Overview
Title
Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0047
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Coast Guard wants to keep checking important ship systems to make sure they are safe. They are asking people to say if they think this check is needed or if it can be made easier, until May 9, 2025.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard plans to request an extension from the Office of Management and Budget for their information collection titled "Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation". This information collection is essential for ensuring the safety of personnel and property on U.S.-flag vessels. The Coast Guard is seeking public comments on the necessity and usefulness of this information collection, as well as ways to reduce its burden. Public comments are open until May 9, 2025, and can be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0047, Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces a notice by the U.S. Coast Guard regarding an intention to extend the collection of information titled "Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation." This is part of an Information Collection Request (ICR) process whereby the Coast Guard seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The primary aim of this collection is to ensure the safety and protection of personnel and property on vessels flying the U.S. flag. The Coast Guard is inviting public comments on this ICR, specifically regarding its necessity, practicality, and suggestions for improving its effectiveness and reducing its burden.
General Summary
The Coast Guard is reaching out to the public for comments on the continuation of its information collection related to vital system automation on commercial vessels. This effort falls under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which mandates that federal agencies seek public input when collecting information from the public. The Coast Guard is specifically looking for feedback on the information's practicality, accuracy of the estimated burden it places on respondents, and ways to minimize this burden through technological solutions or other means.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several significant issues are present in the document. The language used is dense with bureaucratic and legal jargon, such as "Information Collection Request (ICR)" and "Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)," which may be challenging for general readers to understand. Moreover, while the document outlines the purpose of the collection, it could provide a clearer explanation as to why this information is critical and how it impacts stakeholders.
The document also mentions a decrease in the estimated burden from 67,275 to 50,550 hours annually due to fewer responses, but lacks clarity on the criteria that led to this reduction. Furthermore, there are no detailed examples or case studies of how the automation plan approval benefits vessel safety, which could help the public and stakeholders more readily grasp its importance.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document could impact the public by emphasizing the vital role of regulatory oversight in maintaining safety on commercial vessels. It potentially improves overall maritime safety, which can benefit passengers, crew, and cargo. However, the complex language and lack of specific illustrations might prevent wider public comprehension and engagement.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders, such as vessel owners, operators, shipyards, designers, and manufacturers, there could be both positive and negative impacts. Positively, the continued approval of this information collection could assure better safety standards and reduce the likelihood of maritime accidents. On the downside, compliance with these regulations can represent a significant administrative burden, particularly if respondents are unclear about requirements due to the absence of detailed forms or specific document needs.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard's invitation for comments is essential for gauging public and stakeholder input; however, the document could benefit from clearer language and more detailed examples of its practical applications. Making it easier to understand will likely enhance participation and result in more informed feedback. Reducing the regulatory burden while ensuring safety standards remain high is a pivotal issue for the stakeholders involved. For this ICR to function optimally, it must balance regulatory requirements with practical, manageable expectations for those who must comply.
Issues
• The document contains legal and bureaucratic language that may be difficult for the general public to understand, such as 'Information Collection Request (ICR)' and 'Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).'
• The explanation of the necessity for the Information Collection Request (ICR) could be made clearer to emphasize its importance and impact on stakeholders.
• The criteria for submitting comments are clear, but the potential impact of these comments on the decision-making process is not explicitly discussed.
• The document does not specify the criteria used to reduce the estimated hour burden from 67,275 hours to 50,550 hours, making it difficult to assess the rationale behind the decrease.
• There is a lack of specific examples or case studies illustrating the practical applications and benefits of the Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation, which could help stakeholders better understand its utility.
• The document does not explicitly address potential concerns or challenges faced by respondents in complying with the information collection, such as technical barriers or resource constraints.
• The absence of specific forms in the 'Forms' section may lead to ambiguity, as respondents might be uncertain about the exact documentation required to accompany their submissions.