Overview
Title
Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Rural Utilities Service wants to keep asking people some questions to help towns with really high energy bills, and they want to make sure they’re asking the right questions in a way that isn't too annoying or hard to understand. They’re asking everyone to say if they think the questions are good and how they can make them better by March 12, 2021.
Summary AI
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), part of the US Department of Agriculture, has announced its intention to request an extension of an existing information collection related to providing assistance to rural communities with high energy costs. Members of the public and affected agencies are invited to comment on various aspects of the proposed information collection, including its necessity, accuracy, and ways to minimize the burden on respondents. Comments must be submitted by March 12, 2021. The information collection is part of a program initiated under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, which was amended in 2000 to authorize financial assistance to these communities.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to request an extension to a currently approved information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Register document titled "Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection" issued by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, outlines a proposal to extend an existing information collection effort aimed at providing financial assistance to rural communities experiencing high energy costs. This initiative is rooted in the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, which was amended in 2000 to expand its scope. The document invites public commentary by March 12, 2021, offering the stakeholders a chance to contribute to the discussion regarding the necessity and efficacy of this information collection.
Summary of the Document
The Rural Utilities Service plans to extend a data collection initiative that supports rural communities with elevated energy expenditures. This collection is part of a legislative framework initially established in 1936 and subsequently modified to include provisions for financial aid. The document calls for feedback on various aspects of the initiative, such as its usefulness, accuracy, and potential burden on respondents. These responses will assist in shaping the request for approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Significant Issues and Concerns
A notable issue with the document is its brevity in explaining the criteria for eligibility and the process for determining which rural communities qualify for assistance. This lack of detail could lead to confusion or misinterpretation. Another concern is the document's estimation of the average burden of 3.4 hours per response. The exact activities or tasks comprising this time estimate are not clearly defined, which might impede stakeholders' ability to provide informed feedback.
Additionally, the document falls short in outlining how the financial assistance will be equitably distributed among diverse entities such as for-profit and non-profit organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal governments. The text also employs technical language and references specific legislation, potentially alienating individuals not well-versed in these legal frameworks. Lastly, while the notice encourages adopting automated and other technological means for data collection, it fails to specify what constitutes appropriate technology, possibly leading to further confusion.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, particularly those in rural areas facing high energy costs, this document represents an ongoing federal effort to alleviate such financial strains. Public input could impact how effectively the program is tailored to meet community needs without imposing unnecessary burdens on those required to provide information. A clearer understanding and robust participation could lead to a more streamlined, effective assistance program.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The agencies, businesses, and communities that stand to benefit directly from this initiative will likely be the most affected. The potential positive impact includes financial relief and improved energy infrastructure; however, stakeholders face challenges understanding their eligibility and navigating the application process due to the lack of clarity in the document. Moreover, the administrative burden of complying with information collection could be substantial if not properly addressed and minimized.
In conclusion, while the document underlines an important government initiative to support rural communities, it is imperative that further clarity and detail are provided to ensure the program's successful implementation. Enhanced transparency will help both broad and specific audiences, ensuring the initiative achieves its intended impact efficiently and effectively.
Issues
• The document refers to 'Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities' but provides limited details on the criteria or process for determining eligibility, which could lead to unclear understanding or misinterpretation.
• The notice lacks a detailed explanation of how exactly the estimated burden of 3.4 hours per response was calculated, including the specific tasks and activities involved.
• The document does not specify how the financial assistance will be allocated or managed to ensure fair distribution among 'Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, State, Local, or Tribal Government'.
• The reliance on technical terms and references to legislation without further explanation may make the document difficult to understand for those not familiar with the 'Rural Electrification Act of 1936' or 'Pub. L. 106-472'.
• The document encourages the use of 'appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques', but does not specify what forms would be considered appropriate, possibly leading to confusion among respondents.