Overview
Title
Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0089
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Coast Guard wants to keep asking people questions about boating, like how they use boats and stay safe, to help make boating safer for everyone. They are asking people if they think these questions are important and easy to answer.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard is seeking public comments on a request to extend approval for the National Recreational Boating Safety Survey. This survey collects data on boating activities, equipment, and safety to help improve boating safety initiatives. Feedback should address the survey’s necessity, practicality, accuracy, and potential burden on respondents. Comments can be submitted online by January 8, 2025.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0089, National Recreational Boating Safety Survey; reinstatement with change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document is a notice from the U.S. Coast Guard, requesting public comments on an extension of approval for the National Recreational Boating Safety Survey. This survey is part of the Coast Guard's efforts to enhance boating safety across the United States. It collects data on boating participation, exposure, demographics, and safety equipment to tailor safety initiatives effectively. The notice invites feedback on aspects such as the necessity, utility, accuracy, and respondent burden of the survey, with comments accepted until January 8, 2025. The survey seeks to gather essential information that helps ensure boating safety on a national level in compliance with legislative mandates.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One notable concern is the absence of specific information on the costs or budget associated with conducting the survey. This omission makes it challenging to assess whether the financial resources allocated for the survey are justified. Additionally, while the document references the Paperwork Reduction Act and other legislative acts, it does not provide summaries or explanations of these acts. This could hinder understanding, especially for readers unfamiliar with legal terms.
The document also mentions receiving six supportive comments during a previous 60-day notice period. However, it lacks details on the content or implications of these comments, which could offer valuable insights into public opinion regarding the survey. Moreover, the explanation about the "hour burden estimate" could be clearer, particularly regarding how the overall burden is determined and distributed among respondents.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the survey aims to positively impact public safety by providing critical data needed to improve boating safety strategies. By soliciting public comments, the Coast Guard ensures that the survey remains relevant and effective, addressing the public's concerns and suggestions. However, the bureaucratic language and references to complex legal material may limit public engagement and understanding of the survey's importance and implications.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Recreational boaters and boating organizations are likely to be directly affected by the outcomes of this survey. Positive results from collecting accurate safety-related data could lead to enhanced safety regulations and initiatives, potentially reducing boating accidents and fatalities. State agencies responsible for local boating safety would also benefit from the tailored information, enhancing their ability to implement efficient safety measures.
Conversely, if the survey imposes a significant burden on respondents or lacks clear support and justification, it could inadvertently discourage participation from key stakeholders, leading to less effective data collection and safety enhancements. Therefore, transparently addressing the potential burdens and costs associated with the survey could ensure more balanced and informed stakeholder support.
Issues
• The document lacks specific information on the estimated costs or budget associated with conducting the survey, making it difficult to determine if the spending is justified or wasteful.
• There is no mention of any particular organizations or individuals that might benefit disproportionately from this survey, but this aspect has not been explicitly addressed, leaving room for concern about potential favoritism.
• Language used to describe the 'hour burden estimate' could be clearer, particularly in explaining how the burden hours are determined and distributed across respondents.
• The document frequently references legislative acts and codes (e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 46 U.S.C. Chapter 131) without providing summaries or explanations, which could make it difficult for lay readers to understand the legal context.
• The document mentions six supportive comments were received for a previous 60-day notice but does not provide a summary of the content or implications of these comments, which might be important for understanding public feedback.