FR 2021-00958

The document in question is a notice from the Department of Commerce inviting public comments on a survey aimed at understanding how small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are managing during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, named the "Small and Medium-Sized Business Complex Event COVID-19 Survey (Wave 3)," is part of ongoing research to investigate business resilience and planning for future disasters. The intentions behind the survey are commendable as they aim to collect longitudinal data that can provide valuable insights into the resilience of SMEs amidst the ongoing pandemic and potential natural disasters.

General Summary

The Department of Commerce is conducting a third wave of data collection to assess how SMEs cope with and adapt to disaster circumstances, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public comments on this data collection are invited to ensure that the proposed methods are reasonable and that the information collected will be useful. The feedback will also help in minimizing the reporting burden on the surveyed SMEs.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A primary concern regarding the notice is the lack of transparency in the methodology and cost estimation. The document mentions that remuneration for participants is justified due to the complex nature of the study and the time burden on respondents. Nevertheless, it fails to detail the process or rationale behind the specific remuneration figures provided, raising questions about the transparency and fairness of participant compensation.

Furthermore, the method of data collection through an unspecified online survey platform could be problematic. There is no assurance of data security and privacy measures, critical considerations given the sensitive nature of business information. Additionally, the selection process for the 1,800 respondents is unclear, which could introduce bias and compromise the representativeness of the study’s findings.

The document also suggests a cross-Department of Commerce effort, but does not elaborate on individual office roles or responsibilities. This lack of specificity may lead to confusion about accountability and the scope of each office's involvement.

Impact on the Public

The survey's results have the potential to significantly influence public policy concerning SMEs. If executed properly, the collected data could lead to improved strategies and support systems for SMEs in the face of disasters, thereby helping stabilize significant segments of the economy. However, the absence of detailed methodologies and selection criteria could compromise the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the survey.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

SMEs, the primary stakeholders in this survey, could benefit from the findings, which may lead to enhanced resilience-building measures and more tailored assistance initiatives. On the flip side, businesses that participate might face undue burden in terms of time investment if the study design and its implementation lack clarity and efficiency.

For public participants and businesses engaging with this survey, the obligation is voluntary. However, the lack of detailed information about their role and the potential time commitment might deter full participation, potentially skewing the data and undermining the study's usefulness.

Conclusion

In summary, while the document outlines a well-intentioned initiative to study SME resilience during tumultuous events like the COVID-19 pandemic, there are significant areas that require further clarification and development. Addressing these issues will enhance the validity of the study and help in deriving actionable insights that can genuinely benefit SMEs and the broader economic landscape.

The document mentions estimated financial implications related to the collection of information from small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The total annual cost to the public is stated as an estimated $12,000. This amount appears to be derived from remuneration provided to survey participants. Specifically, the document outlines that $15 is allocated for each of the 300 respondents participating in the full semi-structured survey, resulting in a cost of $4,500. Additionally, $5 is allocated to each of the 1,500 respondents who take part only in the structured survey portion, resulting in a total of $7,500. These figures combine to reach the upper bound estimate of $12,000.

However, the document lacks clarity in explaining the rationale behind these remuneration figures, making it difficult to understand the basis for such financial allocations. The absence of detailed justifications and methodological insights into how these monetary amounts were determined raises transparency concerns. Without a clear breakdown of the cost estimation process, stakeholders may question the appropriateness of these allocations and whether they align with the study's objectives.

Additionally, the document fails to specify the involvement of sponsors or organizations managing the remuneration process. This lack of transparency could potentially lead to conflicts of interest if organizations with vested interests in the study's outcomes are involved financially. Therefore, identifying the sponsors or entities providing these funds would enhance the document's credibility and transparency.

Overall, while the document specifies financial allocations for participant remuneration, it falls short of providing the necessary detail and context needed to fully understand and evaluate the appropriateness and justification for these allocations. Addressing these shortcomings would improve comprehension and trust in the study's design and financial management.