FR 2021-00206

The document from the Federal Register outlines a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to initiate a new information collection system aimed at managing the use of Carbon Dioxide-Carp in controlling invasive Asian carp species. This system requires state and tribal governments to fill out a series of forms concerning the application and effects of this product. Additionally, the proposal explores the potential implementation of an automated online system, "ePermits," to streamline the process and ease the burden on users. Public feedback on this initiative is requested by March 12, 2021.

General Summary

The primary objective of this regulatory notice is to consult the public on introducing a structured information collection system. The Service seeks to use collected data to monitor the application and inventory of Carbon Dioxide-Carp, ensuring compliance and effectiveness in curtailing the spread of Asian carp. As part of this initiative, various forms will collect detailed information from applicators regarding the product's usage, which will aid in evaluating the overall environmental impact and managing invasive species effectively.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues arise from this document. Firstly, there is a lack of clarity regarding the financial implications of this collection. The estimated nonhour burden cost is $15,000 annually, including an administrative fee of $858. However, the document does not provide an adequate breakdown of these costs, leaving readers in the dark about specific financial justifications.

Moreover, the proposal mentions the "ePermits" initiative as a potential tool to streamline the process, yet it offers no clear timeline for its implementation or how exactly it will affect costs and efficiency. Such uncertainties could cause confusion among stakeholders about the readiness and impact of this new system.

The document also addresses the public comment process and notes that personal information included in comments may not be protected from public disclosure. This may deter some individuals from participating in the public consultation process, thereby limiting the breadth of feedback received.

Additionally, the use of technical language, such as "NPDES Permit number" and "EPA registered product #6704-95," may prove difficult for a lay audience to comprehend. These terms lack sufficient explanation, which can hinder accessibility and understanding of the document's content for a general audience.

Lastly, while it explains the purpose of controlling invasive species, the document could further elucidate the specific benefits and environmental necessity of Carbon Dioxide-Carp. Providing a more comprehensive explanation would better inform the public of the importance and expected impact of its usage.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the introduction of an organized information collection system signifies a step towards more systematic environmental management practices. By involving state and tribal governments in a standardized process, the Service aims for enhanced coordination and data-driven decision-making in controlling invasive species. However, the complexity and potential costs associated with the proposal could raise concerns among stakeholders regarding feasibility and practicality.

Impact on Stakeholders

State and tribal governments are the primary stakeholders directly affected by this proposal. They may face both benefits and challenges. On one hand, having a structured system could facilitate more consistent and measurable environmental outcomes. Yet, the potential administrative burden and costs might strain limited resources, particularly if the efficiencies promised by the ePermits system are not realized swiftly.

Other stakeholders, such as environmental advocacy groups and citizens, may view this process as a vital mechanism for environmental conservation. Nonetheless, the vague assurances of personal information confidentiality and lack of detailed communication regarding procedural changes could contribute to skepticism or opposition among those wary of bureaucratic complications.

In summary, while the proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service marks progress in invasive species management, it also raises several concerns and lacks necessary details. Addressing these issues could be vital for obtaining comprehensive public feedback and ensuring the initiative's success.

The document under review refers to various financial aspects related to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's new proposal concerning the information collection for the use of Carbon Dioxide-Carp, an EPA-registered product aimed at controlling invasive carp species.

One notable financial reference is the "Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost" of $15,000.00. This figure represents the anticipated costs borne by participating state and tribal governments for complying with the requirements of the information collection initiative. However, the document lacks a detailed breakdown of this estimated cost, prompting questions and concerns as highlighted in the issues identified. Specifically, the readers would benefit from understanding what makes up the administrative fee of $858 and how these costs relate to the broader initiative.

Moreover, the document estimates that each of the expected 10 annual respondents will incur an EPA Maintenance fee of $400, a State registration fee of $252, and the aforementioned administrative fee of $858. While these fees are listed succinctly, their total contribution to the $15,000.00 figure aligns with the aggregate costs anticipated for compliance. Yet, there is no comprehensive justification for these fees or the methodology used to arrive at the figures, leading to potential confusion for those who need to plan or budget for participation.

The text also discusses the impact of aquatic invasive species, noting that they result in significant economic consequences, with costs reaching into billions of dollars annually. While this highlights the broader economic context and potential justification for the initiative, the document could be improved by connecting these costs directly to the potential financial benefits or savings derived from implementing control measures like Carbon Dioxide-Carp.

Addressing these financial references more thoroughly could assist stakeholders in understanding the economic implications of the proposal and ensure informed decision-making and commentary from the public.