Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to hear people's thoughts on a survey that asks factories about the things they still need to make but haven't yet. This helps them understand how busy these factories are and how the economy is doing.
Summary AI
The Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department, is inviting public comments on the Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, as part of their efforts under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice allows for 60 days of public commentary before the information collection request is submitted for approval. The survey collects important data to benchmark the monthly Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders Survey, aiding in the analysis of business conditions. The information from this survey helps refine economic insights used by various governmental and business entities. Public comments help evaluate the survey's necessity, accuracy, and potential improvements while aiming to reduce the reporting burden.
Abstract
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 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 on the proposed extension of the Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document, published by the Census Bureau under the Commerce Department, seeks public input on the Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey. This survey is part of the bureau's compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, aiming to gather comments that will inform the evaluation process of the survey before submitting it for official approval.
Summary
The document outlines the purpose and process of collecting data on unfilled manufacturing orders. This data is vital for accurately benchmarking the monthly Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders Survey. Such benchmarks help economists, policymakers, and business analysts understand economic conditions and trends. The survey is part of a larger investigative effort by government bodies and seeks to determine the ongoing economic vitality of various manufacturing sectors, based on order fulfillment and demand trends.
Significant Issues
There are a few notable concerns with how this document handles certain subjects:
Transparency in Data Estimation: There's a lack of detailed disclosure about how the estimated total annual burden hours and time per response were calculated. Without this specific information, it's challenging to assess the validity and reliability of these calculations, leading to potential skepticism about their accuracy.
Cost Ambiguities: The document states that the estimated total annual cost to the public is $0 but also mentions possible indirect costs to respondents. This contradiction might cause confusion regarding the financial obligations participants might face.
Privacy Concerns: The document advises that comments, inclusive of personal information, could become publicly accessible. This information could deter the public from engaging fully due to privacy concerns, as not everyone might be comfortable with their personal details being potentially exposed.
Public Impact
For the broader public, this document serves as a call to enhance the dataset's collection process through constructive feedback. It acknowledges the public's role in shaping how data is collected and used, potentially leading to a more streamlined and efficient system that generates less burden on respondents.
Impact on Stakeholders
Businesses and Organizations: Companies required to participate in the survey could potentially benefit from the survey's insights, which inform economic policies and business strategies. However, they may also face increased pressure if the survey process is cumbersome or unclear.
Economists and Analysts: They stand to gain significantly from accurate and comprehensive data, as it aids in insightful economic analysis. The ability to adjust and refine data collection methods based on the public's input can improve the quality of economic forecasting.
In summary, while this document holds the promise of refining data collection for better economic analysis, it also poses concerns about calculation transparency, potential costs, and individual privacy. As stakeholders review and potentially comment on the document, these issues will be central to discussions about improving both the survey's execution and its overall purpose.
Financial Assessment
The document from the Department of Commerce outlines the process for public comments on the extension of the Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, which is a data collection effort related to manufacturing sectors. This commentary focuses exclusively on the financial references in the notice.
Financial Summary
The document mentions an "Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public" of $0. This implies that the direct financial burden to businesses and other organizations required to participate in the survey is nil, at least in terms of expenses that are advertised or charged by the Census Bureau itself. However, the document suggests the possibility of indirect costs, which might include purchases of specialized tools or software, or services like accounting or record maintenance that some respondents might incur specifically due to the survey.
Potential Issues Related to Financial References
One apparent issue is the potential contradiction in stating the total annual cost to the public is $0, while also acknowledging that respondents might encounter additional indirect costs. This could create confusion for those participating in the survey. On one hand, stating that the cost is zero suggests that there is no financial burden, while the mention of potential indirect costs, such as expenditures for specialized software or record maintenance services, might still impose an unforeseen financial demand on respondents.
Moreover, the lack of detailed explanation regarding the estimated total annual burden hours and estimated time per response compounds the ambiguity. Without transparency on how these estimates were calculated, respondents might question the validity of the assertion that there are no direct costs, particularly if they have to allocate significant time, potentially translating to labor costs, to comply with the survey.
In conclusion, while the survey claims no direct financial cost to participants, the acknowledgment of potential indirect costs and the absence of clarity on how time and effort were quantified can cause uncertainty regarding the true financial impact on respondents. This could lead to hesitation or resistance from participants who may not fully grasp any possible financial obligations implied by the survey.
Issues
• The document does not provide detailed information on how the estimated total annual burden hours and estimated time per response were calculated, which raises questions about the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• There is a mention of an estimated total annual cost to the public being $0, but it also states indirect costs may be incurred. This appears contradictory and could be confusing for respondents.
• The document mentions that comments including personal information might be made publicly available, which could deter individuals from providing feedback due to privacy concerns.
• There is no specific mention of how the data collected will directly benefit respondents or the broader public, which could be seen as a lack of transparency about the utilization of the gathered data.
• The use of terms like 'benchmarking,' 'NAICS industries,' and 'cognitive interviews' may not be easily understood by the general public without a background in data collection and analysis, potentially reducing clarity.