FR 2024-28463

The Federal Register document under discussion concerns a notice from the Department of Commerce, specifically the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The notice invites public comments on a revised information collection related to the Tech Hubs initiative. This initiative is designed to boost U.S. economic and national security by fostering regional innovation and competitiveness through place-based investments.

General Summary

The document aims to gather public feedback over 60 days on the revised data collection process. This process will help ensure that investments in the designated Tech Hubs are data-driven and accountable. Tech Hubs constitute regions with the potential to become globally competitive in future technologies and industries, thereby enhancing U.S. manufacturing, research, and overall economic stability.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several notable issues and concerns with this document:

1. Cost to Public: The estimated annual cost to the public for this data collection is stated as $115,394. This figure might seem high, raising questions about how these costs are computed and whether more efficient methods could be employed.

2. Complex Terminology: The document uses technical language and references specific laws, such as the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act, which could be difficult for a general audience to understand. This complexity might hinder the ability of the public to provide informed comments.

3. Comment Submission and Confidentiality: Although the document provides instructions for submitting comments, it does not guarantee their confidentiality. This lack of assurance might discourage public participation due to privacy concerns.

4. Estimation Methodology: While the document provides estimates for burden hours and costs, it lacks clarity on the methodology used to arrive at these figures. A more thorough explanation could lend credibility to these estimates.

5. Ambiguity of Collected Data: The data requested from Tech Hubs, including program metrics and qualitative information, is not clearly defined. This ambiguity could lead to confusion among respondents about what is expected from them.

Impact on the Public

The document's call for comments is an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the data collection process, potentially influencing how Tech Hubs are run and assessed. However, the complexity of the language and lack of privacy guarantees might limit engagement from a broad audience.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

The Tech Hubs themselves, designated consortium lead members and their partners, have a direct stake in this process. They are mandated to provide detailed data that will determine their accountability and future funding opportunities. Clarity and ease in the data submission process are crucial for these stakeholders, as the burden of reporting can significantly impact their operations.

Overall, while the initiative aims to support innovation and economic growth, its success relies heavily on clear communication and effective data collection strategies that consider the concerns of both the public and specific stakeholders.

The Federal Register document discusses the submission and review process of a data collection initiative by the Economic Development Administration under the Department of Commerce. The document highlights the need for public commentary on the proposed collection, in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

In terms of financial aspects, the document provides an estimated total annual cost to the public of $115,394. This cost estimation assumes the application of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the second quarter of 2022. The specific rate applied is the mean hourly employer costs of $62.04 for employee compensation in professional and related occupations. This information is crucial as it offers insight into how the cost of data collection activities is calculated.

Financial Implications and Related Issues

The amount of $115,394 in estimated annual cost raises questions about the efficiency of the data collection process. While the document notes that this cost stems from applying a specific hourly rate for labor, the overall expenditure seems substantial for an initiative involving 31 Tech Hub designees submitting data semi-annually. Understanding how these costs are structured and whether they can be minimized or optimized could benefit the overall initiative and reduce the public's financial burden.

Furthermore, the methodology used to calculate these figures appears to be inadequately explained within the document. While the base rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is mentioned, there is limited context about how these costs aggregate over time and the specific activities they encompass. More transparency in these calculations could clarify the legitimacy and necessity of the stated costs.

Additionally, the document's complex language, referencing specific acts and programs, might deter comprehensive understanding by the general public. Simplifying terms and providing clearer explanations could facilitate more informed comments from a broader audience, potentially affecting future financial and procedural considerations.

Lastly, the ambiguous nature of what "program metrics and qualitative information" will be explicitly collected may lead to inconsistencies in data asymmetry and inefficiencies, contributing to the overall cost concerns. Clarifying these points would help ensure that collected data is precisely relevant, thereby justifying related expenditures.

In sum, the document's financial references highlight the importance of a clear explanation of costs to enhance understanding and transparency, encouraging more effective public engagement and potentially improving efficiency in data collection practices.