Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Meaningful Access Information Collections
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to make paper money easier to use for people who can't see well, so they're asking people for ideas on how to do this by putting special bumps on the money. Anyone can share their thoughts until next year.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) is seeking public comments on its ongoing efforts to make U.S. paper currency accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. As required by a court order, the BEP will gather input on potential tactile features for future currency designs. They plan to meet with individuals at various conventions and meetings to discuss these features. The public is encouraged to comment on the necessity, accuracy, and efficiency of this information collection before February 18, 2025.
Abstract
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document, titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Meaningful Access Information Collections," is a public notice from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) under the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It invites public comments on new efforts aimed at making U.S. paper currency more accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. According to a court order, the BEP is required to integrate tactile features into currency design, which prompts this outreach for feedback. Individuals and groups are encouraged to provide input by February 18, 2025.
General Summary
The BEP is mandated by a legal decision to enhance U.S. currency to accommodate the needs of visually impaired individuals. This involves gathering input on tactile features that could be incorporated into future currency designs. The BEP plans to engage with stakeholders through national conventions, focused meetings, and other gatherings to refine its approach. Additionally, the BEP is seeking public comments on various aspects of this initiative, including its necessity and efficiency, estimate accuracy, and ways to reduce response burden.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document has several aspects that raise questions and warrant further clarification:
Budgetary Transparency: The notice provides no information regarding the financial resources allocated for this initiative. Understanding the budget is crucial for assessing the potential for wasteful spending or resource optimization.
Incorporation of Feedback: While the document mentions gathering feedback, it lacks specific details on how this will influence the final design of currency. There is no clear explanation of the process for integrating suggestions from visually impaired individuals into functional currency design decisions.
Scope and Scale of Engagement: There is no mention of the number of conventions or meetings that will be attended. This omission makes it difficult to gauge the scale of engagement and how representative the feedback might be.
Regulatory Procedures: The document's reference to "standard OMB requirements" is vague. For the general public, details about these procedures would clarify expected compliance and operations.
Methodology Clarity: The document's language related to the feedback collection methodology is unspecific, using phrases like "same or substantially similar methodology," which could benefit from more precise language.
Sample Size Justification: There is no explanation provided for how the number of 650 respondents was determined, making it unclear how representative this sample size is of the broader visually impaired community.
OMB Objection Protocol: The document mentions that the BEP must notify the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) two weeks in advance before performing new collections but does not define what constitutes an OMB "objection" or its potential implications.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this initiative is important for ensuring that U.S. currency is inclusive and accessible to all individuals, particularly those with visual impairments. Successfully integrating tactile features could significantly improve the independence and quality of life for these individuals. However, the effectiveness of these efforts could be hindered by the lack of clarity and transparency highlighted in the issues above.
Impact on Stakeholders
Positive Impact: This initiative aims to directly benefit blind and visually impaired individuals by making currency more navigable, which is a substantial move toward inclusivity.
Negative Impact: Without clear assurances and explanations, stakeholders may question the effectiveness and sincerity of these efforts. Transparency in budget, feedback incorporation, and regulatory adherence is needed to build trust with these audiences.
Overall, the document outlines a necessary and potentially transformative initiative for visually impaired individuals but would benefit from greater transparency and detail in several key areas to ensure trust and the successful deployment of resources.
Issues
• The document does not specify the budget or financial resources allocated for this initiative, making it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• The document does not clearly outline how the feedback from the visually impaired will be incorporated into the design process or how this feedback will potentially influence the final currency design.
• There is no mention of how many national conventions, conferences, focus groups, or meetings will be attended by BEP employees annually, which could influence the number of respondents and the total cost.
• The document refers to adherence to 'standard OMB requirements' without elaborating on what these entail, which could leave readers unfamiliar with OMB procedures with questions.
• The language surrounding the feedback collection methodology, such as 'this same or substantially similar methodology,' is somewhat vague and could benefit from clarification.
• There is no explanation of how the estimated number of 650 respondents was determined, nor is there any projection of how representative or statistically significant this sample size is for the target population.
• The document mentions the requirement to notify the OMB two weeks in advance before undertaking new collections but does not specify what constitutes an 'objection' from the OMB and how it would affect the process.