Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection of eComments Requested; Extension with Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Records and Supporting Data: Importation, Receipt, Storage, and Disposition by Explosives Importers, Manufacturers, Dealers, and Users
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The ATF wants to know what happens when businesses use or store explosives, like firecrackers, to keep everyone safe. They want people's feedback on how easy it is to give them this information and estimate that each business will spend about 12.6 hours a year on it.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) of the Department of Justice is proposing an information collection regarding the records related to the importation, storage, and use of explosives. They aim to ensure safety and accountability by tracking daily activities of businesses dealing with explosives under Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40. The public and affected agencies are encouraged to provide comments on the necessity, accuracy, and burden of this collection within 60 days. It is estimated that 9,411 respondents will participate annually, with each taking approximately 12.6 hours to maintain these records.
Abstract
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection (IC) is also being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document discusses a proposed action by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a part of the Department of Justice, to extend and modify an existing information collection regarding the handling of explosives. Under Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40, businesses that import, manufacture, receive, store, or use explosives must maintain detailed records of their activities. The purpose of the collection is to enhance accountability and safety by ensuring that any loss, theft, or diversion of explosive materials can be quickly identified and addressed. Members of the public and affiliated agencies are being asked to provide feedback on this proposal, specifically regarding the practicality and burden of the requirements.
Summary of the Document
The document outlines a proposed extension and modification of an information collection related to the management of explosives by licensed businesses. ATF plans to collect data to monitor the flow and status of explosives, ensuring adherence to safety regulations. The information collection aims to maintain public safety by making records readily available for inspection and review.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from the document:
Decrease in Respondents: The document mentions a decrease in the number of respondents and burden hours since the last renewal in 2017, without providing specific reasons for this decrease. Understanding why there is a lower number of respondents is essential for evaluating the accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed collection.
Public Burden Estimates: The methodology underlying the estimated time and effort required by respondents to comply with the information collection is not detailed. Without these specifics, it is challenging to assess the reliability of these estimates.
Technological Solutions: While the document encourages the use of electronic submissions to minimize the burden, it lacks clarity on what specific technological solutions will be implemented to aid respondents. This omission makes it difficult for stakeholders to envision practical applications.
Form Number Ambiguity: The document references a "check justification or form 83" without providing further explanation or details, potentially causing confusion about the documentation or process being referred to.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document signals an effort by the ATF to enhance regulatory oversight of explosive materials, which could lead to improved public safety. The proposed information collection is meant to ensure that explosives are closely monitored, thus helping to prevent unauthorized use or accidents. However, the impact on businesses that must keep detailed records could be significant. These entities may have to allocate resources, time, and possibly technology to comply with reporting requirements, which could be burdensome.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses Involved with Explosives: This group, which includes manufacturers, dealers, and users, will be directly affected due to the time and effort required to keep and manage comprehensive records. While necessary for public safety, these obligations may impose additional operational costs.
Public and Safety Agencies: The potential benefit could be greater oversight and reduced risk of accidents or criminal activities involving explosives. Quick detection of irregularities could potentially mitigate risks to the community.
In conclusion, while the ATF’s proposed information collection aims to foster safety, transparency, and accountability in the explosives industry, it highlights a need for clearer communication regarding changes in respondent figures, estimation methodologies, and the adoption of efficient technological solutions. These clarifications would help address the overarching concerns raised by the affected stakeholders and the public at large.
Issues
• The document does not provide a clear explanation of why there was a decrease in the number of respondents, responses, and total burden hours since the last IC renewal in 2017.
• The method for estimating the public burden in hours is not detailed in the document, making it difficult to assess the validity of these estimates.
• The document lacks details on potential technological solutions to minimize the burden on respondents, despite encouraging electronic submissions.
• No specific justification or form number is provided for the 'check justification or form 83', which might cause confusion about the exact documentation or process being referred to.