FR 2021-01938

The document from the Federal Register involves a request by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a part of the Department of Commerce, for public comments concerning its information collection related to incidental take authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This request is made in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, which aims to minimize the reporting burden on the public. Essentially, NOAA collects this data to ensure the lawful taking of marine mammals during specific activities has a negligible impact on marine mammal populations and complies with legal standards.

General Summary

NOAA's notice is a call for public and governmental feedback over a 60-day period about the effectiveness and impact of its current information collection processes. The collection is vital to evaluate activities that cause incidental harm to marine mammals. This collection involves detailed applications, assessments, and monitoring reports from applicants to ensure the activities pose minimal threat to marine life.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Cost Transparency: The document states an estimated total annual cost to the public for recordkeeping and reporting but does not specify how this figure was calculated. This lack of transparency might lead to skepticism regarding whether the costs are justified and how they have been computed.

Privacy Concerns: Though NOAA invites public comments, it raises privacy concerns as the document does not provide clear assurances on how personal information will be protected from public exposure.

Response Burden: The estimated time commitments for preparing applications and reports seem extremely high, such as 1,200 hours for a new regulation application. This suggests that the process could be burdensome and might indicate inefficiencies that increase the workload unnecessarily.

Clarification Needs: The document does not clarify what practical utility the collected information serves, making it difficult for the public to determine the necessity of the data collection.

Increase in Responses: While the document anticipates an increase in respondents, it lacks an explanation on how this was estimated. Without this context, the expected increase seems somewhat arbitrary.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this notice provides an opportunity to voice their opinions on how the data collection process could be improved. It also encourages transparency and accountability within NOAA’s procedures. However, the complexity of the ongoing processes and potential privacy issues could discourage individual participation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Businesses and Government Entities: Organizations that participate in activities affecting marine mammals could face substantial paperwork and resource allocation to comply with reporting requirements. The high time estimates for responses can translate to increased administrative burdens and costs.

Environmental Advocacy Groups: These stakeholders may view the collection favorably as it ensures oversight and protection for marine mammals. However, they might advocate for more efficient methods to achieve the same level of protection without the associated high costs or burdens.

In conclusion, while NOAA’s effort to obtain public input on paperwork related to the incidental take of marine mammals is necessary for ensuring compliance with environmental protections, there is room for improvement in terms of reducing the administrative burden, enhancing transparency, and safeguarding personal information.

In the document, the financial implications primarily revolve around the estimated total annual cost to the public, which includes $617,822 allocated for recordkeeping and reporting costs. This figure is substantial and suggests a significant financial burden on organizations affected by the requirements set forth under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). It is worth noting that there are no capital costs anticipated, which means that no additional infrastructure or equipment purchases are projected.

The document does not provide detail on how the $617,822 estimate for recordkeeping and reporting was calculated. This lack of transparency can raise concerns, as stakeholders and the general public may find it challenging to understand the basis for these costs and whether they are justified. Providing a breakdown or explanation of these costs would enhance transparency and allow affected parties to better assess and prepare for potential financial impacts.

Furthermore, one issue identified is the substantial amount of time estimated for completing certain activities. For example, the preparation of an application for new regulations is estimated to take 1,200 hours. Such extensive time commitments translate into higher labor costs, especially for businesses and organizations that need to allocate personnel to these tasks. The time and cost burden can be perceived as excessive, especially if it is not clear how these estimates were derived or if they align with actual requirements.

The notice indicates an expected increase in the number of respondents and responses, which suggests that the total financial burden may grow over time. However, the document does not explain how this increase was estimated or justified. Understanding whether this growth is based on trends, policy changes, or other factors is crucial for stakeholders to anticipate future financial commitments.

In addressing these financial implications, it would be beneficial for the issuing agency to detail the methodology used to project these costs, helping the public and other stakeholders assess the necessity and reasonableness of the financial requirements involved. Without such transparency, there might be questions about the efficiency and practicality of the information collection process, potentially impacting the trust and compliance from affected entities.