FR 2021-01954

The document from the Federal Register issued by the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) calls for public feedback on their ongoing 3D Nation Elevation Data Requirements and Benefits Study. This initiative aims to enhance technology systems and data services by better understanding the needs and applications of 3D data across the United States. The collection is intended to inform and guide future program decisions by assessing business uses and associated benefits of improved 3D data. Input is requested from various stakeholders, including government agencies, academics, nonprofits, and commercial organizations, with a submission deadline for comments set for March 30, 2021.

General Summary

The notice invites commentary on the methods and implications of the information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The focus of the study is to gather detailed insights into how enhanced 3D elevation data can impact policy-making, regulation, scientific research, and management decisions. Feedback is solicited through online surveys, with the potential for follow-up interviews to deepen understanding. The study aims to meet varied mission-critical needs by engaging stakeholders comprehensively.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues emerge from the document. Primarily, the use of specialized terms like "3D topographic elevation data" and "bathymetric elevation data" might be inaccessible to the general public without further clarification. This could potentially limit understanding and effective participation from those not versed in such terminology. Additionally, the methodology for collecting data via emails and interviews may inadvertently exclude those without reliable digital access or those in remote locations.

Concerns are also raised regarding privacy and public record handling of the collected data. Although respondents are assured that their submissions will be aggregated, the notice openly acknowledges that personal identifying information could be included in public records, which might discourage participation due to privacy issues.

The document does not explicitly describe how stakeholder input will tangibly influence future policy or programmatic changes, leading to questions about the utility of contributing feedback. Moreover, while the notice provides estimates for the time and burden of response, it lacks a transparent explanation of how these figures were derived, calling into question their reliability.

Public Impact

On a broad scale, the successful execution of this study could positively impact various sectors by providing enhanced 3D data that informs better decision-making processes across governmental and private sectors. With improved data, responses to environmental challenges, urban planning, and resource management could become more effective, ultimately benefiting general societal needs.

However, the potential positive impact is somewhat clouded by the issues identified, particularly around participation inclusivity and privacy concerns, which might lead to an underrepresentation of views from crucial stakeholders who are unable or unwilling to participate due to these barriers.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders like federal, state, and local governments, as well as academic and commercial entities, the outcomes of this study promise to expand capabilities to use advanced data for mission-critical functions. Enhanced 3D data systems can facilitate improved precision in infrastructure development, environmental monitoring, and disaster response, to name a few applications.

Conversely, the process may have negative repercussions on those who perceive privacy risks from participating or those who feel marginalized by the digital-focused outreach methods, particularly in under-connected or isolated communities. Inclusivity is pivotal for the study to reflect a comprehensive national perspective, and any alienation implies a gap in the knowledge pool, affecting the study's potential success and the balance of its applicability.

In closing, while the document has commendable intentions in advancing 3D data utility, the approach must address existing flaws to ensure robust, equitable participation and enhance outcomes that align with diverse stakeholder interests and needs.

The Federal Register document under review primarily addresses a study concerning 3D Nation Elevation Data and does not explicitly discuss substantial financial appropriations or spending. However, it does reference the estimated total annual cost to the public, which is noted as $0 in recordkeeping/reporting activities. This suggests that the proposed information collection process does not impose a direct financial cost on the public in terms of recordkeeping or reporting.

Analysis of Financial References

The acknowledgment of a $0 cost implies that individuals and entities participating in the study will not incur expenses related to data submission and recordkeeping. However, while there might be no direct financial cost, one identified issue is the estimated time per response, which is two hours, resulting in a total annual burden of 1,200 hours. Although not a direct financial cost, the time commitment represents an indirect cost borne by respondents in terms of the opportunity cost of their time. This can be significant, particularly for entities operating with limited resources or personnel.

Financial References and Identified Issues

One issue relevant to financial implications pertains to the document's lack of clarity regarding how respondents' time commitments were estimated. Without a detailed explanation of how the two-hour estimate per response was determined, some stakeholders may question the validity of the time burden assessment. This could lead to skepticism about whether the overall 1,200 total burden hours accurately reflect the true impact on participants. Understanding the basis for these calculations is crucial to assessing whether participation is indeed cost-neutral in terms of time investment.

Moreover, while the document emphasizes a cost of $0, there is a need for ensuring that indirect costs, such as the time required for participation, do not deter stakeholder involvement. As another issue notes possible inefficiencies in reaching all stakeholders, considering these time commitments as part of the broader cost analysis might be necessary to enhance participation, especially if some potential respondents lack the resources to allocate significant amounts of time without affecting their primary functions.

Overall, the absence of a direct financial cost to the public is reassuring, but there should be transparency regarding the methodology for estimating time burdens to ensure an accurate portrayal of the study’s demands on participants.