FR 2025-07850

The Federal Register document from the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) focuses on the proposed renewal of an information collection activity related to student transportation under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This initiative aims to streamline the process of gathering information that determines the allocation of transportation funds for BIE-funded schools through the use of a Student Transportation Form. The document invites public comments on the proposal until June 5, 2025, thereby seeking to refine the information collection process and ensure its efficacy.

General Summary

The core objective of the document is to solicit feedback from the public and federal agencies on the necessity and efficiency of the Student Transportation Form, which collects data to calculate the rate per mile for school transportation funding. This proposed information collection is vital for effectively allocating transportation funds across schools funded by the BIE. The information is gathered through a web-based system named Web Education Transportation (Web ET).

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several concerns emerge from the document that may impact its effectiveness and public engagement:

1. Lack of Detailed Impact Criteria: While the document indicates that the data collected determines the rate per mile, it does not provide in-depth criteria on how exactly this impacts the allocation of transportation funds, potentially resulting in ambiguity and misunderstanding among stakeholders.

2. Privacy Concerns in Public Comments: It is noted that personal identifying information in submitted comments might not be kept private, despite any requests for confidentiality. This lack of privacy assurance could inhibit individuals from openly participating in the feedback process.

3. Evaluation of Web ET: The document does not discuss the performance or potential improvements of the Web ET system. Evaluating or updating this platform might be crucial to enhancing the utility and clarity of the information collection process.

4. Engagement Issues in Prior Comment Period: Notably, no comments were received in the prior 60-day comment period. The absence of feedback could suggest disengagement or a lack of awareness about the call for comments among relevant parties.

5. Estimation Methodology Disclosure: The document fails to elaborate on how the estimated number of respondents or the estimated time for completing the form was calculated, which can undermine the reliability and acceptance of the burden estimates.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

For the general public, this document primarily serves as a call to shape how transportation funding is allocated to schools, which could indirectly affect the quality of education services by impacting transportation availability and efficiency.

Positive Impacts on Stakeholders:

• BIE-Funded Schools: Schools will receive funding based on accurately calculated transportation needs, which could lead to improved resource allocation and potentially better service for students.
• Regulatory Agencies: By gathering public comments, agencies can gain insights to optimize the information collection process, thereby improving operational efficiencies.

Negative Impacts on Stakeholders:

• Potential Commenters: Due to privacy concerns, individuals may be discouraged from submitting their thoughts or critiques, which can dampen public participation and result in an under-representative feedback pool.
• Contract and Grant Schools: Without clarity on the impact that submitted data will have, these stakeholders might remain uncertain about the benefits or changes resulting from their participation in the process.

In conclusion, while the proposal to renew information collection for student transportation funding is crucial and beneficial for administrative purposes, areas needing clarification and improvement exist to enhance transparency, stakeholder engagement, and overall effectiveness in decision-making.

The document under review mentions the Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost as $0. This signifies that there are no anticipated costs beyond the time investment required for respondents to complete the information collection process. The absence of additional financial burden can be beneficial for schools participating in the survey as it means they are not expected to incur direct monetary expenses related to the data submission.

From a financial perspective, the document’s indication of zero nonhour costs is straightforward. However, it omits detailed explanations for potential indirect costs that may arise. For example, while schools do not need to pay fees, the process does require time investment from personnel. The document estimates that the completion of each response takes two hours, which translates to a total estimated annual burden of 366 hours for all respondents combined. If calculated using average wage rates, this time commitment could represent a significant indirect cost in terms of staff time diverted from other educational activities.

Linking financial references to the identified issues, the document lacks clarity on how precisely the collected information influences the allocation of transportation funds beyond determining the rate per mile. This ambiguity could lead to uncertainties regarding whether the data collection provides a worthwhile utility for the schools weighed against the time cost involved. Additionally, the lack of public comments from the prior solicitation could suggest potential disengagement or lack of awareness among those affected. If schools were more aware of how their data impacts financial allocations, such as optimizing transportation funding efficiently, increased participation might be incentivized.

Furthermore, while the document states that personal information may not remain confidential, it doesn't consider if this perceived lack of privacy could deter valuable feedback that might otherwise influence how efficiently the funds are managed or allocated. Without active feedback, the estimation method for the number of respondents or the time required per response remains unverified by stakeholder input, which could affect the accuracy and credibility of the assumed financial reporting and burden estimates. Therefore, greater engagement and transparent communication regarding how the received information impacts resource distribution might encourage more productive involvement and, consequently, a more effective allocation of resources.