Overview
Title
Intent To Request Extension From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA End of Course Level 1 Evaluation-Instructor-Led Classroom Training
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The TSA wants to know what people think about their classes and is asking folks to share their thoughts to help make the classes better. They promise to listen and fix what needs fixing, and they'd like everyone to share their ideas by February 2025.
Summary AI
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is seeking public comment on an information collection request that it plans to submit for extension. This request involves gathering ratings and written comments from students who finish TSA instructor-led classroom training, which includes various canine handler courses. The feedback aims to evaluate the quality of the training and make improvements as necessary. The public is encouraged to submit their comments by February 3, 2025.
Abstract
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0041, that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of ratings and written comments about the quality of training instruction from students who successfully complete TSA instructor-led classroom training.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register is a notice from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inviting public comment on a current Information Collection Request (ICR). The ICR involves gathering feedback from students who complete various instructor-led canine handler training courses. The purpose of this feedback is to assess and potentially improve the quality of the training provided. This request highlights the TSA's compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, and comments are due by February 3, 2025.
General Summary
The TSA is seeking public input on its ongoing practice of collecting evaluations from participants in specific instructor-led training courses. These courses, delivered by the TSA's Canine Training Center, are crucial for individuals responsible for security in airports, focusing primarily on training canine handlers. The feedback collected comprises both ratings and written comments, and the TSA uses this information to assess the training quality and make necessary improvements.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document. Firstly, there is no mention of the cost or budget associated with conducting these evaluations, potentially hiding wasteful spending. Additionally, the document lacks information on safeguards to ensure feedback is collected anonymously and without bias. There is ambiguity in the term "state and local civilian personnel," which could benefit from a clear definition to prevent any perception of favoritism in the selection of participants.
The transparency surrounding how the feedback is used to improve the training curriculum is not adequately addressed, leaving questions about accountability. Moreover, the reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) may be confusing to some readers due to its technical nature and the lack of simplified explanation in the document.
Public Impact
Broadly, this document impacts the public by influencing the quality of TSA training programs, which are crucial for maintaining security at air travel hubs across the country. High-quality training ensures that the personnel responsible for safety and security are well-prepared, which indirectly affects all air travelers.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved, namely the TSA and personnel participating in the courses, this document outlines a system for feedback that ideally should result in more effective training. These stakeholders stand to benefit if the evaluations indeed lead to meaningful improvements. However, without transparency and clear procedures for incorporating feedback, stakeholders may question the process's efficacy and fairness.
Overall, the effort to gather public comment is a step towards transparency and accountability, but the document would benefit from further clarity and detail in addressing significant concerns.
Issues
• The document does not specify the total cost or budget for conducting the evaluations, which makes it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• There is no mention of specific safeguards or methods to ensure anonymous and unbiased feedback is collected from the training evaluations.
• The mention of 'state and local civilian personnel' could be more clearly defined to understand which organizations are participating, to ensure no favoritism.
• The process for how feedback collected is used to improve course curriculum is not detailed, raising questions about the transparency and accountability of the improvements suggested.
• The language used is generally clear, but some readers may find the reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) complex without further explanation or definition of terms.