FR 2025-04314

Overview

Title

Data Collection Available for Public Comments

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The helpers in charge of small businesses want to hear people's thoughts about how they collect information to help restaurants, but they haven't explained everything about the rules or what happens next if the new way isn't approved.

Summary AI

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking public comments about a proposed information collection, which is under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This information collection relates to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), a program funded by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to aid food service establishments. The SBA is also updating the record retention requirements for this program. Interested parties have until April 17, 2025, to submit their comments.

Abstract

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.

Type: Notice
Citation: 90 FR 12631
Document #: 2025-04314
Date:
Volume: 90
Pages: 12631-12632

AnalysisAI

The recent notice published by the Small Business Administration (SBA) indicates that the agency is inviting public comments on a proposed information collection designed to support the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF). This initiative is part of the broader American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, aimed specifically at bolstering food service establishments like restaurants, bars, and taverns that were heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

General Overview

At the heart of this notice is the SBA's effort to update and refine how it collects information from businesses that received aid under the RRF. Public feedback is sought to ensure that the data collection process is efficient, accurate, and minimally burdensome for businesses. Businesses impacted by this notice include those eligible for relief under the RRF program, which provides substantial financial support with a cap of $10 million per entity and $5 million per location.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the pressing issues with this notice is the lack of detail on how the caps of $10 million per entity and $5 million per location were set. Businesses may question whether these limits are fair or adequate for their needs. Another concern stems from the requirement that recipients of these funds return any unutilized money by the designated deadline or when operations cease permanently. This condition may impose a financial strain on businesses struggling to manage funds efficiently or who are unable to revitalize operations briskly.

Furthermore, while the SBA is open to public comment, the notice could be enhanced with more specific examples of beneficial feedback. The general call for comments might not guide stakeholders on which aspects of the process require improvement or innovation.

Impact on the Public

The document could potentially affect the general public in several ways. By refining this information collection process, the SBA aims to ensure that public funds are allocated and utilized effectively, thereby directly affecting the efficiency and impact of taxpayer money. Additionally, by better understanding how these funds are used, the SBA can make decisions that more accurately reflect the needs of the food service industry.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For restaurant owners and other stakeholders in the food service industry, this notice holds significant importance. Firstly, those participating in the fund must be aware of the potential implications of returning unused funds, which may include financial difficulties if the return is mandated at a time of continued hardship. Furthermore, the call for comments represents an opportunity for stakeholders to influence how future information collection may reduce administrative burdens, thereby allowing businesses to focus more on operations and recovery efforts.

Conclusion

In summary, while the notice from the SBA provides an essential framework for refining the RRF and seeks to involve the public in fine-tuning this framework, it could benefit from clarifying several aspects. Specifically, articulating the reasons behind financial caps, detailing methods for ensuring compliance, and offering new perspectives to minimize business burdens. For stakeholders, engaging in this consultative process is critical for shaping a support system that meets their needs while maintaining transparency and accountability for public funds.

Financial Assessment

In this document from the Small Business Administration (SBA), key financial allocations are outlined as part of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) program established under Section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The RRF program is designed to provide economic support for certain food and drink establishments that have suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document specifies that the RRF program offers direct funds of up to $10 million, capped at $5 million per location, to eligible entities such as restaurants, bars, and other establishments where the primary purpose is serving food or drink. This initiative aims to support businesses like food stands, food trucks, brewpubs, and tasting rooms, among others. The financial ceiling helps ensure that the funds are distributed across numerous establishments rather than being monopolized by a few larger entities. However, the document does not clarify how these caps are determined or justified, which raises questions for potentially affected businesses wondering about the equity and logic behind these limits.

Additionally, the document highlights a requirement under Section 5003(c)(6) of ARPA that mandates recipients return any unused funds to the Treasury if not spent on allowable expenses by the end of the coverage period, or if the recipient has permanently ceased operations, required no later than April 30, 2023. This stipulation aims to ensure fiscal responsibility and proper allocation of taxpayer money. Nevertheless, this requirement might impose an undue financial strain on businesses struggling to decide quickly whether to spend the allocated funds or return them. The mechanisms to ensure compliance with this requirement or to verify the return of unused funds are not clearly outlined, leaving recipients uncertain about enforcement and accountability measures.

The document solicits public comments on the necessity and efficiency of this financial information collection, questioning whether the information collection accurately burdens respondents or if there are ways to enhance its quality and utility. However, no detailed examples or suggestions on how to reduce this burden are provided, potentially leaving the public without a clear direction on what types of feedback would be most constructive.

Overall, the document introduces significant funding opportunities aimed at helping businesses during a challenging economic period. Still, it also raises concerns about the framework's clarity and execution, particularly regarding financial caps, return requirements, and the mechanisms for ensuring compliance. These elements could benefit from further clarification to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial implications for affected entities.

Issues

  • • The document does not provide detailed information on how the $10 million cap per entity and $5 million cap per location for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) are specifically determined or justified.

  • • The requirement for recipients to return unutilized funds or funds if operations cease by April 30, 2023, may create financial strain and is not explained in detail.

  • • Information regarding mechanisms to verify compliance with the requirement to return unused funds if operations cease is not clear.

  • • The language regarding the solicitation of public comments could benefit from examples or more specific guidance on what types of comments are deemed useful.

  • • There is no information on the potential consequences if the revised information collection under OMB control number 3245-0424 is not approved.

  • • The agency is requesting public opinions on reducing the burden, but it does not offer potential solutions or examples of what might be feasible.

  • • The notice could provide more context or examples of how record retention requirements might be extended under the updated OMB control number 3245-0424.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 2
Words: 639
Sentences: 22
Entities: 50

Language

Nouns: 224
Verbs: 44
Adjectives: 22
Adverbs: 7
Numbers: 40

Complexity

Average Token Length:
5.06
Average Sentence Length:
29.05
Token Entropy:
5.18
Readability (ARI):
20.32

Reading Time

about 2 minutes