FR 2021-01470

In the Federal Register notice, the Department of Commerce invites public comments regarding its ongoing data collection for the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program. The program gathers personal information from anglers and for-hire fishing vessels to develop a registry that supports recreational fishing activity estimates. This initiative is primarily driven by statutory requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The document outlines the process of collecting data, encourages public feedback, and explains how interested parties can submit their comments.

Summary and Implications

The document is clear in its objective: to solicit input from the public and other stakeholders on the collection process, aiming to enhance its utility while minimizing burden. It proposes a 60-day period during which comments can be submitted, ensuring that the process is both transparent and inclusive. This open-comment phase is crucial as it offers individuals and organizations the opportunity to voice concerns or suggestions that may improve the registry's effectiveness and efficiency.

From a broader perspective, this notice has the potential to impact various stakeholders differently. For individual anglers and business owners of for-hire vessels, compliance remains mandatory, as indicated by the estimated time commitment of 3 minutes per response. Given that the burden is relatively minimal in terms of time and cost, it is unlikely to pose significant challenges. However, the notice does remind participants of the potential for their personal information to be made public, which could discourage some from commenting and engaging fully with the process.

Significant Concerns and Considerations

The document may present some difficulties due to its use of complex statutory references, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act and specific CFR provisions, which may not be immediately understandable to the general public. Although these references establish the legal foundation for the program, a layperson could find them intimidating or obscure, possibly detracting from engagement and understanding.

Another issue worth noting is the overall burden described in terms of the annual hours and costs involved. While the notice estimates a total annual cost to the public of $1,527, it does not provide a comparison to similar efforts or budgets, leaving room for interpretation on whether this figure represents a cost-effective strategy for managing recreational fishing data.

Additionally, the clear emphasis on not including confidential information in comments could limit discourse by making potential contributors cautious. Even though measures to protect personal data are often welcomed, the caution that potentially all submitted information may become public is a double-edged sword, possibly reducing the breadth of feedback received.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

By initiating this comment period, the Department of Commerce is actively working to refine its practices and procedures in a way that balances regulatory requirements with practical, user-friendly processes for the public. For the document to have its desired positive impact, engaging with the public in a way that is understandable could result in better policy nuances and implementation strategies.

For stakeholders, such as individual anglers and commercial entities within the fishing industry, this notice is a meaningful step in maintaining open communication channels with government entities. Their active participation could influence how recreational fishing data is collected and utilized, potentially shaping future regulatory policies in ways that reflect the realities faced by these groups. However, the transparency required from commenters might deter some from organizing and presenting detailed submissions.

The Federal Register notice by the Department of Commerce is a well-intentioned initiative to solicit public input, but it is not without its challenges. Its impact will depend largely on the public's willingness to engage with the proposed processes and the department's responsiveness to the feedback received.

The document under review primarily deals with an information collection initiative by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), focusing on the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program. The financial references in the document are limited, but they provide insight into the program's economic impact on the public.

Financial Overview

The document specifically mentions an "Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,527." This figure represents the combined costs incurred by respondents participating in the registry program. This is a mandated obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which requires anglers and for-hire vessels to provide their information unless exempt.

Assessment of Financial Reference

The amount of $1,527 seems modest, especially considering it covers the collective cost to all 1,204 respondents over the course of a year. This total reflects the direct expenses involved in the process, likely including costs such as completing forms and other associated logistics. At about $1.27 per respondent, this seems to be a relatively low burden compared to other federal information collection costs.

Related Issues

One identified issue is the lack of context regarding whether this cost represents a necessary or excessive expenditure. When viewed against the backdrop of federal spending, the amount appears minimal, potentially indicating that this program is economically efficient from the public's perspective. However, without additional context or comparison to other programs, it's challenging to evaluate the cost-effectiveness conclusively.

Moreover, the document mentions the paperwork burden in terms of time—3 minutes per response and a total of 61 hours per year—but does not reference any benchmarks or comparative data that would help assess whether these non-financial costs are reasonable. Such context could support the understanding of whether the $1,527 cost translates to a burden when considering the value of individuals' time.

In conclusion, while the financial impact mentioned is relatively minor, the clarity and context surrounding these costs could be improved to better inform public understanding and judgment of the program's economic efficiency. Providing comparative metrics or broader context could enhance transparency and public engagement, which are crucial for such federally mandated programs.