Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Economic Impacts of Hawaii Reef Diving and Snorkeling
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to know how much money people spend when they dive or snorkel in Hawaii's coral reefs, so they're asking people for their thoughts on a survey they made, which helps them check if the survey is good and not too hard to fill out. They want to make sure it's easy to understand and doesn't take too long for people to finish.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce, specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has issued a notice requesting public comments on an information collection related to Hawaii reef diving and snorkeling. This survey aims to understand divers' and snorkelers' spending related to reef activities in several U.S. locations, expanding a previous survey conducted in Hawaii. Feedback from the public will help evaluate the necessity and utility of the information collection, improve its quality, and reduce the burden on respondents. Comments from the public will be included in the request for approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
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 presents a notice from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a part of the Department of Commerce. The notice is a call for public comment on an ongoing information collection related to the economic impacts of reef diving and snorkeling in Hawaii and several other locations across the United States. This initiative aims to expand understanding of recreational spending in these areas and, ultimately, to inform better resource management and support local businesses.
Summary of the Document
NOAA is seeking to revise and extend an existing survey that captures data on the spending habits of divers and snorkelers involved in coral reef activities. The survey, originally conducted in Hawaii, will now include locations such as American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, California, Florida, and the Caribbean. Information gathered will include participants' expenditures, as well as their attitudes and preferences related to diving and the health of coral reefs. The public is invited to provide comments over a 60-day period, which will be considered before the survey is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from this notice. Firstly, the document mentions that the estimated number of respondents is 3,500, but it does not explain how this figure was determined, which may lead to skepticism regarding the accuracy or reliability of this data. Moreover, it states that there are $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs. This assertion is not detailed sufficiently, creating uncertainty about any possible hidden costs that might go unreported.
Furthermore, the document is vague about the method of distributing and administering the survey, specifically regarding how participants will access it both online and via traditional mail. This lack of detail could lead to inefficiencies and potentially hinder participation from certain individuals or groups. Finally, the document includes a phrase about evaluating the accuracy of the time and cost burdens, which does not clarify the methodology for these estimates. Such ambiguity would likely be unsatisfactory to those reviewing the document for transparency and accountability.
Broad Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
On a broader scale, this survey may foster a better understanding of how coral reef-related activities contribute to local economies, which can be beneficial for resource management and policy-making. It can help pinpoint necessary regulatory changes or opportunities for further economic growth in regions reliant on reef-based tourism.
For specific stakeholders, such as local businesses and environmental organizations, the impact may vary. Businesses in tourism-focused regions could benefit from insights into spending patterns, allowing them to tailor services to meet the needs of divers and snorkelers better. Environmental groups might find the data valuable for campaigns or strategies aimed at conservation and sustainable tourism practices.
However, without clear details on respondents' burden and cost management, some stakeholders might be hesitant to participate or support the initiative. Efficient and fair administration of the survey procedure is crucial to ensuring equitable representation and accurate data collection that truly reflects stakeholder interests.
Overall, while the initiative has potential benefits, addressing the mentioned concerns and increasing transparency could enhance participation and credibility, leading to more effective outcomes.
Financial Assessment
The document in question discusses a proposed information collection activity by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) related to the economic impacts of reef diving and snorkeling. Key financial references in this document are sparse, focusing mainly on the Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public, which is cited as $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.
From a financial perspective, the document raises the following points and concerns:
Cost Implications
The document states that the Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public is $0 in terms of recordkeeping/reporting costs. This implies that there will be no direct financial burden on the respondents participating in the survey. However, this claim might require further clarification. While there are no costs anticipated in terms of recordkeeping or reporting, the document doesn't address potential indirect costs that participants might encounter, such as the time investment required to complete the survey or access to technology required for an online mode of completion.
Evaluation and Clarity
The lack of detailed information about how the $0 cost estimate was derived raises questions about the accuracy and completeness of this assessment. There is no breakdown or justification offered regarding the methodology used to determine these cost implications. This oversight aligns with one of the issues identified in the document, which is the vague phrasing concerning the evaluation of the time and cost burden. Without explicit details on the methods or models used to arrive at this $0 estimate, the public may find these claims ambiguous, leading to potential scrutiny or concerns about transparency.
Survey Management and Financial References
Furthermore, the document indicates that the survey will be distributed via mail and the internet, but it does not provide insights into how these distribution methods might influence the financial aspects of the activity. For example, mailing surveys could include hidden costs related to postage and handling which, while possibly absorbed by NOAA, may indirectly influence public perception regarding the true cost of conducting such a survey.
In summary, while the document asserts that there are no direct costs for participation, it lacks transparency and does not fully address potential indirect costs or offer a comprehensive explanation of the financial implications involved in undertaking the survey. This may affect public confidence in the estimates provided and could be an area that requires further detailing to ensure full clarity and understanding by the participants and stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed breakdown or justification for the estimated number of respondents (3,500) and how this number was calculated.
• The document does not clarify how the $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs is determined, raising questions about the potential for hidden or indirect costs that may not be accounted for.
• There is a lack of specific information on how the survey will be distributed and managed online and via mail, which could lead to inefficiencies or inaccessible participation.
• The phrase 'evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection' is vague and does not specify the methods or models used for estimation, which could be interpreted as unclear or ambiguous by the public.