Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Amend an Investment Award and Project Service Maps
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Commerce wants to make sure that changes to money given for projects are fair, so they're asking people to tell them what they think before they make any decisions. They want to hear from everyone who gets this money, like cities or schools, so they can make the best choices!
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce is seeking public comments on an information collection request before submitting it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This request pertains to amendments to investment awards and project service maps handled by the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The EDA requires information from award recipients to decide on changes to the terms of an award. Comments can be submitted through the specified website within 30 days of the notice's publication.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document, published by the Department of Commerce, is a formal notice seeking public input on an information collection request related to amendments to investment awards and project service maps managed by the Economic Development Administration (EDA). It is part of the standard procedure under the Paperwork Reduction Act, where public opinion is solicited before submitting such requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
General Overview
The primary focus is on collecting information that could lead to potential amendments in current investment awards. These amendments might include changes to construction and non-construction awards, as well as updates to project service maps. The document outlines that this process is vital for the EDA to efficiently manage economic development programs and respond to evolving conditions on the ground. Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments within a 30-day window through the indicated government website.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several notable issues arise from the document. Firstly, it lacks an explanation of the potential impact these amendments might have on ongoing projects. Without such context, stakeholders may find it challenging to gauge the importance of submitting comments. Moreover, the document mentions technical terms such as "OMB Control Number" and regulatory references without providing explanations that could aid public understanding. This oversight could potentially alienate individuals not familiar with bureaucratic jargon.
Additionally, instructions for submitting comments, though present, do not provide a direct link or detailed guidance on navigating the specified website. This could inadvertently reduce public participation, contrary to the intended transparency and inclusiveness of the process.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this document signifies an opportunity to influence how economic development funds are managed. By participating in the comment period, individuals and organizations can express concerns, suggest enhancements, or endorse proposed changes. However, the complexity of engaging with the process might deter those less familiar with navigating federal procedures, limiting the diversity of feedback.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Various stakeholders including cities, states, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations stand to be directly impacted by any amendments to investment awards. Positively, such amendments could lead to better resource allocation reflecting current needs and promoting more inclusive regional development. Conversely, without a clear understanding of how these changes will be assessed and implemented, there remains a risk of perceived or actual inequity, where some entities might feel disadvantaged or overlooked.
The document implies an administrative burden on respondents due to the time estimated for completing submissions. If the process is more complex than indicated, this could disproportionately affect smaller organizations or those with limited administrative capacity, posing a challenge to fair access and participation.
Conclusion
Overall, this document underscores a critical aspect of federal governance where public input shapes the management of developmental funds. While it holds the promise of informed amendments that could enhance economic outcomes, it also highlights areas where clarity and accessibility could be improved to maximize public engagement and fair stakeholder impact.
Issues
• The document lacks a clear explanation of the potential impact of the amendments to investment awards and project service maps, which could help in understanding how these changes might affect economic development projects.
• There are no details provided about how the impact on different stakeholders (e.g., cities, states, educational institutions) will be assessed, which could lead to concerns about fairness or favoritism.
• The document uses technical terms like 'OMB Control Number' and references to specific regulations (e.g., 13 CFR 302.7(a), 13 CFR 302.16(c)) without providing context or explanations, making it difficult for the general public to comprehend fully.
• While the document mentions that written comments should be submitted via www.reginfo.gov, it does not provide a direct link or step-by-step guidance for accessing the specific page, which may discourage public participation.
• The estimated average hours per response for amendments and maps may not fully capture the true administrative burden on respondents, especially if the process is complex.
• The while list of affected public entities is comprehensive, there is no mention of potential impact assessments or how information is collected, which could raise concerns about efficiency and accuracy.
• The term 'Burden Hours' might be unclear to those unfamiliar with government document terms, and an explanation or definition might enhance understanding.