FR 2021-00554

The document from the Federal Register involves the U.S. Department of Commerce's efforts toward the efficient collection and use of information as part of the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB). This initiative, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, seeks public feedback on their current protocols for managing tissue specimens for research. The public and other federal bodies have the chance to comment until March 15, 2021, regarding the procedures utilized in retrieving tissue samples.

Summary

At the heart of this notice is the intent to refine how information is collected and used when granting access to marine mammal tissue samples. The Department seeks comments to evaluate the necessity and efficiency of these processes. Notable changes involve simplifying data collection by introducing more checkbox options—ostensibly to streamline information gathering without altering the mandatory nature of specimen submissions.

Issues and Concerns

A significant concern is the apparent lack of clarity regarding the criteria used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to evaluate tissue sample requests. This could potentially lead to perceived favoritism or ensure some researchers have more privileged access over others. Moreover, while there is a noted public cost of $152 associated with these processes, the document fails to detail what this cost covers, making it challenging for stakeholders to evaluate the financial aspect effectively.

Additionally, the modes of submission (internet, mail, facsimile) outlined do not necessarily consider current or emerging technologies that might further reduce the administrative burden. The public could benefit from adapting more modern, efficient methods. Furthermore, the document does not explain how requests for tissue samples are prioritized, adding to concerns over potential biases or a lack of transparency in allocation processes.

Some of the terminology and legal references are somewhat specialized and might not be immediately understandable to a lay audience. This could impede broader public engagement. Also, the estimated response time may not consider variations in the complexity of different research proposals, potentially misrepresenting the time commitment required.

Finally, while revisions are mentioned, the document does not provide concrete examples of past feedback incorporation, leaving one to question the adaptability and responsiveness of the process.

Public Impact

Broadly, this document impacts the general public through the opportunity it provides for direct input into how federal agencies collect and manage data, thereby potentially influencing how marine conservation research is conducted. However, the ambiguities regarding access criteria and costs could unintentionally alienate interested parties or deter engagement from those unsure of their standing in requesting tissue samples.

Impact on Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders such as researchers and environmental organizations, the document presents an opportunity to shape the procedures that govern access to crucial biological materials for scientific study. Ideally, streamlined data processes might lead to more efficient and effective research outcomes.

On the negative side, perceived opaque procedures or unclear criteria might discourage or complicate the research process for certain parties, potentially affecting who can contribute to this field of study. Additionally, without clear measures to ensure information security, stakeholders may have reservations about the confidentiality of their submissions.

In conclusion, while the document signifies progress in refining data management for marine environmental research, it leaves several questions unanswered. Addressing these concerns through transparent policy-making could greatly enhance stakeholder trust and engagement in conservation efforts.

The document references an estimated cost to the public related to the collection activities described. Specifically, it mentions an "Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $152." This figure likely represents the cumulative cost incurred by respondents engaging in the submission of specimen forms and requests for tissue samples from the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB).

Summary of Financial Implications

The mentioned cost estimate of $152 is notably low, which suggests that the financial burden on individuals or organizations interacting with the NMMTB for tissue sample requests is minimal. This cost might cover expenses such as time, materials, and possibly transportation related to the submission of required documents or samples. The document lists multiple methods for delivering forms, such as mail and facsimile, which might contribute to this cost.

Relation to Identified Issues

One of the issues identified in the document concerns the lack of a detailed breakdown of the $152 cost. Without additional clarification on what this amount covers, respondents may find it challenging to fully understand what aspects of the submission process contribute to this figure. This lack of transparency might lead respondents to question the accuracy or completeness of the cost estimate.

Furthermore, the financial aspect intersects with the broader issue of minimizing the reporting burden. The document mentions that the agency is seeking ways to reduce this burden through potentially more efficient methods. Introducing new technologies or procedures could possibly alter the current financial implications, either reducing costs or redistributing them in different areas.

Finally, the reference to a nominal cost might lead the public to overlook potential indirect costs, such as the time invested by respondents, which could be a more significant factor than the direct monetary cost.

Overall, the financial allocations and estimates in the document are modest but could benefit from additional clarification to enhance understanding among the public and to support the goal of minimizing reporting burdens.