Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Highly Migratory Species Dealer Reporting Family of Forms
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to make sure people are reporting when they buy or sell certain big ocean fish, like tuna. They're asking everyone for ideas on how to make this reporting easier and less confusing by the end of June.
Summary AI
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is seeking public comments on information collection related to highly migratory species like tuna and swordfish. As part of compliance with several fishery management acts, NOAA requires businesses to report transactions involving these species, both domestically and internationally, to help monitor fisheries and track trade. This notice invites comments on how to improve data collection processes and minimize the burden on businesses, with responses due by June 27, 2025. The data collection includes various forms and electronic reports to monitor and manage fishing activities.
Abstract
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements, and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) invites public comments on an information collection initiative concerning highly migratory species such as tuna and swordfish. This initiative is part of efforts to comply with national and international marine fishery management obligations. One of the primary goals is to monitor and manage fishing activities by requiring businesses to report transactions involving these species. The notice specifies a deadline for comments by June 27, 2025, and outlines how these comments help improve data collection processes and reduce burdens on businesses.
General Summary
The NOAA is soliciting feedback on its data collection practices related to the trade and sale of highly migratory species like tuna and swordfish. The aim is to streamline these processes as part of compliance with U.S. and international regulations, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. The data collection includes tracking trades both domestically and internationally, involving forms and electronic reporting.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A notable issue within the document is its extensive reference to legal texts and acts without providing simple explanations or context. Terms like the Magnuson-Stevens Act may not be easily understood by the general public, making parts of the document overwhelming for individuals less familiar with regulatory language.
Moreover, the document provides estimates on the time and cost burden placed on the public due to these reporting requirements but does not detail the methodology behind these calculations. This lack of transparency may hinder the ability to assess the accuracy or fairness of the estimates presented.
While the document outlines various reporting requirements, including electronic landing reports and trade tracking programs, it could be clearer on the specific purposes and distinctions between these responsibilities. Additionally, while there is a call for public comment, the process for how these comments will be handled or incorporated into policy is not described, possibly discouraging participation.
Broad Public Impact
The broader public may experience indirect impacts from this initiative, namely through improved management of marine resources. By effectively tracking the trade and sale of these species, NOAA can help ensure sustainable fishing practices, which is critical for long-term environmental health and seafood availability.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses involved in the fishing and trade of highly migratory species are directly impacted by these information collection requirements. While they provide essential data for sustainable management practices, they also present an administrative and financial burden. However, specific benefits to these stakeholders, such as possibly contributing to a healthier ecosystem that supports their industries, are not explicitly mentioned in the document.
Finally, the document does not discuss potential security precautions regarding the handling of public comments, which raises concerns about the protection of personal information. Providing detailed assurances on data handling might encourage more stakeholders to share their feedback without fear of privacy violations.
Financial Assessment
The document under review concerns the renewal of an information collection related to the reporting activities of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regarding highly migratory species. Within this document, there is a singular financial reference indicating the Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,274. This figure points to the expected total financial burden that the reporting and compliance activities will impose on the responding entities, which consist mainly of businesses or other for-profit organizations engaged in activities like fishing, importing, and exporting highly migratory species.
There is no detailed breakdown of how this $2,274 is arrived at, nor is there information provided about the specific elements contributing to this cost. It is inferred from the context that the cost might be related to the time spent on completing required reports and the use of necessary technology or processes for compliance. However, the document does not equip the reader with sufficient information to understand how this financial figure balances against the benefits or utility derived from such data collection.
The financial allocation mentioned is not linked to direct spending or appropriation by the federal government but rather emphasized as a cost absorbed by the public or private respondents engaged in reporting activities. This raises an issue highlighted in the document regarding transparency and clarity for the audience. The absence of detailed information about the methodologies used to derive this cost means stakeholders are left without a clear understanding of the burden's components or whether cost estimates are accurate or justified. This may affect the willingness of affected parties to actively engage in or comment on the information collection process since they might not see the economic rationale or benefit.
Overall, the document would benefit from additional details or explanations regarding how the $2,274 cost estimation is calculated. Additionally, presenting any juxtaposed benefits, such as improvements in managing fishery resources or any consequential positive economic impacts, may soften perceptions of this cost purely as a burden and encourage meaningful public participation in the comment process.
Issues
• The document extensively references legal acts and statutes (e.g., Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Atlantic Tunas Convention Act) without summarizing or explaining their relevance, which might be difficult for a general audience to understand.
• The language used is legalistic and bureaucratic, which can be complex and challenging for individuals not familiar with regulatory or legal documentation.
• There is a potential issue regarding the estimate of the burden hours and associated costs to the public: the methodologies and assumptions used to derive these estimates are not detailed, making it difficult to assess their accuracy.
• The document mentions various types of reports and requirements (e.g., electronic landing reports, tagging requirements, trade tracking programs) but could be clearer on the distinction and specific purposes of each.
• The document outlines a request for public comments, but the mechanics of how these comments will be acknowledged or addressed are not fully explained, which might discourage public engagement.
• The potential cost (both time and financial) implications for respondents are summarized, but there is no discussion or consideration of potential benefits to the public or affected parties.
• There is an instruction to avoid submitting confidential information with comments, yet there is no detailed explanation of how comments will be managed or what security and privacy assurances are in place.