Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government needs permission to ask some people for information about building places where they keep the stuff from past presidents. They couldn't ask for permission last year because of the pandemic, and now they want to hear what people think about their plan to collect this information.
Summary AI
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has requested approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate an information collection that expired in 2020. This collection gathers data from private foundations or entities involved with Presidential libraries for a report to Congress. The request was delayed due to COVID-related disruptions, and NARA is inviting public comments on this proposal according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The data collection will help NARA perform its duties related to accepting new Presidential library facilities.
Abstract
We have submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to reinstate this previously-approved information collection that expired in 2020. Due to disruption in operations from COVID, we were not able to issue the second notice in time last year to renew before the expiration date. We collect this information from private foundations or other entities involved in designing, constructing, and equipping Presidential libraries and use it in a report to Congress. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register is a formal notice from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regarding the reinstatement of an information collection activity. This activity, which expired in 2020, involves gathering data from private foundations and other entities involved in establishing Presidential libraries. The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic delayed the renewal process. The information collected is crucial for NARA to fulfill its obligations to report to Congress and manage the transfer and operation of new Presidential library facilities.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the primary concerns highlighted in the notice is the low estimated number of respondents. The document states that there is only one respondent, which may raise questions about the scope and inclusiveness of the data collection process. It is unusual for a potentially important national undertaking, such as the establishment of Presidential libraries, to involve feedback from only a singular party. This could signal an oversight or a lack of engagement efforts from NARA.
Furthermore, the absence of an agency form number may lead to confusion or mismanagement when referencing the specific information request. Such identifiers are typically pivotal in ensuring the clarity and efficiency of bureaucratic processes.
Moreover, while the document notes an estimated burden of 40 hours per response, this might not reflect the actual time commitment required. Responses might vary significantly in complexity, and certain respondents could find the process more time-consuming than anticipated.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly speaking, the average member of the public may not feel directly impacted by this document. However, the establishment and functioning of Presidential libraries is a matter of national heritage and public interest, which indirectly affects everyone. Therefore, ensuring proper processes and regulations are followed is critical.
For specific stakeholders, such as foundations involved in creating or maintaining Presidential libraries, this notice serves as an important directive. However, the potential lack of clarity regarding which organizations are expected to respond could leave some entities uncertain about their roles and responsibilities. This might negatively affect their participation or compliance with the requirements set out by NARA.
Positive and Negative Impacts
Positively, should this collection be reinstated effectively, it enables NARA to maintain a standardized approach in reporting and managing Presidential libraries, preserving these institutions' historical and cultural value. On the downside, the issues surrounding engagement, clarity, and estimated burdens could lead to inefficiencies or mismatches in expectations between NARA and the private entities involved. This could ultimately impact the effectiveness of the process and the quality of outcomes derived from this information collection.
In conclusion, while the document underlines important procedural efforts by NARA, there are several areas where additional clarity and engagement could improve the evaluation and administration of Presidential library projects. Addressing these concerns would likely benefit all parties involved.
Issues
• The document does not provide specific details or quantitative data on how the information collected will materially affect decision-making or outcomes, making it challenging to assess its necessity or impact fully.
• The estimated number of respondents is listed as 1, which seems unusually low for a potentially large-scale information collection task. This might either be an error or indicate a lack of broader engagement.
• The absence of an agency form number could create ambiguity in processing or referencing the specific information collection request.
• The document could be more explicit about the types of organizations or foundations required to respond, potentially leaving some parties unaware of their obligations.
• The total estimated burden of 40 hours might not fully capture the real-world variance in response times, possibly underestimating the burden on certain respondents.
• The abstract mentions a reinstatement of a previously approved collection that expired without renewed notice, raising questions about the continuity and compliance of the collection process.
• The document could clarify the steps or criteria used by NARA to validate or verify the information provided by respondents to prevent potential oversight or inaccuracies.