FR 2021-01955

The document under review is a notice from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regarding the extension of an information collection initiative related to floating marine debris. The initiative involves a Shipboard Observation Form designed to gather data from various stakeholders in order to better understand and manage the impacts of marine debris on the environment and economy of the United States. This initiative is part of efforts under the Marine Debris Act and seeks comments from the general public until March 30, 2021.

Summary

The notice invites comments on the necessity and utility of the information collection as well as suggestions to reduce the public's reporting burden. NOAA uses the feedback to refine data collection methods and enhance the overall effectiveness of the initiative. The proposal impacts a wide range of stakeholders, including individual or household contributors, non-profit organizations, and business entities, all contributing to the national effort to track and mitigate marine debris.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One issue that stands out in the document is the lack of clarity regarding how the data will ultimately be utilized. While the goal to mitigate marine debris is clear, the specifics on data application and expected outcomes are not fully detailed. This absence of information leaves uncertainties regarding the measurable impact and effectiveness of the initiative.

Another point of concern is the administrative costs associated with the program. Although the document states there is no cost to the public for reporting, it does not provide insight into the potential expenses involved in running the program itself. Understanding these costs is crucial in assessing whether resources are being used efficiently.

Additionally, the estimate that only five respondents are expected seems surprisingly low. This casts doubt on the ability to collect meaningful national-scale data and raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of the initiative. More justification for such a small respondent pool is necessary for public transparency and trust.

Finally, the document discusses the handling of personal information submitted with comments but offers no assurance regarding anonymity. Without guarantees of privacy protection, potential respondents may be hesitant to participate, thereby limiting feedback.

Public Impact

For the general public, this initiative represents an opportunity to voice opinions and influence national policies on environmental issues. However, the lack of explicit information on data usage and privacy issues may hinder public engagement and participation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders such as NGOs and maritime businesses, the program could provide important insights and contribute to improved practices and policies that enhance environmental stewardship. However, the absence of detailed guidance on participation may limit their ability to fully engage with the initiative.

For NOAA and other governmental bodies involved, refining collection methodologies based on public feedback could lead to more efficient and effective management of marine debris. However, the current presentation lacks specific guidance on areas seeking input, which could potentially narrow the scope of beneficial suggestions.

In conclusion, the document outlines a potentially impactful initiative but fails to provide sufficient detail in areas that would reassure stakeholders and the public of its efficacy and transparency. Such gaps must be addressed for the program to achieve its intended objectives effectively.

The document references the Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs. This suggests that there is no direct financial burden placed on individuals or organizations participating in this information collection process. Such a statement is significant as it may encourage voluntary participation by removing financial barriers, making it accessible to a wider range of respondents.

However, the absence of specified costs related to the administration of the program leaves some questions unanswered. While it is clear that participants incur no costs, the document does not mention the expenses associated with managing the program itself, which might include administrative labor, materials, or technology. The lack of transparency regarding these potential expenses could obstruct a comprehensive analysis of the program's overall cost-effectiveness and may contribute to concerns about possible wasteful spending.

Regarding the listed estimated number of respondents, which is only 5, the document does not explain why this figure is so low for a data collection initiative intended to address marine debris on a potentially large scale. This low participation estimate could impact the financial justification for the effort, given the potential disparity between the program's administrative costs and the value derived from such a limited data set.

In summary, while the document ensures no direct costs to participants, it would benefit from greater disclosure of the financial implications associated with operating the program. This information is essential for evaluating the potential economic efficiency and overall utility of the initiative. Transparency about administrative expenses would address concerns about fiscal responsibility and help determine whether the program's expenditures are justified by its outcomes.