Overview
Title
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for a U.S. Passport
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Department of State wants people to say what they think about changes to the form used to apply for a passport. One change is asking for "sex" instead of "gender," and people can say what they think until March 17, 2025.
Summary AI
The Department of State is seeking public comments on its proposed renewal of the application form for a U.S. passport, known as form DS-11. This form is used to gather necessary information from individuals or households for issuing passports. Recent updates to the form include a statement that applicants are not required to register as sex offenders and a change to request "sex" instead of "gender" in alignment with a recent Executive Order. The form can be downloaded online or obtained from passport agencies and U.S. consulates, and must be submitted with evidence of citizenship and identity. The public has until March 17, 2025, to submit comments.
Abstract
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on these collections from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Department of State is inviting public feedback on their proposed continued use of form DS-11, which is essential for applying for a United States passport. This solicitation is part of a routine renewal process that follows the guidelines of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The deadline for submitting comments is March 17, 2025.
Key Concerns and Issues
One notable change to the DS-11 form is the requirement to specify the applicant's "biological sex at birth" instead of "gender." This update follows Executive Order 14168, titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." The language employed in this Executive Order might be controversial. Terms like "biological truth" could be interpreted as politically charged, possibly prompting concerns or reactions from those who advocate for gender identity recognition.
There are also methodological considerations, such as the calculation of the total burden on respondents. The document estimates nearly 18 million hours of total burden, but it doesn't clarify how this figure was reached beyond basic arithmetic. It would be beneficial to understand whether any empirical data or studies back this estimation.
Impact on the Public
For the average person seeking a passport, the specified timeframe of 85 minutes to complete the form could feel lengthy. This figure likely encompasses not just filling out the form but also gathering the required documents and traveling to a passport acceptance facility. However, providing more information on this process could be helpful for applicants to plan effectively.
Furthermore, the change from "gender" to "biological sex at birth" on the form can have varied implications. For some, this might align with personal values or beliefs, while for others, it may raise concerns around privacy and the acknowledgment of gender identity. These modifications might lead to individuals feeling their identities are not adequately recognized.
Public Participation and Privacy Concerns
The notice specified that no comments were received in response to an earlier 60-day notice. This indicates a potential area where more proactive engagement efforts could benefit public responsiveness. Encouraging diverse perspectives and participation is crucial to a comprehensive understanding of the proposed changes’ impact.
Additionally, the process for submitting feedback involves the submission of comments that become public records, which may contain personal information. Individuals may be concerned about privacy and how their information might be used or viewed. More guidance about protecting personal data in this process could enhance public trust and participation.
Conclusion
Overall, while the DS-11 form is a fundamental component of obtaining a U.S. passport and the renewal process is routine, certain changes and implications warrant careful consideration. Clarity concerning methodology, empathy toward gender identity issues, and increased efforts for public engagement and privacy protection could strengthen the procedure, enhancing both transparency and trust. This process highlights how governmental procedures intersect with personal rights and values, making public feedback not only beneficial but essential.
Issues
• The document mentions 'Executive Order 14168' related to 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government', which may be considered politically sensitive or controversial. This terminology might appear unclear or loaded, potentially alienating certain groups.
• The methodology does not detail how the estimated total burden time of 17,948,460 hours was calculated beyond simply multiplying the number of respondents by the average time per response. There may be an opportunity to clarify if any specific studies or survey data were used to validate these estimates.
• The average time per response (85 minutes) for completing the DS-11 form might be seen as high; further clarification could be given on whether this includes time taken to gather documents and travel to an acceptance facility.
• The change requiring the revised DS-11 form to demand the applicant's biological sex at birth instead of gender might raise privacy concerns or issues related to gender identity.
• The notice indicates that no comments were submitted in response to the 60-day notice. It might be useful to demonstrate efforts made to solicit feedback, so the public engagement aspect appears robust and comprehensive.
• The response submission process mentioned includes providing sensitive information, which could be a privacy concern since these comments become public record. There could be more explicit guidance on protecting personal data when submitting comments.