FR 2025-02276

The document from the Federal Register pertains to an announcement by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding a proposed information collection request. This involves notifying fire safety authorities about the storage of explosive materials. The primary objective is to ensure the safety of emergency responders dealing with fires at locations where explosives are stored. The ATF plans to submit this request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The public is invited to offer comments by March 10, 2025, through a specified government website.

Summary of the Document

The proposal outlines changes to the current process, notably an increase in the number of respondents—from 975 to 10,000. This results in a substantial rise in annual burden hours, from 488 to 5,000, and a corresponding increase in monetary costs. The ATF expects the time each respondent spends completing the notification to remain at about 30 minutes annually.

Significant Issues and Concerns

An increase in the number of respondents from 975 to 10,000 is substantial and raises questions about the reason behind such a dramatic change. It is unclear whether there have been developments or concerns necessitating a wider scope of compliance. Additionally, the rise in postage costs, from 49 cents to 73 cents, appears considerable, and further details to justify this increase would enhance transparency.

The document lacks detailed explanation on how the cost per response of $22.395 was determined, raising concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the estimated financial burden. Similarly, there is limited insight into the calculation of the monetized value of the time burden, which could be perceived as lacking transparency.

Impacts on the Public

For the general public, especially those involved with storing explosive materials, this proposal signifies an increased regulatory burden and cost. The proposal could impact various entities, including state, local, and tribal governments, as well as individuals, farms, and businesses. The extensive reach may require these stakeholders to adapt their management of explosive materials storage to comply with enhanced notification requirements.

Positive and Negative Impacts on Stakeholders

For local fire safety authorities, improved and more comprehensive notifications could facilitate better preparedness and response in emergencies involving explosives. This might enhance safety and reduce risks to personnel and property.

On the other hand, stakeholders directly responsible for submitting information, such as businesses and private individuals involved in storing explosive materials, could experience increased administrative and financial burdens. The rising number of respondents and increased postage costs may impose additional expenses and time commitments, which could particularly impact smaller entities that operate with limited resources.

In summary, while the proposed changes aim to improve safety and compliance, the underlying assumptions and justifications for the increased burdens require further clarification to ensure transparency and fairness. Clear communication and reasonable justifications will be essential to balancing regulatory demands with the capabilities and resources of the affected parties.

The document discusses a proposed revision in the collection of information by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), focusing on the Notification to Fire Safety Authority of Storage of Explosive Materials. This revision is subject to the approval and review process set forth by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the guidelines of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Financial Summary

The proposed changes in this information collection have significant financial implications. The document mentions a considerable increase in the number of respondents, up from 975 to 10,000. Consequently, the annual burden hours increase from 488 to 5,000 hours. The monetized value of this time burden is projected at $223,950 annually, resulting from the cost per response, which is estimated to be $22.395. Moreover, over a three-year renewal period, this translates to a total monetized burden value of $671,850. This revision also reflects an increase in postage costs from 49 cents to 73 cents, which would increase the total annual postage cost from $359 to $1,825.

Relationship to Identified Issues

1. Increase in Respondents: The dramatic rise in the number of respondents from 975 to 10,000 raises questions about the appropriateness and accuracy of such a substantial increase. This could have a proportional impact on the financial calculations, such as the annual burden hours and the associated monetized value.

2. Postage Cost Increase: The change in postage costs from 49 cents to 73 cents seems substantial. An explanation or evidence to justify this increase could clarify any concerns regarding the authenticity and necessity of this adjustment. Such an increase could significantly impact the overall cost from a budget and logistical standpoint.

3. Calculation of Time Burden: The document provides limited detail on how the $22.395 per response cost was calculated, leading to a potential lack of transparency. Understanding the methodology behind this monetary figure is crucial for evaluating its fairness and the overall financial burden imposed on the respondents.

4. Logistical and Administrative Concerns: With the proposed increase in the number of respondents to 10,000, there could be a need for a detailed logistical plan to manage records accurately. This financial aspect is important to ensure that the distribution of resources is efficient and that costs do not escalate unintentionally due to administrative complexities.

In conclusion, while the document outlines specific financial allocations and projections related to the revised ATF notification process, the clarity, transparency, and justification behind these figures and changes seem to require further elaboration. Addressing these concerns could facilitate a smoother approval process and a more accurate understanding of the financial impacts of the proposed collection revisions.