FR 2024-28202

The document at hand is an official notice from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which seeks public input on a proposed data collection effort. The data collection initiative is intended to support the IMLS's learning agendas for libraries and museums. As part of its responsibility, IMLS conducts a pre-clearance consultation to minimize the burden on respondents and ensure data collection is efficient and effective.

Summary of the Document

This notice is a formal request for public comments regarding the proposed data collection plan by IMLS. It highlights that this step is part of continuing efforts to streamline paperwork and reduce the administrative burden on respondents, which includes museum and library staff, among others. The agency welcomes public feedback until January 2, 2025, on aspects like the necessity and utility of the collection, its burden estimation, and any potential improvements.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues emerge from the document. Firstly, it lacks specificity about the exact scope and nature of the studies supporting IMLS's learning agendas, leaving an air of ambiguity about its core objectives. This vagueness could hinder the public’s ability to provide meaningful comments and input.

Another concern is the estimated response time. With each respondent expected to spend nearly an hour, the time burden seems disproportionately high, raising questions about the efficiency of the exercise. The costs associated with this endeavor also need more clarity. Details about the annual cost burden to respondents and how the Federal cost is calculated would bring much-needed transparency.

Additionally, while the document encourages using advanced technologies to minimize respondent burden, it fails to detail what such technologies or techniques might entail. This lack of information could lead to uncertainty and concern among potential respondents.

Impact on the Public

Broadly speaking, the proposed initiative emphasizes public engagement, allowing individuals to voice concerns or support about government data collection procedures that might affect them. The feedback process aims to refine these practices, potentially benefitting both the IMLS and its stakeholders through improved efficiency and reduced respondent strain.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For museum and library staff, as well as IMLS awardees and partners, the proposed information collection could represent an additional administrative task requiring time and resources. If the process is efficient and the purpose clear, it could generate valuable data contributing to better-informed decisions and policies that support their work.

However, without clearer communication regarding the process and its real-world implications, stakeholders might view the initiative as a bureaucratic burden rather than a beneficial endeavor, possibly affecting their willingness and ability to participate constructively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the document's intention is positive, aiming to solicit meaningful public engagement with IMLS’s data collection plans, it would benefit from greater clarity and transparency. Providing detailed explanations of the data collection’s nature, the reasoning behind estimated burdens, and the financial implications for both the agency and the respondents would undeniably enhance the initiative's effectiveness and public trust. As it stands, the document opens dialogue but needs refinement to fully realize its potential for constructive public participation.

The document, titled "Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: Studies To Support Institute of Museum and Library Services' Learning Agendas for Libraries and Museums," references several financial considerations as it outlines upcoming data collection activities by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

Summary of Financial References

The document lists two main financial figures associated with the proposed information collection activities:

1. Total Annual Cost Burden: The document specifies a total annual cost burden of $8,397.19. This figure represents the cost that respondents, such as museum and library staff, will incur as a result of participating in the data collection efforts. However, the document does not provide a detailed breakdown of this amount, leaving questions unanswered about how this figure was calculated or how these costs are distributed or incurred.

2. Total Annual Federal Cost: The document also notes a total annual federal cost of $202,582.68. This amount reflects the financial resources the federal government will allocate to facilitate the collection of this information. Similar to the cost burden on respondents, the document lacks a comprehensive explanation of how these federal expenditures are derived, prompting queries about the methodology used for this budget estimation.

Connection to Identified Issues

The financial references in the document relate to several issues identified within the text. One concern is the lack of detail surrounding how both the respondent cost burden and federal cost were calculated. This information is crucial for understanding the justification behind these financial allocations. More transparency and detail would help stakeholders better comprehend the necessity and efficiency of these expenses.

Further, the estimated annual burden hours (230 hours) for 234 respondents suggests that on average, participants will spend close to one hour in response time. While some respondents might find this duration reasonable, others might see it as a hefty imposition, especially given the $8,397.19 total annual cost burden. Without specific cost breakdowns or clarifications on the task complexity undertaken by each respondent, there may be lingering concerns about the efficiency and fairness of these time and cost estimations.

Lastly, the document does not elaborate on how technological or methodological strategies would minimize respondent burden or reduce costs. An explanation of such strategies or innovations could potentially mitigate concerns regarding the high financial figures and improve the overall perceived value of the study.

In conclusion, while the document provides crucial figures about the expected costs of information collection, the lack of detailed financial breakdowns and justifications may leave potential respondents and other stakeholders seeking further clarity and justification.