FR 2025-07714

The document is an official notice from the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), concerning a revised information collection request. This request is related to the Personal Identity Verification Form, known as ATF Form 8620.40, which is used as part of the personnel security and suitability background investigations. The document outlines the proposed changes to this collection and invites public comments over a 60-day period, ending on July 7, 2025.

General Summary

The central focus of the notice is the revision of the time estimate required for verifying forms of identification using ATF Form 8620.40. Previously, it was estimated to take 5 minutes per verification, but this has now been increased to 15 minutes. As a result, the total annual burden for respondents is calculated to rise significantly from 167 hours to 500 hours. This collection specifically affects federal government employees who are candidates for positions requiring access to ATF information and facilities.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue is the substantial increase in the estimated time required for verification, which expands the total burden threefold. However, the document lacks a detailed explanation for this increase, which raises questions about the justification for such a change. Without clear reasoning, stakeholders may find it difficult to assess the validity of the new burden estimate.

The document also employs technical jargon that references various laws and regulations, such as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) and HSPD-12, without ample explanation. This could be challenging for readers unfamiliar with these specific legislative frameworks, making the document less accessible to the general public.

Additionally, while the document indicates no associated costs with the revised burden, this absence could be puzzling given the increase in time required per respondent. It begs the question of whether there might be indirect costs or implications that have not been addressed.

Impact on the Public

Broadly speaking, the document may not directly affect the general public since it pertains to federal government employees involved in ATF's personnel verification processes. However, any significant procedural changes within government agencies can have downstream impacts on efficiency, resource allocation, and public trust in how government time and taxpayer dollars are utilized.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For those directly impacted—namely, the approximately 2,000 federal employees required to complete this form—the increased verification time may bring about delayed access to critical ATF systems and facilities. This could potentially slow down workflow and lead to feelings of frustration among affected individuals.

Conversely, these changes could be viewed positively if they lead to more thorough background investigations, potentially enhancing security measures within the ATF. Ensuring that only properly vetted individuals have access to sensitive information and environments is a crucial task, and increased verification times could contribute to heightened organizational security and trust.

In summary, while the proposed revisions appear aimed at improving procedural thoroughness, the lack of detailed explanation and accessible language may hinder public comprehension and stakeholder reassurance. Future communications could benefit from clearer justifications and simplified language to foster better understanding and engagement from the public and affected parties.

The document outlines a proposed revision to a previously approved information collection activity by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) within the Department of Justice. It specifically refers to the Personal Identity Verification Form (ATF Form 8620.40) and discusses changes in the estimated time required for verification processes.

Financial Summary

Cost Implications

The document states that the estimated total annual cost burden associated with this information collection activity is $0. This implies that the process of collecting the required information does not involve any direct financial outlay on the part of respondents. In other words, the respondents are not expected to incur any costs in terms of fees or expenses due to completing the form. This absence of financial burden is notable given the increase in the estimated time taken for each verification from 5 minutes to 15 minutes, thereby increasing the total annual burden from 167 hours to 500 hours.

Relation to Identified Issues

1. Increased Time Burden: The document does mention that the time required for form verification has increased significantly, which raises questions about why this extended time does not translate into a monetary cost. Typically, an increase in time required for processes might be expected to correlate with potential costs, at least in terms of labor or administrative overhead. However, the document clarifies that there is no cost despite the increase in time required.

2. Lack of Explanation for Cost Implications: While the document provides detailed calculations on the increase in time burden, it does not offer a detailed explanation regarding the financial implication or justification of this increased effort not impacting costs. This could lead to confusion among stakeholders who might expect that increased labor effort, typically, results in costs.

3. Clarity and Transparency: The absence of a cost burden, despite increased time requirements, might benefit from further clarification to enhance understanding among stakeholders, especially in light of the technical and regulatory language used throughout the document. Further elaboration on how the increase in time does not impact cost could address potential concerns or misconceptions.

Overall, while the document highlights a notable increase in time burden for the information collection process, it remains clear that this change does not introduce or imply additional financial costs for respondents. Clarity in communicating the reasons behind this zero-dollar cost implication, despite increased time commitments, would be beneficial for public understanding.