Overview
Title
Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0081
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to know what people think about a special program that checks some boats to make sure they're safe. They want to make sure getting this information isn't too hard for people, so people are invited to share their thoughts online about how the program can be better.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard is requesting public comments on an Information Collection Request (ICR) related to the Alternate Compliance Program, a voluntary program for assessing certain vessels. This request is part of a routine process to renew OMB's approval for collecting specific information, which helps the Coast Guard perform its duties more efficiently. People can submit comments online until January 8, 2025, and they are encouraged to share thoughts on the necessity, accuracy, and practicality of the information collected. The Coast Guard values input on how to make the process less burdensome while maintaining its effectiveness.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, 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: 1625-0081, Alternate Compliance Program; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent notice from the U.S. Coast Guard seeks public comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) concerning the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP). The program, which is voluntary, involves assessing certain vessels to ensure they comply with safety and inspection standards before a Certificate of Inspection is issued. This procedural step is part of a broader effort to renew the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval, allowing the Coast Guard to continue collecting necessary information efficiently.
General Summary
The document outlines a request for comments on the renewal of an ICR associated with the ACP, an alternative to traditional inspection methods for U.S.-flagged vessels. The Coast Guard requests that comments are submitted by January 8, 2025, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. This involves assessing various aspects of the ICR, such as its necessity and efficiency, to determine if the paperwork burden on the public is justified.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues within the document could impact its clarity and effectiveness:
Explanation of the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP): The document could better explain the ACP for readers not familiar with maritime regulations, providing background or examples to clarify its purpose.
Burden Estimate Transparency: The decrease in the estimated burden from 198 hours to 178 hours lacks context. More information could enhance understanding and transparency about how these numbers are derived.
Legal References and Jargon: The document briefly mentions U.S. legal codes and record systems without much explanation, which could be confusing to a general audience not versed in legal or regulatory language.
Technical Anomalies: The appearance of the term "print page 97645" seems out of context and could cause confusion, as it doesn't directly relate to the document's content.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
General Public:
For the public, particularly those owning or operating vessels under U.S. flag, the renewal of this ICR means there are opportunities to streamline compliance processes. However, understanding these processes requires clearer communication from the Coast Guard about programs like ACP. Additionally, the ability to comment provides a channel for stakeholders to voice concerns or suggest improvements, fostering a participatory regulatory environment.
Specific Stakeholders:
Owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels are most directly impacted. A less burdensome compliance process can mean reduced administrative overhead and potentially faster turnaround times for inspections. The notice suggests a reduction in the hour burden, which might indicate a leaner process, though details on how these reductions are achieved remain vague.
The clarity and transparency of this notice can significantly impact stakeholders' ability to effectively contribute to the comment process. Ensuring comprehensible communication and just assessments of administrative burdens will likely enhance trust and cooperation between the Coast Guard and vessel operators.
Conclusion
Overall, the Coast Guard's notice represents a key step in renewing necessary bureaucratic frameworks while presenting an opportunity for public and stakeholder engagement. Addressing the identified concerns can enhance understanding and ensure that the regulatory processes aid rather than hinder vessel operation within U.S. waters. The Coast Guard's proactive approach to seeking input is commendable, but improvements in clarity and informational content are necessary to maximize engagement and effectiveness.
Issues
• The document could benefit from a clearer explanation of the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP) for readers unfamiliar with the term.
• The hour burden estimate section lacks an explanation of why there was a decrease in the estimated annual number of respondents.
• The document might include more information on how the estimated burden of 178 hours was calculated to ensure transparency.
• The term 'print page 97645' appears abruptly in the document and might confuse readers since it doesn't contribute to the content's understanding.
• The reference to the DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice and its relevance to the document could be better explained.
• The need section briefly mentions U.S. Code sections without much context, which could be confusing to readers unfamiliar with legal references.
• The forms section states 'None,' which might benefit from additional clarification or explanation, as it seems awkward to enumerate forms if there are none.