Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Applications and Reporting Requirements for the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals by Specified Activities (Other Than Commercial Fishing Operations) Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to know what people think about rules to let certain activities (not fishing) accidentally bother a few sea animals, and they want to make sure filling out the paperwork isn’t too hard, so they’re asking for comments to make it better.
Summary AI
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is inviting comments on an information collection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This rule would permit the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens engaged in certain activities. The goal is to evaluate whether the information collection is necessary and to minimize the public's reporting burden. The public can submit comments until May 30, 2025, to help improve the quality and clarity of the information collected.
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 Federal Register addresses a request by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for public comments on a proposed information collection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This collection aims to regulate the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens engaged in certain activities. Public input is being sought to assess the necessity of this information collection and to find ways to minimize the public's reporting burden. Comments will be accepted until May 30, 2025.
Summary of the Document
The NOAA's notice offers individuals and federal agencies a chance to comment on whether the proposed collection is essential for the Department's operations. It provides specific details about data collection methods, estimated time burdens, and associated costs. The document also discusses legal provisions that enable such activity under the MMPA and the necessary reporting and monitoring required to ensure marine mammal impacts remain negligible.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several key issues arise from the document that may affect its clarity and effectiveness for the public. First, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the estimated $629,724 annual cost to the public, which makes evaluating its financial efficiency difficult. Additionally, the language and numerous acronyms, such as NMFS, MMPA, IHA, and LOA, are not immediately defined. This might lead to confusion among readers unfamiliar with legal or regulatory jargon, thereby hindering public understanding.
The document also does not provide specific examples or case studies demonstrating the direct impact of these requirements on different stakeholders, which could be beneficial in evaluating the practical utility of the information collection. Furthermore, the calculation of the annual 77,056 burden hours lacks transparency regarding the methodology and assumptions used, raising questions about the estimate's accuracy.
Impact on the General Public
From a broader public perspective, this regulation's development and potential implementation are crucial in safeguarding marine mammals while allowing necessary human activities to proceed with minimal ecological disturbances. However, the complexity of the document might dissuade individuals from engaging in the public comment process, ultimately affecting their ability to influence environmental policies impacting their communities.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
Stakeholders such as businesses, non-profits, and governmental bodies affected by these regulations may face significant reporting burdens, as suggested by the notable time and cost estimates for compliance. While the document mentions the obligation to provide information, it also highlights possible increased numbers of respondents, indicating broader participation may be necessary as regulations evolve. Critics may find these elements burdensome without clear, concise explanations and assurances of data protection for submitted information.
Positively, should stakeholders engage successfully, NOAA aims to enhance the quality and clarity of information collected, possibly leading to more efficient regulation enforcement that balances environmental preservation with economic activities.
Conclusion
The NOAA document encourages public involvement in shaping an essential policy concerning marine mammals. Nonetheless, improvements in clarity, transparency, and detailing potential technological efficiencies could foster increased public engagement and deeply informed contributions to the development of regulatory decisions.
Financial Assessment
The document under discussion includes a financial reference indicating an estimated total annual cost to the public of $629,724 for recordkeeping and reporting related to the incidental take of marine mammals as regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This cost is associated with compliance and information collection requirements necessary for issuing authorizations to entities that might unintentionally impact marine mammals.
The mention of $629,724 in costs is significant as it reflects the financial burden on those required to comply with these regulations. However, one notable issue is the lack of a detailed breakdown of how this estimate is calculated. Without itemization, it is difficult for stakeholders to determine if the spending is efficient or to identify areas where costs might be reduced.
Additionally, the document outlines an estimated total annual burden of 77,056 hours that the public would need to commit to meet these requirements. This represents another dimension of cost, albeit in time rather than direct financial outlay. Both the financial and time estimates are given without thorough explanation of the underlying methods or assumptions, which can lead to questions about their accuracy or realism.
Such omissions have several implications:
Clarity and Transparency: The absence of a detailed financial breakdown and a clear explanation of the methodology used to arrive at the time estimates can lead to confusion and skepticism about the accuracy and necessity of these burdens. For stakeholders to assess whether the costs are justified, they need more transparent information.
Public Participation: Another issue tied to financial references is the potential disincentive for public participation. The text warns that personal information included in comments might not be protected from public disclosure. This could discourage stakeholders from providing valuable feedback out of concern for their privacy, potentially affecting the quality and diversity of input regarding these financial and time burdens.
Assessment of Efficiency: Without exploring automated collection techniques or technology to reduce costs, the document may overlook potential efficiencies. Investing in or exploring these technologies might ultimately decrease the $629,724 in reporting costs, but such discussions are notably absent from the document.
These points underscore the importance of detailed financial transparency and exploration of efficiencies, both of which would help stakeholders better understand and potentially reduce the financial burdens indicated in the document.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed breakdown of how the estimated total annual cost to the public of $629,724 is calculated, making it difficult to assess potential wastefulness or efficiency of spending.
• The document lacks specific examples or case studies that might illustrate the impact of the information collection requirements on the affected public, making it harder to measure the practical utility of the proposed information collection.
• The language used to describe the estimated time per response seems very technical and may be complex for general public understanding without relevant background context on regulatory processes and requirements.
• There is a potential for rebuttal of the estimate of 77,056 annual burden hours, as there is no detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions used in calculating the time burden per response.
• The document uses numerous acronyms such as NMFS, MMPA, IHA, and LOA without explicit early definitions, which might confuse readers not familiar with these terms.
• The document does not clarify what constitutes a 'negligible impact' on species or stocks, leaving an ambiguous key threshold for approval of incidental take authorizations.
• The public comment request section warns about privacy but does not clearly outline what measures will be taken to protect confidential information in submissions, potentially discouraging full public participation.
• There is no detailed analysis or options presented for how automated collection techniques or information technology might reduce the reporting burden, limiting consideration of potential efficiencies.