Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Scientific Research Permits, Exempted Fishing Permits, Letters of Acknowledgment, Display Permits, and Shark Research Fishery Permits
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to make sure people are catching and studying big fish like sharks and tuna in a safe way, and they need special permission to do it. They are asking people for their thoughts on how this should be done.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce plans to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) related to permits for activities involving highly migratory species, like sharks and tuna, under U.S. federal law. These permits include scientific research, exempted fishing, and display or shark research fishery permits. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requires data to justify issuing these permits, which help in collecting marine species for public display or research that wouldn't be allowed under normal regulations. Businesses, researchers, and government agencies are expected to submit permit applications and reports as part of this process, with the authority coming from specific U.S. statutes related to marine conservation and management. The public has an opportunity to comment on this collection request through a specified website.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the Department of Commerce indicating their plan to submit a request for collecting information about various permits related to highly migratory species such as sharks and tuna. These permits are necessary for activities like scientific research, exempted fishing, public displays, and shark research fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) needs to collect specific data to justify issuing these permits, which are exempt from certain regulations under U.S. law. The public and organizations are invited to provide comments on this information collection request, with the deadline for input being within 30 days of publication.
General Overview
This document serves as a formal notice of the Department of Commerce's intention to gather information, which is required to process and issue permits for activities involving highly migratory marine species. These permits are essential for allowing scientific and educational activities that would otherwise be restricted under existing fishing regulations. The notice also emphasizes the opportunity for the public to comment on these collection activities, showcasing a transparent approach in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One concern presented in the document is the lack of explicit information on the specific benefits anticipated from the issuance of the permits. Although the document mentions purposes like public display and scientific research, it stops short of explaining expected outcomes in detail, which could improve transparency and public understanding.
The language used throughout is complex, with references to legal statues like the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. This may not be easily digestible for a general audience who is not familiar with legal or scientific terminology. Additionally, the presence of multiple permit categories may complicate the understanding for those applying for permits, leading to potential confusion and errors in submission.
Furthermore, there is no substantive explanation of how the data collected from permitted activities will be managed or shared. This could raise questions regarding accountability and transparency in data usage. The document also fails to clearly articulate how public comments will be incorporated into the final decision-making process, which might discourage public engagement due to perceived lack of influence.
Finally, the solicitation for additional comments beyond the initial 60-day period lacks explanation, potentially signaling inefficiencies or oversights in the initial comment gathering process.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the notice represents a procedural step towards better management of marine resources and compliance with federal conservation laws. However, the complexity and redundancy in the document may deter public participation in the commentary process or hinder the understanding of the permitting system.
It also assures the public that oversight mechanisms are in place to balance research and conservation with regulatory constraints, emphasizing the importance of these permits in managing U.S. waters effectively.
Impact on Stakeholders
For stakeholders like businesses, researchers, and government agencies, the document outlines mandatory reporting and documentation requirements. Aquariums, academic institutions, and researchers may find the data submission process burdensome, yet necessary for acquiring permits that exempt them from specific regulations for their activities.
While the notice promotes regulatory clarity and compliance, particularly for those in the fishing and research sectors, it also risks causing uncertainty or frustration due to its dense language and intricate requirements. Transparency on data usage and a streamlined process for feedback may better support these stakeholders as they navigate the permit application landscape.
In conclusion, the document underscores the administrative processes involved in obtaining permits for activities involving highly migratory species, aiming to balance regulatory exemptions for scientific and educational purposes with marine conservation efforts. However, clearer communications and explanations of expected benefits and data management could enhance both public engagement and stakeholder compliance.
Issues
• The document does not clearly state the specific benefits expected from the issuance of the various permits, such as public display or scientific research permits. Providing more detailed information on expected outcomes could enhance transparency.
• The language used in describing the permit process and requirements is complex, with references to multiple statutes (Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA) which may not be easily understandable to the general public.
• The document mentions multiple types of permits and requirements, which may create confusion for applicants who are not familiar with regulatory terminology and processes.
• No information is provided on how the collected data from research or display activities will be utilized or disseminated, which could raise concerns about accountability and data management.
• The requirement for public comments is mentioned, but there is no specific guidance on how public feedback will be integrated into the decision-making process.
• There is no explanation of why additional comments are being solicited beyond the initial 60-day comment period, which may imply inefficiencies in the initial solicitation process.