Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Applications and Reports for Scientific Research and Enhancement Permits Under the Endangered Species Act
Agencies
ELI5 AI
NOAA wants people to tell them if collecting information for special permits to help protect endangered animals is easy and helpful, or if it takes too much time and money. They want everyone to share their thoughts by February 18, 2025, so they can make the process better and ensure that animals are safe.
Summary AI
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), part of the Commerce Department, is inviting public comments on the collection of information related to permits for scientific research and enhancement under the Endangered Species Act. They are specifically looking for input on whether the collected information is useful, the time and cost involved, and how the reporting can be made easier. Comments must be submitted by February 18, 2025, and the feedback will help NOAA in managing information collection more effectively while ensuring that activities have minimal impact on endangered species.
Abstract
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within the Department of Commerce, is a call for public comments on the information collection related to permits for scientific research and enhancement under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As part of the requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the agency seeks feedback on the necessity and efficiency of this data gathering. This process is particularly important because it ensures that NOAA's permit issuance activities are conducted effectively, minimizing the impact on endangered species and simplifying the bureaucratic load for permit applicants.
Summary of the Document
At its core, the document is a solicitation for public input regarding information collection mandates tied to the ESA. It outlines that comments must be submitted by February 18, 2025. Specifically, NOAA aims to understand if the information gathered is practically useful, the adequacy of the estimates related to time and costs incurred by respondents, and ways to lessen the reporting burden on participants. NOAA appears committed to enhancing both the quality and efficiency of its procedures.
Significant Issues and Concerns
There are several notable concerns worth considering:
Clarity and Accessibility: While the document is written in a formal regulatory style, certain terms such as "practical utility" and "burden" may not be immediately clear to laypersons. Simplifying the language or providing definitions could help make the document more accessible to individuals without a specialized background.
Privacy Considerations: The publication warns that comments may become publicly accessible, which could deter individuals from submitting feedback if they are concerned about their personal information being exposed. The document lacks explicit details on how it plans to safeguard private information submitted through the feedback process.
Cost and Time Burdens: NOAA provides estimates for time and costs connected to completing permit applications and reports. However, there is scant detail on how these estimates are derived, which could impede respondents' ability to fully evaluate and comment on their accuracy.
Inclusivity in Feedback: The document does not elaborate on outreach efforts to capture a broad range of stakeholder voices. Without mentioning alternative ways to participate, such as workshops or meetings, there is potential to miss valuable input from diverse groups that may be affected by these policies.
Broad Public Impact
On a broader scale, the document highlights NOAA's commitment to rigorous scientific practices while protecting endangered species. The feedback collected could lead to more streamlined processes, reducing bureaucratic red tape so researchers can focus on their primary work. This might potentially foster increased public trust and transparency in governmental operations as stakeholders see efforts to include their voices in decision-making.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific groups such as academic institutions, conservation organizations, and businesses involved in research, these information collections and the ability to influence them are particularly crucial. A well-organized system can reduce unnecessary delays and ensure scientific endeavors comply with legal requirements. However, without assurances of how comments will be used or a clear method for safeguarding private information, some stakeholders might hesitate to participate fully, muting their potential impact on improving these systems.
In conclusion, while the document signifies a proactive approach to involving the public in regulatory processes, there are clear avenues for improvement, particularly around accessibility, privacy, and inclusivity. Addressing these issues can enhance both the utility and the effectiveness of NOAA's information collection processes, ultimately benefiting the species these regulations aim to protect.
Financial Assessment
The document outlines an information collection process under the Endangered Species Act, with particular references to costs associated with this undertaking. It specifically notes the estimated total annual cost to the public as $500 in recordkeeping/reporting costs. This figure implies that entities required to participate in this collection process will incur financial burdens related to the maintenance and submission of necessary records and reports.
The financial allocation mentioned indicates a minimal expense for participants, particularly when considering the scope of the work involved, such as preparing permit applications and modifications or compiling annual activity reports. These costs are mandated as part of the compliance process for obtaining or retaining benefits related to activities affecting endangered species.
While the document provides a figure for the estimated cost, it does not elaborate on how this cost was calculated, leaving stakeholders without clarity or understanding of the basis for this estimation. This absence of detail could be a point of concern among stakeholders, especially those affected by the financial requirements. One of the issues identified is the lack of transparency concerning the methodology for calculating time and cost burdens, which could affect stakeholders' ability to assess the financial impact accurately.
Moreover, another issue raised in the document concerns the inclusivity of feedback from a diverse range of stakeholders. If the financial burden, even if minor, is perceived as a barrier, it might limit participation, especially from smaller entities or less funded organizations. Financial constraints could potentially deter these groups from engaging fully in the public comment process or from complying with the entirety of the reporting requirements.
In summary, while the financial requirement appears modest at $500, greater clarity on how this figure was determined and understanding its implications for stakeholders could enhance confidence in the process. Addressing this financial aspect transparently would be beneficial to ensure inclusivity and thorough participation from all relevant parties.
Issues
• The document does not specify any specific organizations or individuals that might be favored, but vigilance is advised when reviewing individual permit requests to ensure no favoritism.
• The language in the document is generally clear, but terms like 'practical utility', 'burden', and 'methodology' could be further simplified for non-experts.
• The document mentions that public comments could be made available publicly, but it does not clearly specify how private information will be protected, which might concern individuals submitting comments.
• There is no explicit mention of how the estimated costs and time burdens were calculated, which could make it difficult for stakeholders to evaluate their accuracy.
• The document does not offer alternative methods of participation or suggests outreach efforts to ensure submission from a diverse range of stakeholders, potentially limiting the inclusivity of feedback.