Overview
Title
Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Speaker Request Form
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wants permission to collect information when someone asks for a TSA speaker at an event. They want to check what details they really need and make sure asking for this info isn't too much trouble for people.
Summary AI
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request for the Speaker Request Form to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. This form collects details from the public when they request a TSA speaker for events, including information about the event and the requesting organization. The request aims to evaluate the necessity and burden of the data collected, and TSA is seeking public feedback by May 23, 2025. The form could also be used by other federal agencies to streamline similar processes.
Abstract
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0075, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves point of contact information for the person/organization requesting a TSA speaker; logistical information for that speaking engagement; and context for the request to determine the audience reach, any ethical concerns, and possible promotion of the speaking engagement.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a notice from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), announcing the submission of an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The purpose of this request is to approve the use of a "Speaker Request Form" to collect information from those who wish to have a TSA representative speak at their events. The intention behind this collection is to streamline the process and ensure that TSA speakers are effectively allocated.
General Summary
This notice outlines TSA's intent to use a standardized form to collect relevant information from public or organizational requesters. The data collection aims to gather details about the event and contact information to facilitate the logistical arrangement for speaking engagements. The TSA seeks public feedback on this proposal, urging comments by May 23, 2025. Additionally, this form is proposed as a "Common Form," meaning it could potentially be used by other federal agencies.
Issues and Concerns
One critical concern with this proposal is the absence of details regarding the costs associated with implementing this Information Collection Request (ICR). Without insight into budget implications, the public is left uncertain about the potential for wasteful spending.
Additionally, the proposal does not address any criteria or processes for selecting TSA speakers, which might raise concerns about favoritism or bias towards specific organizations or individuals. There also seems to be a lack of clarity on how this collected data will be used beyond assessing audience reach or identifying ethical concerns. Some stakeholders may worry about privacy and how their information might be safeguarded.
The language utilized in the document is quite technical, which may pose comprehension challenges for the general public due to its regulatory jargon. Terms like "Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)" and "Information Collection Request (ICR)" may not be immediately understood by all readers. Lastly, the document mentions an estimated 50 annual burden hours for 300 respondents, but the reasoning behind this estimate is not thoroughly explained, leading to potential ambiguity regarding the respondent's obligations.
Potential Impact on the Public
The form's primary impact on the public hinges on its function as a tool for simplifying the process of requesting TSA speakers. For those interested in engaging with TSA for public speaking engagements, this form is designed to make submissions more straightforward and structured. However, the lack of clarity regarding data use and potential biases might discourage some potential users.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For organizers and institutions looking to engage with TSA speakers, this form could be a beneficial resource, offering a clear pathway to access governmental expertise. It could foster a closer relationship between the public and TSA as well as other federal agencies if adopted more broadly.
On the downside, organizations or individuals wary of privacy concerns or skeptical of bureaucratic processes may find the proposal less appealing. Without guarantees about data protection measures, some stakeholders might hesitate to use the form, worrying about how their information might be handled.
In conclusion, while the initiative seems poised to facilitate easier interactions between the TSA and the public, transparency in operational details and addressing concerns about information use and potential bias are crucial factors that need to be more comprehensively addressed to ensure public confidence and uptake.
Issues
• The document does not provide specific information on the cost or budget associated with the Information Collection Request (ICR), which makes it difficult to assess whether there is any wasteful spending.
• There is no information on whether the process of selecting TSA speakers might favor particular organizations or individuals, which could lead to perceived or actual biases.
• The document lacks clarity on how the collected data will be used beyond determining audience reach, ethical concerns, or possible promotion, which may raise privacy concerns.
• The language in the document is relatively formal and uses specific regulatory and bureaucratic terms that may be difficult for the general public to understand, such as 'Information Collection Request (ICR)' and 'Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)'.
• The justification for the estimated annual burden hours (only 50 hours for 300 respondents) is not clearly explained, which could lead to ambiguity about the calculation of burden imposed on respondents.