Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Extension
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Energy Department wants to keep asking companies for information about how much they spend on lawyers, and they want people's thoughts on it. They want to make sure the information they collect is useful and correct, and people have until June 9, 2025, to share what they think about this.
Summary AI
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plans to extend an information collection request for three years, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request is focused on gathering data related to legal expenses incurred by contractors, such as litigation costs and legal budgets. The public is encouraged to comment on the necessity, accuracy, and ways to improve this data collection by June 9, 2025. The document is signed by Treena V. Garrett, the Federal Register Liaison Officer, on April 4, 2025.
Abstract
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) outlines a proposal to extend an information collection request for an additional three years. This process is in alignment with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The focus of the data collection is on expenses related to legal matters incurred by contractors, particularly litigation costs and legal budgets. The DOE is inviting public comments on the proposal, which must be submitted by June 9, 2025. This initiative was officially documented and signed by Treena V. Garrett, the Federal Register Liaison Officer, on April 4, 2025.
General Summary
The DOE is seeking to renew an information collection effort that includes gathering data on legal expenses from contractors. The purpose of this data collection is to inform DOE decisions regarding contractor requests for reimbursement of litigation and other legal expenses. The proposal mentions annual legal budget, staffing, resource plans, and defensive or offensive legal actions as part of the information to be collected.
Significant Issues or Concerns
There are several notable issues within the document:
Transparency and Clarity: The document does not elaborate on how the collected information will be used beyond forming a basis for DOE actions on contractor requests. This lack of detail may be perceived as a transparency concern.
Ambiguity: The text mentions reimbursement for litigation expenses without specifying the types of litigation, which could lead to confusion about what is included.
Cost Estimation: The estimation of a zero-cost burden for reporting and recordkeeping may seem unrealistic, especially given typical administrative costs associated with such processes.
Technical Language: The use of legal and bureaucratic terminology, such as "delegated authority" and statutory references, might be challenging for the general public to understand.
Impact on the Public
For the broader public, the implications of this document might seem limited at first glance. However, the accurate reporting of contractor legal expenses and potential reimbursements can impact government spending and, consequently, taxpayer resources. Public participation is encouraged to ensure transparency and accountability in these processes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For contractors working with the DOE, this extension holds a direct impact. They are required to provide detailed legal management information, which could involve significant administrative effort. Conversely, they might benefit from gaining clarity on what expenses could be considered for reimbursement, assuming the DOE enhances transparency based on public feedback.
In summary, while the DOE's document addresses necessary bureaucratic processes, it raises important considerations regarding transparency, clarity, and cost. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide input to address these issues and improve the collection process.
Issues
• The notice does not provide specific details on how the information collected will be practically used besides forming the basis for DOE actions on requests from contractors, which could be viewed as lacking transparency.
• The purpose section mentions reimbursement for litigation and legal expenses but does not provide clarity on what types of litigation this involves, which could be seen as ambiguous.
• The estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is stated as 0, which may raise questions about the accuracy of the cost estimation, as it seems unlikely that there are no costs involved.
• The document could improve clarity by providing more context or examples of 'defensive or offensive litigation' referenced in the information collection purpose.
• The document uses legal and bureaucratic terminology that might be complex for general public understanding, especially terms like 'delegated authority' and statutory references.