FR 2024-28292

The Federal Register has published a notice from the Economic Development Administration (EDA), a division of the Department of Commerce. The notice relates to the collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), seeking public comment on their practices over a 60-day period. This introductory stage is meant to gather feedback on how to streamline processes, reduce the burden of reporting on the public, and assess the utility and necessity of the information they collect.

Summary of the Document

The EDA's announcement calls for public input on their information collection methods. This exercise falls under the broader ambit of the PRA, which has a dual purpose: to reduce paperwork for respondents and ensure the federal government collects data it genuinely needs. The EDA intends to collect feedback that will help them improve their procedures. While there are no proposed changes right now, a successful review could lead to adjustments in the future. Public comments must be submitted by February 3, 2025, giving stakeholders two months to participate.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several notable issues emerge from this notice. Firstly, the estimate of $85,201 as the total annual cost to the public lacks detailed breakdowns. Without greater clarity, it's challenging to understand how this figure was derived or whether it's an accurate representation of the actual costs incurred. Similarly, the estimated number of respondents, labeled at 632, seems arbitrary. It lacks any substantive backing from surveys or studies that might support these conjectures.

Furthermore, privacy concerns arise from the notice's warning that personal details in public comments could be disclosed. This transparency caution does not go hand-in-hand with assurances about privacy protections, leaving potential respondents wary of how their information might be used. Adding to this, the term "economic distress" is mentioned without clear parameters, leaving stakeholders unclear on what qualifies a community or region under this label.

Lastly, the document remains silent on any specific automated collection techniques that might ease the burden on information providers. While it asks for suggestions, addressing this proactively could have been more efficient for stakeholders who require clarity sooner rather than later.

Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders

The notice aims to benefit the public broadly by minimizing reporting burdens and eliminating unnecessary data collection. For communities and institutions benefiting from EDA's programs, these processes, if improved, could result in more efficient management of federal support. However, the potential lack of confidentiality could dissuade individuals and smaller organizations from submitting comments, thus skewing the feedback received.

For stakeholders like city governments, non-profit organizations, and educational bodies, the outcomes of this comment period could reshape how they interact with federal economic support programs. If inefficiencies are addressed, these stakeholders might experience improved processes for requesting and justifying amendments to investment awards. However, without addressing the identified issues, frustration with the current system could persist, potentially deterring participation in beneficial programs.

Conclusion

The EDA's notice from the Federal Register presents both an opportunity and a challenge. While it opens the door for public engagement and potentially improved practices, it also highlights deficiencies in clarity and assurances that need addressing. Stakeholders who engage with this process can set the tone for how resource allocations and reporting evolve in these crucial economic support frameworks.

The document provides insight into the financial implications of an information collection request by the Economic Development Administration under the Department of Commerce. The focal point is the estimated financial burden this collection imposes on the public.

Financial Summary

The document highlights an Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public of $85,201. This projection is based on cost calculations using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' reported hourly employer costs for professional and related occupations, amounting to $68.60 per hour. This detail indicates the anticipated expense incurred by respondents, primarily reflecting labor and resource expenditures associated with fulfilling the information collection requirements.

Financial Relevance to Identified Issues

Lack of Transparency in Cost Calculation

One of the document's identified issues is the lack of a detailed breakdown in calculating the total annual cost of $85,201. While the document references the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the hourly cost, it does not provide further breakdowns or the methodology behind the aggregation of this total cost. Providing a more granular view of how these expenses are calculated would enhance transparency and allow for better public and governmental scrutiny.

Validation of Estimates

Another issue concerns the absence of supporting data or research to substantiate the estimates provided for the number of respondents (632) and the allotted time for responses. These estimates directly impact the total financial burden reported. Without supporting evidence, it is challenging to assess the accuracy of the Estimated Total Annual Cost mentioned. Detailing the methodology could shed light on whether the financial resources anticipated are realistic given the proposed collection burden.

Considerations for Improvement

In future renditions or similar documents, the agency could benefit from offering a more detailed explanation of how financial projections are made. For instance, a breakdown of the components contributing to both the hourly costs and the total number of respondent hours would enhance understanding. Additionally, explicitly addressing techniques or technologies that could reduce the cost and time burden on respondents may align more closely with the document's request for public comment on minimization efforts.

Providing a clear financial overview, along with methodological details in support of these numbers, would not only comply with transparency goals but also engage more constructive public and agency feedback, potentially leading to more efficient and cost-effective information collection processes.