Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Previously Approved Collection; Request for Registration Under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Justice wants people to comment on their plan to ask companies who sell gambling machines to fill out a form each year. They want to make sure the form is good and easy, but they don't say much about what will be on it or how they will keep people's information safe.
Summary AI
The Department of Justice, through its Criminal Division, is requesting public comments on the renewal of an information collection under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962. This request involves the registration of entities involved in the interstate commerce of gambling devices and is aimed at collecting specific information from respondents. The proposed renewal, requiring response from approximately 7,800 individuals annually, takes roughly 5 minutes per submission. Comments are being accepted for 30 days until February 12, 2025, and are encouraged to focus on aspects such as the necessity, accuracy, and methodology of the information collection.
Abstract
The Criminal Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting 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.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking public comments on the extension of a previously approved information collection. This collection is under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962 and requires entities engaged in the interstate commerce of gambling devices to register with the DOJ. The notice is part of a process to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ensuring that federal information collections are necessary and not overly burdensome.
General Summary
This notice announces a comment period for a proposal to renew the registration requirement for businesses and other entities under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962. The DOJ intends to collect information from approximately 7,800 respondents annually, each taking about five minutes to complete their registration. The comment period runs until February 12, 2025, during which the public is encouraged to discuss the necessity, accuracy, and methodology of this information collection.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several concerns arise from the document:
Lack of Detailed Information: The notice does not specify which data points will be collected during the registration process, making it difficult for stakeholders to assess its necessity and utility.
Use and Benefits of Collected Information: There is no clear explanation of how the collected information will be used or what specific benefits it will provide, leaving stakeholders in the dark about the value of their participation.
Estimated Time for Response: The time estimate of five minutes per response appears low without a detailed breakdown of the registration process, raising questions about whether this timeframe is realistic.
Registration Requirements: There is ambiguity around the entities required to register, specifically who qualifies as a "participant in the interstate commerce of gambling devices." Clarification is essential to ensure compliance.
Privacy Concerns and Data Protection: The document does not address how respondents' data will be protected or what privacy measures will be implemented, potentially deterring participation.
Communication Accessibility: The contact details provided for further information include a phone number and physical address but lack an email address for Darwin Arceo, which might hinder accessibility for those preferring digital communication.
Impact on the Public
The document affects a broad audience, mainly businesses involved in the gambling industry. These stakeholders must comply with registration requirements, which means understanding the obligations imposed by the Gambling Devices Act.
For the general public, there may be indirect effects related to transparency and regulation of the gambling devices market, potentially influencing local economies and business practices.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impacts:
- Regulatory Clarity: For entities engaged in gambling device commerce, this regulation aims to provide a clearer legal framework, possibly reducing fraudulent or illicit activities within the industry.
Negative Impacts:
Compliance Burden: Businesses, especially small enterprises, might find the registration process burdensome, particularly if further information about the scope and details of the requirements isn't clarified.
Privacy Concerns: Without clear data protection assurances, respondents might be wary of disclosing information, fearing potential misuse of their data.
Overall, while the DOJ's effort to renew this information collection aims to maintain oversight of the gambling devices sector, addressing the concerns and ambiguities highlighted in this notice would enhance its transparency and effectiveness. Stakeholders are encouraged to actively engage in the comment process to voice these issues and contribute to a more refined regulatory approach.
Issues
• The document lacks detailed information on the specific data to be collected, which makes assessing its necessity and utility difficult.
• The document does not clarify how the information collected will be used or what specific benefits will be derived from it.
• The estimated time per respondent is 5 minutes, which seems low without further detail on what the registration process entails.
• The document could benefit from clearer terms regarding the appeal or review process for submitted information collections, if any.
• There is potential ambiguity around the entities required to register under the Gambling Devices Act—clarification on who exactly qualifies as a 'participant in interstate commerce of gambling devices' is needed.
• The document does not address potential privacy concerns or data protection measures for the information collected from respondents.
• The contact details for further information lack an email address for Darwin Arceo, making it less accessible for individuals who prefer digital communication.
• The frequency of the collection is stated as 'Annually,' but it is unclear if there are circumstances where more frequent submissions would be required.