Overview
Title
Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0011
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Coast Guard wants to keep safely guiding boats with special markers in the water and is asking people for ideas on how to do this better. They are trying to make sure they do this safely and more efficiently.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard is seeking public comments on a request to extend approval for collecting information related to private aids to navigation, specifically through forms CG-2554 and CG-4143. This information is important for ensuring safe marine navigation and compliance with regulations. Comments can be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal until April 19, 2021. The Coast Guard emphasizes the need for this information, which is critical for public safety and effective maritime management.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0011, Applications for Private Aids to Navigation and for Class I Private Aids to Navigation on Artificial Islands and Fixed Structures; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, published in the Federal Register, is part of the regulatory process under the Paperwork Reduction Act. It announces the Coast Guard's intention to renew its authority to collect information concerning private aids to navigation—specifically through forms marked as CG-2554 and CG-4143. These forms gather vital details from private entities or individuals responsible for navigation aids, such as those on artificial islands and fixed structures. The information aids the Coast Guard in ensuring marine safety and compliance with relevant laws.
General Summary
The Coast Guard seeks public input on a proposal to extend the approval of information collection, which means they intend to continue gathering data as part of their oversight functions. The documentation requests public comments before submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and sets a deadline for submission. This process is consistent with federal law requiring agencies to seek public opinion on such matters.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One noticeable aspect of the document is its reliance on specific legal references, such as chapters and sections of the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. These references might be challenging for an ordinary reader unfamiliar with legal jargon. The absence of detailed explanations may diminish public engagement or understanding.
Another area of concern is the discussion of the document's implications on the public. While it seeks comments, there is little guidance on the focal points or types of feedback the Coast Guard is looking for. Such vagueness can lead to responses that lack clarity or relevance, thus reducing the impact of public participation.
Moreover, the document mentions a statistically significant reduction in the estimated burden hours for respondents—from 1,709 hours in 2017 to 712 in 2020. However, it does not elaborate on the reasons behind this reduction, which could raise questions about the accuracy of this estimate and potentially how the Coast Guard foresees the demand for these aids changing.
Privacy and data protection concerns emerge when discussing the collection of applicant information. While the document explains the necessity of contact information for resolving discrepancies, it does not directly address how this data will be safeguarded, raising possible privacy issues.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document impacts the public by aiming to maintain navigational safety, which is crucial for marine personnel and stakeholders involved in maritime activities. The renewal of the information collection approval ensures continued oversight, which can prevent hazards at sea, benefiting general public safety.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For owners of private navigational aids, the document signifies continued obligations to provide the Coast Guard with necessary information. Some might perceive this as positive due to clear communication lines in case of maritime discrepancies. However, it also implies a sustained bureaucratic requirement, which could be seen as an inconvenience or an additional administrative burden.
In conclusion, while the document raises necessary compliance issues related to maritime navigation aids, its technical nature and lack of specific guidance on feedback may inhibit meaningful public engagement. Addressing these concerns might enhance the efficacy of the public consultation process and the clarity of communication with stakeholders.
Issues
• The document's purpose and what specific effects it has on the public are not clearly stated. While it discusses the extension of an approval for information collection, the practical implications for stakeholders are not detailed.
• Some of the legal references might be difficult for the general public to understand, such as references to specific U.S. Codes and CFR parts, without additional context or explanation provided.
• The document mentions a decrease in the estimated annual burden from 1,709 hours to 712 hours, but it does not provide specific reasons or data to support this decrease, which may raise questions about the calculation or the accuracy of these estimates.
• The purpose of collecting the applicant's contact information is explained in terms of resolving discrepancies, but there is no mention of data protection measures or privacy safeguards that will be in place to protect this information.
• The invitation for public commentary is open-ended regarding what specific information or feedback would be most beneficial, potentially leading to unfocused responses.
• The document does not provide detailed guidance on how individuals can express concerns about perceived discrepancies in private aids to navigation, creating potential confusion for stakeholders involved.