Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Requirements for Approved Construction Investments
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Commerce wants to make sure that building projects, like roads or bridges, help make more jobs. They are asking people and other offices to share their opinions to make sure collecting this information isn't too hard.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce is planning to send a request to the Office of Management and Budget to approve information collection related to construction investments. This is linked to programs aimed at improving public infrastructure to create jobs and support economic growth. They are asking the public and federal agencies to comment on this proposal to help reduce the burden on those required to provide this information. Comments can be submitted within 30 days of the notice's publication.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document discusses the Department of Commerce's initiative to submit an information collection request related to construction investments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This effort is part of the programs designed to improve public infrastructure, which can potentially create jobs and promote economic growth. The initiative is open for public and federal agency comments to potentially lessen the burden on information providers. Comments can be submitted within 30 days from the notice's publication.
Summary and Purpose
The information collection request is tied to the Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) efforts in investing in construction projects through Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) Programs. These programs aim to enhance public infrastructure that is essential for job creation, retaining investments, and attracting capital to promote economic resilience and innovation. The document indicates a plan to extend the use of post-approval construction tools, checklists, and standard conditions for EDA-funded projects.
Key Concerns
One significant issue is the lack of detailed information regarding the 7,000 burden hours estimated for respondents. There is no breakdown to justify these hours, which could lead to questions about the efficiency and necessity of the process. Additionally, the document statement about extending the use of checklists and templates is vague; it doesn’t clarify what, if any, changes are being proposed. Without this clarity, it may be difficult for stakeholders to fully understand the scope and impact of the revisions.
The mention of "Frequency: One time, although some are periodic" lacks specifics on which activities are considered periodic. This absence of detail could result in confusion among respondents concerning their reporting obligations. Furthermore, the term "vibrant economic ecosystems" is used but not explicitly defined, which might lead to misunderstandings about the expected outcomes of these investments.
Public Impact
For the general public, the document represents an opportunity for economic growth through improved infrastructure. However, it also introduces a reporting burden to a diverse group of entities, including cities, educational institutions, and non-profits. Without clear definitions and a breakdown of responsibilities, the public may struggle to appreciate fully or engage with the potential benefits and responsibilities.
Impact on Stakeholders
The potential positive impact on stakeholders includes the heightened economic opportunities that enhanced infrastructure can bring to communities, particularly in areas undergoing economic adjustment. Cities and non-profits might find new avenues for development projects tailored to local economic needs.
Conversely, the document fails to provide clarity on whether the burden of compliance is evenly distributed across all types of entities, which could lead some stakeholders to face a disproportionate load. Moreover, questions remain regarding the financial costs associated with these requirements, which could be a concern for smaller entities with limited resources.
Overall, while the document outlines a framework for economic enhancement through construction investments, it raises questions on specifics and clarity that could be addressed to foster a more comprehensive understanding and engagement from stakeholders and the public.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed justification or breakdown of the 7,000 burden hours required for respondents, which could raise concerns about efficiency and necessity.
• The document mentions an extension of checklists and templates but does not specify what changes, if any, are being made to these tools. This lack of detail might lead to ambiguity about the nature of the revisions being reviewed.
• There is no explicit mention of financial implications or cost estimates associated with the construction projects or the information collection request, which could be crucial for evaluating potential wasteful spending.
• The document states 'Frequency: One time, although some are periodic' without clarifying which parts are periodic. This could confuse respondents or stakeholders trying to understand their obligations.
• The term 'vibrant economic ecosystems' is somewhat vague and could benefit from further elucidation to ensure clear understanding of the expected outcomes of the investments.
• The affected public includes a wide range of entities, but the document does not clarify whether the burden is equally distributed among them or if some entities might face a heavier load.
• The use of 'et seq.' in the Legal Authority section may not be immediately understandable to all readers and might benefit from additional explanation about the scope of the referenced law.