Overview
Title
Confidentiality of Information
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government made new rules about keeping fish information secret, like a big secret code, but sometimes they can share it to help if there's a problem. They also want to make sure everyone, like different states, knows how to work together while still keeping the secrets.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has issued a final rule to update regulations on the confidentiality of information under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This rule aligns with legislative changes such as the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization, the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and amendments from the 2015 Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act. It ensures that confidential information collected for fisheries management is protected, though certain conditions allow for its disclosure, for example, for enforcement purposes or international agreements. The rule also includes provisions for transparency and cooperation between federal and state agencies, while maintaining the necessary confidentiality in line with legal requirements.
Abstract
NMFS is issuing this final rule to revise existing regulations pertaining to confidentiality of information requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act or MSA). This rule updates the regulations consistent with the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) and 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) and amendments to the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (FMPA) under the 2015 Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act (IUU Fishing Act). The final rule provides other revisions to address issues that concern NMFS' internal control procedures (ICPs) for management of MSA confidentiality of information.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has released a final rule intended to update regulations about the confidentiality of information under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). This rule comes in response to several legislative changes, including the 2006 Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and amendments from the 2015 Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act. The primary goal of this rule is to ensure that confidential information collected for fisheries management is adequately protected, although there are specific conditions under which this information can be disclosed.
Summary of the Document
The document outlines the final rule issued by the NMFS to revise existing regulations concerning the confidentiality of information requirements under the MSA. The revisions aim to align the regulations with various legislative updates, ensuring that fisheries management information remains confidential except under particular circumstances. These circumstances include enforcement purposes, certain international agreements, and other predefined conditions that require sharing of otherwise confidential data.
Significant Issues and Concerns
There are several areas of complexity and potential confusion noted within the document:
Complex Language: Sections detailing the relationship between NMFS and state or marine fisheries commissions might be overly complex, particularly in terms of authority and enforcement responsibilities. Clearer language could help stakeholders better understand these dynamics.
Distinction Between Program Types: The terms “limited access program” and “limited access privilege programs” are used throughout the document and may create confusion. While both relate to how fishing privileges are allocated, the distinction between them isn't always clearly stated, potentially leading to misunderstanding.
Handling FOIA Requests: The document outlines conditions under which confidential information may be disclosed, especially in relation to the Limited Access Program (LAP) exception. How NMFS will handle Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for information shared under a LAP exception is not thoroughly detailed, and further clarification could improve transparency.
Statutory References: The document relies heavily on statutory references, which might be difficult to understand for readers without a legal background. Additional context or simplification of these sections could make the information more accessible to the general public.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this rule ensures that sensitive fisheries management information remains protected from unauthorized disclosure, which aids in safeguarding competitive business information within the fishing industry. The rule also supports broader transparency and cooperation between federal and state agencies while maintaining necessary confidentiality.
Impact on Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as fishing industry participants, state agencies, and environmental organizations, may experience different impacts:
Fishing Industry Participants: These stakeholders stand to benefit from the continued protection of business-sensitive information, with the rule providing clear guidelines on how their data is handled and shared.
State Agencies: With the ability to access confidential data under certain agreements, state agencies could enhance their role in fisheries management while ensuring compliance with confidentiality requirements.
Environmental Organizations: These groups might see the rule as a balancing act between necessary confidentiality and the need for transparency in fisheries data to promote conservation efforts. The rule could also provide them with a clearer understanding of data handling and sharing procedures, thus enabling better-informed advocacy.
This rule is a step towards addressing the need for data confidentiality within fisheries management while recognizing the importance of transparency and collaboration between various agencies and stakeholders involved in fisheries conservation efforts.
Issues
• The language used in sections explaining the relationship between NMFS and state/marine fisheries commissions might be overly complex and could benefit from clearer explanation, especially concerning authority and enforcement responsibilities.
• The terms 'limited access program' and 'limited access privilege programs' are related but might create confusion due to the distinction between them not being explicitly clear in some parts of the document.
• Procedures for how NMFS will handle FOIA requests for information initially shared under a LAP exception could be expanded to ensure clarity on how exemptions will be applied.
• Some sections rely heavily on statutory references, which could be difficult for readers without legal background to understand without additional context or explanation.