Overview
Title
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Section 3 Utilization Tools; OMB Control No.: 2501-0040
Agencies
ELI5 AI
HUD wants to know what people think about a new tool they are making to help keep track of jobs given to certain workers. They are asking people to say if the tool is easy to use and how they might make it better before the end of March.
Summary AI
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is planning to gather information to create tools for Section 3 compliance, specifically aimed at documenting labor hours for Section 3 workers and businesses. This initiative falls under existing regulations and is not mandatory, but serves as a sample process for those without current methods. Comments from the public are invited until March 31, 2025, to discuss the necessity, accuracy, and ways to improve or reduce the effort needed to collect the information. HUD urges feedback to ensure the tools are effective and user-friendly.
Abstract
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) presents a proposed plan to gather information aimed at improving Section 3 compliance tools. This initiative is designed to help address documentation concerning labor hours for workers and businesses affected by Section 3 regulations, which focus on economic opportunities for low-income individuals in housing and community development projects. While this proposal is not mandatory, it offers a voluntary method for entities that lack their own documentation processes. HUD is soliciting public feedback until March 31, 2025, to ensure the tools meet stakeholders' needs and are practical in application.
General Summary
This document outlines HUD's intention to collect information to create Section 3 Utilization Tools. These tools will help document labor hours for Section 3 workers and businesses involved in federally funded housing and community development programs. The proposed information collection aims to provide a framework that is not obligatory but can assist grantees in maintaining adequate records. HUD encourages public input to enhance the necessity, accuracy, and overall efficiency of these tools.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Some notable concerns arise from this initiative:
Unspecified Burden: The document lacks clarity on the burden hours expected from respondents, which could result in challenges in evaluating the impact on those required to implement the information collection.
Voluntary Nature: The optional status of the tools might lead to inconsistent adoption, potentially detracting from the standardized data collection's effectiveness.
Lack of Detail: There is a deficiency in the explanation of how this collected information will be utilized, creating possible transparency issues regarding the purpose and utility of the data.
Confidentiality Concerns: The absence of measures to protect the confidentiality of the information could raise privacy concerns among stakeholders.
Complexity of Forms: The use of multiple form numbers suggests a level of complexity that could confuse respondents, especially if the variations between forms are not adequately explained.
Overwhelming Contact Information: The range of contact methods and sources for submission and inquiries could overwhelm stakeholders, complicating compliance and participation in the comment process.
Technical Language: The inclusion of technical jargon and specific references to the Code of Federal Regulations might present barriers for some stakeholders, possibly discouraging public engagement in the comment period.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the impact of this document on the public involves the potential enhancement of processes related to housing and community development projects. However, its voluntary nature may lead to varied implementation, affecting the data's comprehensiveness and reliability. The document encourages public participation, which could allow citizens to influence how government initiatives impact their communities.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved in housing and community development projects, such as grantees and contractors, the proposal offers a new resource to assist compliance with Section 3 requirements. While some entities might find the tools beneficial, others might view them as unnecessary overhead, especially if they already have adequate documentation systems in place. Privacy advocates may be wary due to the potential lack of confidentiality measures for the collected information. Overall, the document attempts to balance data collection with minimal imposition on stakeholders, though many may see opportunities for improvement in clarity and application.
In conclusion, while the proposal offers potential benefits for improving Section 3 compliance, addressing the issues raised may be essential to ensuring its effectiveness and acceptance among stakeholders. Encouraging detailed public feedback can provide HUD with valuable insights to refine these tools, ultimately enhancing their utility and adoption.
Issues
• The document does not clearly specify the expected burden hours for respondents, which could lead to difficulties in assessing the burden on entities affected by the information collection.
• The voluntary nature of the proposed Section 3 Utilization Tools might lead to inconsistent adoption and compliance, which could undermine the effectiveness of the data collection.
• The document lacks specific details about how the collected information will be used, which could raise concerns about the transparency of its utility.
• There is no mention of any measures in place to protect the confidentiality of the information collected, which could be a concern for privacy advocates.
• The use of several different form numbers suggests complexity that might confuse respondents, especially if the differences between these forms are not clearly explained.
• The document provides a range of different contact methods and sources of information for submissions and inquiries, which might overwhelm or confuse stakeholders attempting to comply with or comment on the procedures.
• The technical language and references to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) might be difficult for some stakeholders to understand, potentially inhibiting public participation in the comment period.