Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard Form (SF) 123
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is asking people to say what they think about reusing old stuff the government doesn’t need anymore. They use a special form to help give this stuff to schools and hospitals, and they want to keep using it if everyone agrees it's helpful.
Summary AI
The General Services Administration (GSA) is asking for public comments on a request to extend approval for the use of Standard Form (SF) 123, which helps donate surplus federal property to various public agencies and organizations. Comments should be submitted by May 22, 2025. This request is part of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, ensuring that the process of transferring surplus property remains efficient. Last time, a notice was published in January 2025, but no public comments were received on it.
Abstract
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard Form (SF) 123.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register presents a request by the General Services Administration (GSA) for public comments on extending the approval for using the Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard Form (SF) 123. This form plays a significant role in transferring surplus federal property to various public entities and organizations for beneficial uses. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments by May 22, 2025.
General Summary
The GSA seeks to renew its approval for using SF 123 under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The form facilitates the donation of federal surplus property to state agencies, public institutions, and non-profit organizations focused on education and public health. The notice invites comments and feedback to ensure compliance and efficiency in the paperwork involved in these transfers. Importantly, a previous solicitation for public comments in January 2025 resulted in no feedback, raising questions about public engagement effectiveness.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document:
Efficiency and Necessity: The document reports a substantial number of annual responses—23,364—with a seemingly low burden of 414.48 hours. While this suggests efficiency, a thorough verification might be necessary to confirm the necessity and impact of each response to avoid resource wastage.
Monetary Considerations: Absent from the document is any discussion regarding the monetary cost associated with the paperwork burden. Estimating such costs could provide insight into potential financial waste and bolster arguments for or against the form's continued use.
Public Engagement: Notably, there were no comments in response to the previous notice in January. This lack of public feedback may indicate inadequate communication or outreach strategies. The effectiveness of gathering meaningful public input could be improved by making the process more transparent and accessible.
Technical Clarity: The use of technical jargon and references (such as SF 123 and OMB Control No. 3090-0014) may alienate some readers unfamiliar with government paperwork processes, possibly hindering broader public understanding and engagement.
Public Impact
The document has the potential to impact the public positively by facilitating the redistribution of valuable resources to public and non-profit entities, thereby supporting community-oriented missions in education, public health, and transportation. However, unclear or inefficient processes, combined with a lack of financial transparency, could reduce the perceived and actual benefits of the program.
Stakeholder Impact
For public agencies and nonprofits, SF 123 represents a vital mechanism for acquiring resources that might otherwise be unattainable due to budget constraints. Any inefficiency or unnecessary burden related to this form could impact their operations and service delivery.
Conversely, for stakeholders involved in the regulatory process—including government workers processing these forms—streamlining paperwork and enhancing feedback mechanisms might lead to reduced workloads and improved service quality.
Overall, the commentary underscores the importance of balance between bureaucratic efficiency and comprehensive public engagement. Clarifying and potentially simplifying the process could ensure that surplus resources are utilized effectively and that public agencies and nonprofits remain supported in their missions.
Issues
• The document mentions a total of 23,364 responses with a total burden of 414.48 hours, which may suggest that the burden per individual response is quite low. However, verification on the necessity and efficiency of each response could be beneficial to ensure no wastage of resources.
• The document does not mention any estimated monetary cost associated with the paperwork burden, which could be useful for assessing potential financial waste.
• The contact information for submitting comments is provided but could be more detailed regarding specific submission instructions or formats to reduce ambiguity.
• The document notes that no comments were received after soliciting public feedback, which could indicate a potential issue in how feedback opportunities are communicated or how accessible they are to stakeholders.
• While the purpose of the form is explained, the document does not provide examples or case studies of how this process has benefited public agencies or nonprofit educational or public health activities, which could help justify the process's current form.
• The document uses some technical language and references specific forms and codes (e.g., SF 123, OMB Control No. 3090-0014) that may not be immediately clear to readers who are not familiar with government paperwork processes.