals may incur when adhering to rules for marking vessels and fishing gear as detailed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Relation to Identified Issues:

A significant issue with the financial reference is the lack of a detailed breakdown of how the $673,277 figure was determined. Without specifics, it becomes challenging for stakeholders to assess whether this expenditure is reasonable or if it might entail unnecessary spending. Understanding how these costs are distributed—for instance, between vessel marking and different types of gear marking—would enhance transparency and provide assurance that the costs reflect actual requirements efficiently.

Moreover, there is concern about the accuracy of this estimate. The document does not elaborate on the methodology or assumptions used to calculate both the cost and the 51,070 estimated total annual burden hours. This lack of context invites scrutiny regarding the validity of the numbers and whether they truly represent the financial and time demands imposed on the affected public.

The notice encourages public comments but mentions that personal feedback might not be confidential. This could deter individuals from sharing insights or challenges related to these financial burdens, possibly limiting the scope of public engagement and discussion that could otherwise lead to a better evaluation of the appropriateness of the cost estimates.

Finally, the financial details would be more accessible if the document avoided or clarified agency-specific terminology and legal references that could be obscure to the general public, further facilitating a broader and more informed input from stakeholders. Transparency and clarity are essential to justify the costs and ensure they are necessary and beneficial for enforcing the regulation effectively.