Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Agriculture wants to collect information to help decide who can get loans for things like fire stations, but they need permission from another group called the OMB first. They're asking people to share their thoughts on this before March 11, 2021, to make sure everything is clear and fair.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture has submitted an information collection requirement to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public comments on the necessity and efficiency of this information collection are invited until March 11, 2021. The collections involve loans for community facilities like fire and rescue services, and supervised bank accounts for managing financial assistance, with the aim of ensuring proper fund use and financial management. The information collected helps determine eligibility, project viability, and loan fund usage, impacting both government operations and borrowers.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document submitted by the Department of Agriculture pertains to an information collection requirement that seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This process is part of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The call for public comments indicates a deadline of March 11, 2021, for input on the necessity and efficiency of this information collection. The collections focus on loans for community facilities, such as fire and rescue services, as well as supervised bank accounts designed to manage financial assistance. The aim is to ensure the correct use of funds and proper financial management to support community development and public safety.
Summary of the Document
In essence, the document requests approval for certain information collections that the Department of Agriculture utilizes to assess eligibility for loans and to manage funds properly. These loans are intended to finance various community facilities, critical for rural development. Two key areas are emphasized: Fire and Rescue Loans and Supervised Bank Accounts, each with specific regulations guiding their administration.
Significant Issues and Concerns
There are notable issues within the document, including:
Duplicate Information: The section addressing "7 CFR 1902-A, Supervised Bank Accounts" appears twice with identical content, possibly due to an oversight. This repetition may cause confusion among readers.
Complex Language: The technical language used throughout, particularly legal and bureaucratic terms, may be difficult for the general public or potential respondents to understand.
Lack of Specificity: The document requests ways to minimize the burden of information collection but lacks specific examples or strategies that could be implemented.
Burden Hours Estimation: It does not articulate how the total burden hours for respondents are calculated, leaving stakeholders potentially unsure about the reasonableness of these estimates.
Public Comment Utilization: There is no clear process outlined for how public comments will be utilized or addressed, which might lead to concerns regarding transparency and responsiveness.
Impact on the Public
The document may broadly impact the public by influencing how community development projects are funded and managed. Efficient information collection can facilitate better delivery of community services such as fire and rescue operations, which are vital for safety and welfare, particularly in rural areas.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impacts:
- Borrowers: With improved financial assistance management, borrowers such as local governments and non-profits can enhance community facilities, benefiting from structured oversight and assistance.
- Public Agencies: These entities might find the system supportive due to clear guidelines on fund management, ensuring that the intended purpose of the loans is fulfilled.
Negative Impacts:
- Respondents: Potential respondents may find the process burdensome due to the complexity and frequency of required reporting. The document's lack of clarity on how to reduce this burden could exacerbate frustrations.
- Stakeholders Concerned with Clarity: Those who wish for greater transparency and participation in the OMB approval process may feel overlooked, as the document does not clearly explain how input will lead to action.
In conclusion, while the proposal aims to enhance the administration and efficacy of federal assistance programs, there are critical areas where clarity and detail are needed to ensure that stakeholders can effectively engage and that the public interest is best served.
Issues
• The document contains duplicate entries for the title '7 CFR 1902-A, Supervised Bank Accounts' and its related information, which could be an oversight and may cause confusion.
• The language used to describe the necessity of the information collection could be simplified to enhance understanding, particularly for respondents who may not be familiar with legal and bureaucratic terminology.
• There is a potential concern regarding the lack of specificity in 'ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.' It might be beneficial to provide examples or specific strategies.
• The document does not provide a clear breakdown of how the total burden hours are estimated, which might make it difficult for stakeholders to assess if the estimate is reasonable.
• The document does not specify how the feedback from the public comments will be utilized or addressed, which could raise concerns about transparency and responsiveness.