Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Agriculture Department wants to know what people think about the paperwork they ask for to give money to help build important places like schools and hospitals in small towns. They're hoping to make it easier and would like ideas on how to do that.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture is seeking public comments on an information collection request under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request involves the Community Facilities Grant Program, which provides grants to public agencies, nonprofits, and Indian tribes for essential community services in rural areas, like schools, hospitals, and fire stations. The Department is asking for feedback on the necessity and utility of the information collected, as well as suggestions for minimizing the burden on respondents. Comments are due by March 28, 2025, and can be submitted online at the designated government website.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register details a notice from the Department of Agriculture, specifically regarding an information collection request under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request pertains to the Community Facilities Grant Program, which involves the development of essential community services across rural areas. The program is designed to assist public agencies, nonprofits, and Indian tribes in building or enhancing facilities such as schools, hospitals, and safety stations like fire and police departments.
General Summary
The Department of Agriculture is inviting the public to comment by March 28, 2025, on the necessity, utility, and methodology of this information collection. The notice explicitly asks for feedback on how to reduce the burden of responding to this data collection.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from the document that merit attention:
Lack of Methodological Details: The document does not provide detailed insights into the methodology or assumptions used for estimating the information collection burden. This absence makes it challenging to evaluate the accuracy or validity of the burden estimates.
Complex Language: The section discussing the need for and use of the information employs relatively complex language. This could pose difficulties for laypersons trying to comprehend the document's intentions and requirements.
Burden Minimization: There is a lack of specified measures aimed at minimizing the burden placed on respondents. This deficiency could result in unnecessarily high costs and time investments for those required to comply.
Use of Technology: The notice does not specify which technological methods are employed to simplify the data collection process for respondents. Clarity in this area could help mitigate respondents' workload significantly.
Order of Essential Services: While it does mention specific facilities, the summary does not thoroughly define what is included in "essential community facilities and services." This lack of specificity might lead to confusion among potential applicants.
Impact on the Public
Broad Public Impact: Public knowledge and perception of how the Department of Agriculture manages and oversees the allocation of grants in rural areas could be affected by this document. The information collection efforts could indirectly impact community development by shaping policy decisions.
Stakeholder Impact:
Positive Impact: Public agencies, nonprofits, and Indian tribes potentially stand to benefit from the program by acquiring funds to develop or enhance local infrastructure crucial to rural communities.
Negative Impact: Stakeholders could experience administrative burdens due to the paperwork and reporting requirements, which may be exacerbated by the lack of precise measures for minimizing these burdens.
In Conclusion, while the document outlines a critical step in the process of supporting rural facilities, it has room for improvement in how it communicates process details and supports stakeholders in fulfilling its requirements efficiently. Ensuring clearer guidelines and leveraging technology could enhance compliance and further facilitate the intended community benefits.
Issues
• The document lacks details on the methodology and assumptions used for estimating the burden, making it difficult to assess its validity.
• The language in the section discussing the need and use of information is somewhat complex and could be simplified to enhance clarity.
• The document does not specify any particular measures taken to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, which could be a potential area of concern.
• There is no information on specific technological collection techniques or information technology methods being employed to minimize burden on respondents.
• The summary of the collection does not provide detailed examples of what constitutes 'essential community facilities and services,' which could lead to ambiguity.