FR 2025-03241

The document from the Federal Register seeks public input on a proposed extension of data collection efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this initiative aims to understand and improve customer satisfaction concerning NOAA's services and products. This opening for public comment seeks insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of these activities, making any feedback crucial for more effective implementation and improvement of NOAA services.

General Summary

NOAA intends to conduct surveys to gather feedback from its service users, which includes individuals, businesses, non-profit institutions, and government entities. These surveys will be carried out mainly through emails and online forms. The information, gathered voluntarily, will be used to assess customer satisfaction and help modify and prioritize NOAA's services and products effectively. To facilitate these efforts, the notice is seeking input from the public on the necessity and utility of the data collection process and ways to minimize the reporting burden.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The notice mentions that NOAA plans to extend its ongoing data collection activity; however, it lacks specific details on expected improvements or modifications planned following this data collection. This absence of clarity raises questions about how the collected data will be utilized in practice.

Furthermore, the document provides an estimate of 1,667 annual burden hours required from respondents but does not explain the basis for this calculation. Additionally, the claim that these activities bear no cost to the public is not sufficiently substantiated, especially considering the 10,000 predicted respondents. Such gaps in explanation may lead audiences to seek further clarification before they can fully endorse or critique the plan.

Another area of potential concern is the use of technical jargon such as 'ICR', 'OMB Control Number', and 'PRA Compliance Officer'. While these terms may be standard in regulatory documents, their meanings might not be apparent to a general audience without proper explanation.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, particularly individuals and smaller organizations, this survey represents an opportunity to directly influence NOAA’s decision-making process concerning its services. Comment participation, brought into the public record, promises transparency but also necessitates understanding that any personal information provided may become publicly accessible, highlighting the need for cautious sharing of sensitive data.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Stakeholders such as businesses, non-profits, and governmental bodies stand to benefit from participating in NOAA's feedback process, as this can guide NOAA to tailor its services according to specific needs and preferences. On the flip side, these groups may find the process burdensome if not managed efficiently or if frequent updates and reports are expected with little demonstrated benefit.

In conclusion, while NOAA’s initiative to gather customer feedback is commendable and essential for service enhancement, the lack of specificity and clarity in certain areas could hinder its acceptance and effectiveness. Providing detailed rationales for time and cost estimates, along with layman's explanations of technical terms, would better serve the public's understanding and engagement with this proposal.

In the Federal Register document regarding the information collection activities by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the only explicit monetary reference is the Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. This suggests that no direct financial burden is placed upon the public in relation to the information collection activities described.

The document estimates that there will be 10,000 respondents, yet it maintains that the total cost to the public remains at zero dollars. This could be seen as an oversight, especially when considering the time commitment required from respondents. Each respondent is expected to spend approximately 10 minutes on their respective activities. When multiplied by the estimated number of respondents, this translates to 1,667 annual burden hours.

However, the document does not include any explanation or breakdown of how the total cost is calculated as zero dollars, despite the significant number of hours committed by public respondents. This omission in providing a detailed analysis of costs versus the time investment required contributes to one of the identified issues—it remains unclear how the financial assessments were conducted and if the 'zero dollar' conclusion accurately reflects the situation.

Furthermore, the document could benefit from a cost-benefit analysis to justify the need for the data collection. Such an analysis would help determine whether the benefit of collecting this feedback outweighs any implicit costs, such as the opportunity cost for respondents spending time on surveys. This would provide a clearer picture for the general public and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the financial and practical implications of the collection activity.