FR 2024-29984

The document in question is a notice from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seeking public comments on renewing a specific information collection known as the Desert Land Entry Application, which relates to applications for using desert lands for agricultural purposes. This initiative is carried out under the framework of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, aimed at minimizing unnecessary paperwork and respondent burden.

General Summary

The BLM is proposing to renew an information collection practice related to desert land entry applications. The notice invites public participation, urging individuals to provide feedback by January 17, 2025, to ensure that the process remains efficient and effective. The agency stresses the importance of the collection for evaluating applicants' eligibility for desert land use. The current approval for this collection is set to expire on April 30, 2025, and the BLM seeks a three-year extension.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Several significant issues and concerns arise from the notice:

1. Use of Technical Language: The document uses technical terms such as "OMB control number" and "ICR," which may not be familiar to all readers. This could potentially alienate or confuse those without a background in bureaucracy or legal processes.

2. Burden on Respondents: The completion time for each application is estimated to be two hours, which might be seen as excessive given the minimal number of anticipated participants—only three per year. This could suggest inefficiencies in the application process that might need revision to become more user-friendly.

3. Privacy Concerns: The notice highlights that personal information provided in comments might be publicly accessible, which might dissuade individuals from participating due to privacy concerns.

4. Collection Frequency Ambiguity: It mentions that data collection is performed "on occasion," but does not specify what these occasions are, leaving stakeholders uncertain about what may trigger their need to respond.

5. Non-Hour Costs: The $45 non-hour cost estimated per respondent is unclear, as it's not specified whether this includes all possible expenses associated with the application process, such as mailing or technological costs.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, such an information collection effort carries dual impacts. On one hand, it helps regulate and manage public land use effectively, ensuring that agricultural pursuits align with federal standards. On the other hand, it may pose challenges for potential applicants due to the bureaucratic nature of the process and associated costs.

Impact on Stakeholders

Positive Impacts: - For policymakers and land management authorities, a structured information collection process provides valuable data, enabling more informed decision-making regarding land management and utilization. - The extension might benefit existing and prospective applicants who have already navigated the process and are familiar with its requirements.

Negative Impacts: - Potential applicants face a possible burden in terms of time and money. The estimated two-hour completion time may be a deterrent, especially for those with limited resources. - Privacy concerns might lead to reduced public participation, impacting the quality and diversity of feedback received.

In conclusion, while the BLM's effort aligns with its goal of reducing paperwork and enhancing data quality, clearer communication and improved process efficiency could further aid respondents, making the process more inclusive and less burdensome. Addressing privacy concerns and potential costs transparently would also contribute positively to achieving these objectives.

In reviewing the Federal Register document concerning the "Desert Land Entry Application," there are specific financial elements highlighted. One of the key financial references in the document is the Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost, which is $45. This cost is associated with the process required for individuals intending to make a desert land entry for agricultural purposes.

The document suggests that while the number of annual respondents is low, at only three individuals, each is subjected to a nonhour financial burden of $45. It is important to consider whether this cost sufficiently represents all potential expenses accrued during the application process, including aspects like mailing, technology use, or other related costs. This uncertainty is highlighted under the identified issues, questioning whether the $45 cost covers every possible expense respondents might face.

Furthermore, the document specifies that the estimated completion time per response is two hours, raising concern about whether participants might find this time duration burdensome, especially in combination with the financial cost. This might point to inefficiencies within the process, considering the very limited number of total estimated respondents and responses = three annually. For such a small group, any financial or time cost could weigh significantly on their willingness or ability to participate, potentially affecting the stated goal of minimizing the public's reporting burden.

Understanding how this $45 is broken down or justified could assist in assessing whether the financial implications are reasonable or require adjustment to encourage participation and compliance. This cost analysis should also consider data privacy concerns as noted in the issues, which might influence participant willingness to incur any financial burden if personal information could be exposed publicly. These factors together highlight areas for further examination and potential clarification within the application process itself.