FR 2025-00999

Summary of the Document

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued a notice requesting public comments on the renewal of a financial information collection form related to debt collection. This form is used by FEMA to evaluate an individual's ability to repay debts owed to the agency, mainly concerning disaster program accounts. The form is a crucial part of determining whether debtors can pay back their debts fully, partially, or if a compromise can be reached. This notice is part of FEMA's efforts to adhere to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and seeks to extend the collection process without making any changes. The public is invited to submit their comments by March 17, 2025.

Significant Issues and Concerns

While the notice provides a procedural groundwork for extending the information collection, there are some notable concerns:

1. Clarity on Cost Estimates: The document provides estimated costs for respondents and the government but lacks a detailed methodology on how these estimates were reached. This absence of information makes it difficult for the public and stakeholders to assess the necessity and efficiency of the stated expenses.

2. Use of Legal Jargon: The document contains several legal terms and references to specific acts and standards, such as the "Debt Collection Act as amended" and the "Federal Claims Collection Standards." Without clear explanations, these could be challenging for those unfamiliar with legal language to understand.

3. Data Privacy Concerns: The notice indicates that all submitted comments, including personal information, will be publicly accessible on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. It advises readers to refer to a Privacy and Security Notice but does not actively address data protection or give practical advice on safeguarding personal information.

4. Lack of Practical Examples: There is limited information on practical applications, such as examples of typical debts that might qualify for compromise or termination under the collection action. Such examples could have helped readers better understand the context in which this process is applied.

5. Feedback Utilization Transparency: Although the document encourages public input, it lacks detailed information on how this feedback will be processed, implemented, or reported back. This could raise concerns about the transparency and efficacy of the comment process.

Public Impact

The document impacts the public by potentially affecting individuals or households who may owe money to FEMA. These individuals are given the opportunity to offer feedback, which could enhance the form's practicality and utility. However, potential misunderstandings or lack of engagement may arise due to the use of technical jargon and an unclear feedback process.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

1. Debtors: Individuals who owe debts to FEMA are directly impacted as this form is used to assess their financial situation concerning debt repayment. The extension of this information collection process can provide them a structured means to communicate their capabilities and seek relief or compromise.

2. General Public: For those interested in FEMA's processes and accountability, this notice is a chance to contribute to and potentially influence administrative practices involving public funds.

3. Government and Administrative Bodies: The feedback collected through this notice could lead to adjustments in FEMA's approach to debt collection, impacting how the agency manages and administers debts in disaster-affected situations.

In conclusion, while the initiative aims to streamline FEMA's operations and responsibilities, the notice could benefit from enhanced clarity and engagement strategies to maximize its effectiveness and public comprehension.

The document under review discusses an extension of a currently approved information collection by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to the collection of debts. This commentary focuses on the financial aspects referenced within the notice.

One of the financial elements mentioned is the estimated total annual respondent cost of $4,793. This figure represents the cost associated with individuals or households providing the necessary information to FEMA. The document, however, does not detail how this cost was calculated, which makes it challenging to assess the reasonableness or necessity of this amount. Additionally, the document states that there are no operation, maintenance, capital, or start-up costs expected for the respondents, suggesting that the financial burden is limited to time or resources spent completing the necessary forms.

The estimated total annual cost to the Federal Government is denoted as $23,363. This cost presumably relates to the processing, evaluation, and management of the collected debt-related information. Similar to the respondent costs, the document does not elaborate on the breakdown of this total, leaving questions about how this figure was derived and what specific activities it covers. Understanding these details is crucial for evaluating the efficiency and prudence of Federal spending in this context.

Additionally, the document mentions FEMA's authority to handle debts not exceeding $100,000. FEMA can compromise these debts or terminate their collection if the cost of collection is likely to exceed the recovery amount or if the debtor lacks the financial means for repayment. Unfortunately, the document does not offer examples of such debts or the criteria used to make these determinations, which could improve understanding of how financial considerations influence decision-making.

The lack of detailed explanation for the cost figures ties into the identified issue regarding the clarity and precision of financial information provided. More transparency about cost calculations and criteria for debt compromise or forgiveness would enhance the public's ability to comment meaningfully on the proposal and assess the financial impact of the collection activity.

Moreover, while the notice mentions that public comments are solicited to evaluate various aspects of the proposed data collection, including financial considerations, it does not clearly state how this feedback will be utilized or communicated back to the public. This omission raises transparency concerns as stakeholders may wish to understand how their input contributes to decision-making processes, especially when it pertains to financial expenditures and appropriations.