Observers, electronic monitoring and self-reported data are alternatives in the federal bycatch methodology framework, not a ranked shopping list. The January 19 final rule permits these approaches within fishery management plans. Its economic significance lies in allowing design choices while requiring implementation to be feasible in cost, technical and operational terms. [2017-02592][2017-00405]
A council cannot turn an expensive collection problem into an exemption. The adopted text requires a methodology despite feasibility concerns and asks councils to address adjustment as annual costs and funding vary. This creates a constrained choice: adapt the way information is gathered while continuing to meet the reporting purpose, rather than assume that a lower collection bill alone meets the rule. [2017-02592][2017-00405]
Information quality is part of that trade-off. The method must allow resulting uncertainty to be described numerically or qualitatively, and councils should seek to minimize uncertainty. Consultation with scientific advisers includes sample sizes and reporting frequency. A comparison of monitoring options that ignored these design features would leave out the usefulness of the information being purchased. [2017-02592][2017-00405]
The timetable also limits the claim. On February 8, the agency delayed the January final rule's effective date to March 21; it was still pending on February 11. The two documents establish permitted options, constraints and a revised start date within one policy history. They do not identify the cheapest vendor, quantify savings or show that electronic reporting outperforms observers. Those are empirical questions, not conclusions supplied by permission to choose. [2017-02592][2017-00405]
Source documents
- Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodologyhttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-02-08/html/2017-02592.htm
- Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodologyhttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/html/2017-00405.htm