Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Agriculture Department wants to make sure that when people want to use secret data for research, they know how to keep it safe. They're asking for ideas from the public until February 12, 2025, about the best way to do this.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review a new information collection requirement. This collection is related to data security for accessing confidential data through a process established by the Evidence Act, called the Standard Application Process (SAP). The SAP permits various entities to apply for access to sensitive data for research purposes. The goal is to ensure that applicants understand the strict security and confidentiality rules they must follow when handling this data. Public comments on this initiative are invited until February 12, 2025.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Department of Agriculture outlines a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the review of a new information collection requirement. This requirement is part of the Standard Application Process (SAP), a system established by the Evidence Act to regulate access to confidential data for research purposes. Feedback from the public is requested by February 12, 2025.
General Summary
The notice pertains to a proposal from the Department of Agriculture to implement a data collection process aimed at securing confidential data access through the SAP. This system allows various entities, such as state governments and researchers, to request access to sensitive information while ensuring they comply with stringent security protocols. The overall objective is to protect the confidentiality of data used for developing evidence-based policies.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several complex terms and procedures are referenced in the document, particularly relating to the Standard Application Process and the Evidence Act. This complexity might pose challenges to public understanding, especially for those not familiar with federal processes and data security protocols. Furthermore, the document may benefit from a clearer explanation of the roles and responsibilities of the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) and the SAP Project Management Office (PMO) to avoid potential confusion.
Concerns arise regarding the practical impact on respondents. The document mentions involvement from state governments, researchers, and others in the information collection process, but it lacks detail on how the burden on these respondents is minimized, which is an essential consideration under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The number of respondents and total burden hours provided also seem unclear, with no justification for these figures, potentially adding to the complexity.
Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, the initiative signifies a step towards more stringent data protection measures within research processes, which could enhance trust in the security of confidential data handled by federal agencies. The public may benefit from knowing that rigorous controls are placed on the access to sensitive data, which could potentially be used for public policy development and scientific research.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders, such as state governments and researchers, these new requirements could impose additional administrative steps in their data access processes. This might mean spending more time completing necessary paperwork and complying with data security protocols. However, the potential positive outcome is access to a more streamlined and secure process for obtaining data, which could aid in more efficiently conducting research and developing evidence-based policies.
In summary, while the initiative is well-intentioned in its aim to protect confidential data, several areas of the document could be enhanced to facilitate greater understanding and acceptance among public and specific stakeholder groups. By simplifying language and clearly delineating roles and responsibilities, the Department of Agriculture can ensure its objectives are clearly communicated and received by all interested parties.
Issues
• The document uses complex terminology related to the Standard Application Process (SAP) and the Evidence Act, which may not be easily understood by all readers.
• The description of the SAP Portal and its processes may be complex and require simplification for clarity.
• Details regarding the partnership with the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) and SAP Project Management Office (PMO) are mentioned, but the roles are not clearly defined, potentially causing confusion.
• There is a lack of clarity regarding the role and involvement of 'State governments, researchers, and other individuals' in the information collection process, which may benefit from further elaboration.
• While the document describes how APHIS-NAHMS collects information for data security requirements, it does not specify how the burden on respondents is minimized, which could be a potential concern given the Paperwork Reduction Act considerations.
• The justification for the number of respondents (10) and total burden hours (26) is not detailed, making it unclear how these figures were derived.
• The mention of OMB Control No. 0579-NEW suggests a new data collection initiative, but details regarding its necessity and benefits compared to existing measures are not provided.
• While commenting on the need and use of information, the text does not provide examples or scenarios that illustrate the practical utility of the data security requirements in a comprehensible manner.