Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2016-06-07 · National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice

581 words·~3 min read·/register/2016/06/07/2016-13291·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Agency: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED)
Action: Notice
Citation: FR Doc. 2016-13291 · Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0040

Summary

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq. ), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

Dates

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 7, 2016.

Supplementary Information

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records. Title of Collection: NCES System Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot, and Field Test Studies. OMB Control Number: 1850-0803. Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection. Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 600,000. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 240,000. Abstract: This is a request for a 3-year renewal of the generic clearance to allow the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to continue to develop, test, and improve its survey and assessment instruments and methodologies. The procedures utilized to this effect include but are not limited to experiments with levels of incentives for various types of survey operations, focus groups, cognitive laboratory activities, pilot testing, exploratory interviews, experiments with questionnaire design, and usability testing of electronic data collection instruments. Dated: June 1, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management. [FR Doc. 2016-13291 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.