Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Navy wants to ask shipyard companies questions to know what they can build or fix, but some grown-ups think the questions might not be very clear, and they're worried that people might not know how much work answering will be.
Summary AI
The Department of the Navy, part of the Department of Defense (DoD), has submitted a proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information about U.S. shipyards under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This information will be used by the Naval Sea Systems Command and the U.S. Maritime Administration to maintain an updated list of commercial shipyards and their capabilities. The collection effort seeks responses from 200 businesses annually, with each response taking about four hours. Public comments on the proposal are open until January 15, 2025.
Abstract
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
In a recent document published in the Federal Register, the Department of the Navy, under the Department of Defense (DoD), has announced its proposal to collect information on U.S. shipyards. This initiative is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The goal of this effort is to maintain an up-to-date database of commercial shipyards, including their capabilities and capacities, for both the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD).
General Summary
The document outlines a proposal that seeks to collect data from 200 businesses engaged in shipbuilding or repair activities. Each participating entity is expected to contribute one response per year, with each response estimated to take about four hours to complete. The primary intention is to create a comprehensive list that will be useful for both NAVSEA and MARAD. Public comments on the proposal are invited until January 15, 2025, providing the public with an opportunity to express concerns or support.
Significant Issues or Concerns
A notable issue in this document is the lack of detail regarding the specific data that will be collected and the criteria used to assess shipyard capabilities. This lack of transparency could result in inconsistency or unintended bias in the evaluations. Furthermore, while the document signifies the collected information as critical to NAVSEA and MARAD, it does not clarify its exact applications or how it will be utilized, making it hard to judge its necessity or potential for inefficiency.
Moreover, the document specifies an estimated four-hour burden per response but does not break down how this time is distributed across different tasks, such as data entry or document review. This omission could hinder the ability to evaluate whether this estimate is reasonable or burdensome. Additionally, while participation is voluntary, the document fails to address any consequences or incentives related to participation, which might influence the quality and comprehensiveness of the data collected.
Lastly, the use of technical terms like "Facilities Available for the Construction or Repair of Ships" and "Standard Form 17" may not be readily understandable to all prospective respondents, potentially deterring participation or leading to non-compliance.
Impact on the Public
The broader public may not be directly impacted by this information collection initiative, but there are indirect implications worth considering. If the collected data improves the efficiency and capability assessments of U.S. shipyards, it could enhance maritime operations, potentially benefiting national security and economic activities tied to the defense sector.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For businesses involved in shipbuilding and repair, the proposal could present both opportunities and burdens. On one side, participation in this data collection could offer shipyards visibility and potential opportunities if their capabilities align with government needs. On the other side, the process may be seen as an administrative burden, particularly if the four-hour response requirement proves excessive or unclear in execution.
In conclusion, while the intent behind this proposal is to streamline and maintain essential shipyard information for governmental agencies, the success of this endeavor rests critically on addressing the concerns related to transparency, specificity of data use, and clarity of communication to ensure meaningful and efficient participation from the targeted business community.
Issues
• The document does not specify what specific data or criteria will be used to evaluate the capabilities and capacities of U.S. commercial shipyards. This ambiguity might lead to inconsistent or biased evaluations.
• The term 'Needs and Uses' section states the information is critical for NAVSEA and MARAD without detailing the specific applications or consequences of the collected data. This makes it difficult to assess the necessity or potential wastefulness of the data collection.
• Although the burden per respondent is provided (4 hours), the document does not clarify how this time is distributed (e.g., data entry, document review), making it challenging to assess if the time estimate is reasonable or excessive.
• The request is voluntary, but the document does not outline if there are any repercussions or benefits for participation or non-participation, which could affect the reliability of the data collected.
• The use of specialized jargon, such as 'Facilities Available for the Construction or Repair of Ships' and terms like 'Standard Form 17', may not be immediately clear to all potential respondents, possibly deterring participation or affecting compliance.