Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Defense wants to get permission to ask people questions using a special form to make sure they can safely receive certain important items from the military. They want to hear what people think about this plan by the end of January 2025.
Summary AI
The Department of Defense (DoD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect certain information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This information is gathered using the End-Use Certificate (DLA Form 1822) and is used to determine if individuals can receive export-controlled personal property, like items from the United States Munitions Lists. The form ensures compliance with agreements concerning the proper use of such items. The public is invited to provide comments on this proposal by January 30, 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
The document titled "Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request" concerns the Department of Defense's (DoD) proposal to collect information from the public via the End-Use Certificate (DLA Form 1822). Submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this proposal is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act's requirements. The purpose of collecting this information is to determine if certain individuals are eligible to receive export-controlled property, such as items listed on the United States Munitions List. Comments from the public are invited until January 30, 2025.
General Summary
The primary objective of the document is to inform the public about a proposed information collection by the DoD and to invite feedback. The collection of data via the End-Use Certificate serves as a vetting process to ensure compliance with the terms of sales and agreements concerning military and export-controlled items.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several notable issues arise from this document:
Cost Clarity: The document does not provide an estimate of the costs involved in collecting this information, which could lead to questions about the efficiency and potential financial burden on the respondents.
Understanding of Terms: Phrases such as "export-controlled personal property" and "Military Critical Technical Data Agreement" might not be readily understandable to the general public. The document could benefit from additional context or definitions to aid comprehension.
Public Participation: While public comments are solicited, the document lacks details on how these comments might influence the process. This may discourage public participation, as potential contributors might not see the value in providing feedback without understanding its potential impact.
Potential Impact on the Public
For the general public, particularly those interested in or affected by military exports and technology, this document represents an opportunity to voice concerns or suggest improvements in the handling of export-controlled items. However, without clearer explanations and an understanding of the impact of public comments, engagement might be limited.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Certain stakeholders, such as businesses involved in the defense sector, non-profit institutions concerned with export regulations, and individuals who might be eligible to receive export-controlled property, are directly impacted. Positive outcomes include ensuring that such transfers comply with legal and security regulations. However, the administrative burden of compliance, especially if not offset by evident benefits or efficiencies, could pose a drawback.
In summary, while this document fulfills its role in seeking compliance-related information, it could enhance transparency and understanding by offering more detailed explanations and clarifying the potential impact of public participation. This approach might increase engagement and ensure that relevant stakeholders can adequately prepare for and respond to the proposed information collection.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed breakdown of how much the information collection will cost, which might make it difficult to assess if the spending is efficient or wasteful.
• The language around 'Needs and Uses' could be clearer. Specifically, the explanation of which entities can use the form and under what conditions could be more explicit.
• The phrase 'export-controlled personal property' might require additional context for the general public to understand what it encompasses without referring to external lists like USML or CCL.
• The term 'Military Critical Technical Data Agreement' is used without a detailed explanation of what it entails, which might confuse readers who are not familiar with military documentation agreements.
• The document requests feedback but does not specify any incentives or assurances of how public comments will influence the process, which might discourage public participation.