Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Economic Surveys of Specific US Commercial Fisheries
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to ask fishing businesses about their money and how they do things, so they can make better rules. People can choose to help out by sharing their thoughts on a website.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce has requested public comments on extending an information collection related to the economic data of U.S. commercial fisheries. This initiative aims to gather information about the operating costs, earnings, and other economic aspects of various commercial fisheries to help improve management decisions and enhance economic performance. The public, individuals, and businesses can provide input on this collection, which is conducted under several U.S. laws, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Participation in this data collection is voluntary, and comments can be submitted on the reginfo.gov website.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register discusses a request from the Department of Commerce for public comments on extending an information collection activity focused on the economic aspects of U.S. commercial fisheries. The initiative, managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), aims to collect data on various factors such as operating costs and earnings related to different commercial fisheries. This effort is intended to improve decision-making in economic performance and management within these fisheries.
General Summary
The notice invites feedback from the public and stakeholders on extending the economic surveys of U.S. commercial fisheries. The data collected aims to inform better management decisions, which, in turn, can enhance the economic performance and sustainability of these marine resources. Participation in the data collection is voluntary, and comments are encouraged to refine the information-gathering process.
Significant Issues and Concerns
There are several notable concerns with this document. One key issue is the lack of clarity regarding the cost implications of the collection activities, both in terms of financial and time investments, which raises questions about the scale and significance of these operations. Furthermore, the document does not provide detailed explanations of how the gathered data will be specifically applied to improve fisheries management and conservation initiatives, leaving room for potential doubt about accountability and effectiveness.
The collection frequency varies significantly among different fisheries, with some data being collected every 3 to 8 years and others 2.7 times per year on average. This inconsistency might not align with the need for more frequent updates to ensure timely and relevant data for certain fisheries. Additionally, while economic data encompasses a broad range of parameters, the text does not specify which data points are prioritized, potentially complicating the alignment of data collection with management goals.
Concerns also arise from the document's mention of coordinating the data collection process to lessen the burden on participants involved in multiple fisheries, yet it lacks details on how this coordination will be achieved effectively.
Impact on the Public
The document's public impact is rooted in its potential to influence how fisheries are managed, affecting economic outcomes that could benefit consumer prices, job stability in the sector, and the conservation of natural resources. While it provides a platform for public involvement through commentary, the reliance on voluntary participation raises issues about the comprehensiveness and reliability of the data collected.
Impact on Stakeholders
For stakeholders within the commercial fishing industry, including businesses and individual fishermen, the document presents an opportunity to contribute opinions that could shape future policy and regulations. However, given the voluntary nature of participation, there might be concerns about whether the data will adequately represent all voices within the fisheries communities.
Furthermore, the document does not explain how public comments will be incorporated into data collection or decision-making processes, potentially leaving stakeholders uncertain about the influence their feedback might have. Lastly, the discussions on how various laws tie into the economic surveys could be expanded to provide clearer context to stakeholders on why this information is necessary.
In conclusion, while the document's goal of collecting economic data to better manage commercial fisheries is commendable, the current proposal would benefit from clearer communication on costs, data usage, and stakeholder impact to enhance transparency and engagement.
Issues
• The document lacks clarity on the total cost associated with the information collection activities and whether it constitutes a significant expenditure.
• There's no specification of how the data collected will be specifically used to improve management and conservation efforts, which could lead to concerns about accountability and effectiveness.
• The frequency of data collection (every 3 to 8 years for some and 2.7 times per year for others) seems inconsistent, which may not adequately justify the need for updated data on a more regular basis for some fisheries.
• The term 'economic data' covers a wide array of potential parameters, but the document does not clarify which specific data points are prioritized or deemed most critical for management and conservation.
• The document mentions 'Coordination to reduce the additional burden for those who participate in multiple fisheries' but provides no detail on how this will be achieved practically, leading to potential concerns about efficiency.
• The list of legal authority does not clearly explain the connection between the laws cited and how they pertain specifically to the economic surveys being conducted.
• The obligation for respondents is described as 'Voluntary', which might raise questions about the reliability and completeness of the data collected.
• There is a lack of detailed explanation on how the feedback received from public comments will be addressed or integrated into the survey process.
• The section on 'Measures of economic performance' could benefit from examples that demonstrate how these measures will influence policy decisions.