Overview
Title
60-Day Notice and Request for Comments; New Information Collection Request, 1670-NEW: SAFECOM Nationwide Surveys Generic Clearance
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to check how well people who respond to emergencies, like firemen and police, can talk to each other when there’s trouble. They are asking people to fill out surveys to figure this out and want to know what everyone thinks before they start.
Summary AI
The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is seeking comments on a new information collection effort. This initiative involves conducting the SAFECOM Nationwide Surveys to evaluate the emergency communications capabilities of responders across different levels of government. The surveys will help assess current capabilities and identify needs and gaps, with the data being shared with relevant emergency communication stakeholders. CISA aims to minimize the burden on respondents by offering various submission methods, including electronic forms. Comments on the proposed information collection are due by April 19, 2021.
Abstract
DHS CISA ECD will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register discusses a new initiative by the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to collect information through the SAFECOM Nationwide Surveys. This initiative aims to evaluate and improve the emergency communication capabilities of responders at various government levels. The information collected will help identify current communication gaps and needs, and the data will be shared with stakeholders involved in emergency communications.
General Summary
The proposed surveys by CISA are intended to provide a comprehensive assessment of communication capabilities for emergency responders. The information gathered will support updates to national emergency communication plans and improve preparedness and interoperability during emergencies. Various submission methods will be offered for the survey, including electronic forms, to reduce the burden on respondents. Comments from the public regarding this information collection effort are due by April 19, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document that warrant consideration. Firstly, the document mentions costs associated with the initiative, such as 'Total Annualized Respondent Opportunity Cost' and 'Total Annualized Government Cost.' However, it lacks a detailed breakdown or explanation of how these costs are calculated, which could limit transparency and understanding for stakeholders and the general public.
Moreover, the legislative language describing regulatory requirements is complex and could benefit from simplification for broader comprehension. Additionally, while various submission methods are mentioned, the document does not specify how electronic submissions will ensure respondent anonymity, which may be a concern for those wary of privacy issues.
Another point of concern is the frequency of the survey. It is noted as being conducted annually, in contrast to the existing 5-year Nationwide Survey, yet the necessity for this frequency is not elucidated in the document. Lastly, the text mentions supplemental surveys but provides minimal detail on their scope and how they differ from the main survey, leaving stakeholders without clear guidance on these additional efforts.
Public Impact
The proposed surveys can have a broad impact on the general public by potentially improving emergency response capabilities. By collecting comprehensive data, CISA can enhance communication strategies that benefit communities during emergencies such as natural disasters or terrorist acts. The ability to evaluate current systems and address gaps will strengthen public safety and security.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, may see both positive and negative impacts. Positively, these entities could benefit from improved data-driven emergency communication plans and strategic priorities that arise from survey findings. This, in turn, could enhance public safety at local levels and equip responders with better tools and technologies.
On the downside, participating entities may face challenges related to the administrative burden of responding to surveys, even when electronic options are made available. The lack of clarity surrounding the cost implications and survey processes could also impose uncertainties that potentially hinder full participation or compliance.
In conclusion, while the initiative represents a constructive step toward enhancing emergency communications, the document indicates areas where further clarification and simplicity could benefit both the general public and specific stakeholders engaged in emergency response efforts.
Financial Assessment
The document outlines the financial implications of conducting the SAFECOM Nationwide Surveys as part of the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to improve emergency communications across various levels of government. The financial references in this document pertain to both the costs incurred by respondents and the government.
Total Annualized Respondent Opportunity Cost:
The document states a $168,298.74 annualized opportunity cost for respondents. This figure presumably reflects the estimated value of time or other resources that respondents might otherwise utilize, suggesting that stakeholders are contributing time and effort without direct financial compensation. However, the document does not provide further explanation of how this opportunity cost is calculated or justified.
Total Annualized Respondent Out-of-Pocket Cost:
Interestingly, the document highlights a $0 out-of-pocket cost for respondents. This factor suggests that participants will not incur direct financial expenses related to the surveys, such as transportation or electronic submission fees. The emphasis on a non-existent out-of-pocket cost may be aimed at encouraging participation by reducing financial barriers.
Total Annualized Government Cost:
The document details a governmental expenditure of $235,863. This sum represents the total annualized cost to the government related to conducting these surveys. However, the breakdown of this total cost is not provided within the document. Details such as the allocation for administrative expenses, technology development and maintenance, and reporting processes remain unspecified, raising concerns about transparency in government spending.
Related Issues
One of the main concerns regarding these financial references involves the lack of comprehensive explanation and transparency around how costs, particularly the governmental expenses, are calculated. Without a detailed breakdown of the $235,863 government cost, it is challenging to assess the appropriateness or efficiency of the allocated budget for these initiatives.
Another concern lies in the explanation of respondents' opportunity costs, especially since no financial breakdown is provided. For stakeholders, understanding these calculations is essential for assessing whether the initiative's objectives justify the time investment.
Additionally, while the document mentions that electronic surveys aim to reduce costs related to paper, printing, and postage, it does not quantify the savings amount. Understanding the expected savings from adopting electronic submissions could further justify the strategic shift and reassure stakeholders about the financial prudence of the survey process.
In conclusion, while the document does clarify some cost components, a more detailed exposition on how these figures are derived would improve transparency and boost stakeholder confidence in the survey initiative’s financial management.
Issues
• The cost breakdown is unclear; the document mentions 'Total Annualized Respondent Opportunity Cost' and 'Total Annualized Government Cost' without providing detailed explanations of how these costs are calculated.
• The language used in describing the legislative requirements and statutory regulations may be overly complex for a general audience and could benefit from simplification.
• While the document mentions various submission methods, including electronic and paper options, it does not provide specific details on how the electronic submissions will be anonymized, if at all, which could be a concern for respondents worried about privacy.
• There is no explicit justification for the frequency of the survey being annually versus the 5-year Nationwide Survey, which could be clarified to understand its necessity.
• The document briefly mentions the use of supplemental surveys but does not provide details on how these are specifically targeted or differentiated from the main survey.
• There is no explanation of how the 'Total Annualized Government Cost' of $235,863 is broken down, which may lack transparency.
• The document mentions eliminating paper, printing, and postage costs through web-based surveys but does not quantify the actual savings expected from this measure.