Overview
Title
Implementation of Provisions of the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015, the Ensuring Access to Pacific Fisheries Act, and the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people in charge of U.S. fishing rules wanted to change some rules to make sure everyone fishes fairly, but they ran out of time to finish those changes before a big deadline. They might try again later to make the new rules.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has decided to withdraw a proposed rule intended to enforce new measures against illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The rule, initially published in July 2022, aimed to update regulations according to changes from the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. However, NMFS cites a lack of sufficient time to complete the necessary revisions and seek public input before the current administration ends. If necessary, NMFS may propose new regulations in the future using standard procedures for public notice and input.
Abstract
NMFS formally withdraws a proposed rule on the Implementation of Provisions of the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 and the Ensuring Access to Pacific Fisheries Act, which was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2022. This proposed rule would have implemented certain provisions of the two acts and amended the definition of illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing in the regulations that implement the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act). After the proposed rule was issued, Congress amended the Moratorium Protection Act by the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA). NMFS has been developing a revised proposed rule in light of the NDAA to conform to the statutory changes, but does not have sufficient time to finalize the rule in this Administration.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announces the withdrawal of a proposed rule aimed at implementing measures to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Initially published in July 2022, the rule sought to align with new legal requirements introduced by the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, NMFS could not complete the necessary revisions and gather public input before the administration change. The withdrawal implies that, while a future proposed rule may be issued, this specific rulemaking process is now terminated.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One notable issue is the document's lack of clarity regarding the reasons for the time shortage, which prevents the finalization of the rule. Without explicit insights, this absence could suggest procedural delays or inefficiencies within NMFS. Furthermore, the document does not detail the nature of potential regulatory changes, leaving stakeholders and the public in uncertainty about prospective implications.
Language describing the withdrawal of the rule may appear abrupt, with phrases like “terminates this rulemaking proceeding.” For stakeholders anticipating these changes, such language could cause concern, as it lacks information on future actions or timelines for reintroducing the measures.
Additionally, the document contains complex legal references, citing numerous Public Laws and sections of the United States Code (U.S.C.), which may pose a challenge for those not well-versed in legal terminology. This could limit accessibility and understanding for the general public.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the general public, especially those residing in coastal areas or those whose livelihoods depend on sustainable fishing and marine environments, the withdrawal suggests a delay in implementing measures crucial for combating IUU fishing. Such regulations aim to protect marine ecosystems and ensure sustainable practices that benefit both the environment and local economies.
Stakeholders, including environmental advocacy groups and regional fisheries, may view the document negatively due to delays in expected enforcement mechanisms that safeguard marine resources. The absence of updated regulations could mean that unregulated fishing practices continue, potentially harming fish populations and the marine biodiversity upon which many communities depend.
Stakeholder Engagement and Transparency
The document briefly mentions NMFS's engagement with partners and constituents following the legal changes, but it lacks specific details about these interactions. This lack of transparency may lead to questions about the thoroughness of consultations and the effectiveness of collaboration efforts to address complex regulatory challenges.
Overall, while the document communicates the withdrawal of a crucial proposed rule, it leaves gaps in information regarding future steps, thereby prompting concerns among those interested in the effective management and protection of marine resources. The NMFS will need to work swiftly and transparently to readdress these issues, proposing new regulations that align with legislative changes while considering public and stakeholder input.
Issues
• The document does not provide a clear explanation of the reasons for the lack of sufficient time to finalize the revised rule, which could indicate procedural inefficiencies.
• The document does not specify what the potential changes to regulations might entail, leaving ambiguity about how the statutory changes might be addressed in future rulemaking.
• The language used regarding the withdrawal of the proposed rule ('withdraws the July 2022 proposed rule and terminates this rulemaking proceeding') may be seen as abrupt without further elaboration on future plans.
• The complexity of the legal and procedural references (numerous Public Laws and U.S.C. sections) might make it difficult for laypeople to understand without additional context or explanations.
• There is a lack of detailed information regarding how the NMFS engaged with interagency partners and constituents since the passage of the NDAA, which could obscure the transparency of the process.