Overview
Title
Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0040
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Coast Guard wants to make sure that the forms they use for people working on ships are easy to understand and not too hard to fill out. They are asking for everyone’s help to share ideas on how to make these forms better and less of a bother by February 11, 2021.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard is requesting public comments on the renewal of an Information Collection Request (ICR) related to Merchant Mariner Credentials and Medical Certificates. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this request is being reviewed to ensure the collection of information is necessary and does not place an undue burden on respondents. Comments must be submitted by February 11, 2021, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Coast Guard is particularly interested in feedback on the practical use and clarity of the information collected and suggestions for reducing any associated burdens.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0040, Applications for Merchant Mariner Credentials and Medical Certificates; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document at hand is a notification from the U.S. Coast Guard requesting public comments regarding the renewal of an Information Collection Request (ICR). This ICR pertains to Merchant Mariner Credentials and Medical Certificates. Notably, this process is in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and comments are accepted until February 11, 2021. The essence of this request is to ensure that the necessary information collection does not impose an undue burden on applicants.
Summary
The announcement primarily seeks public feedback on maintaining the balance between necessary compliance documentation and minimizing the associated burden on respondents. This indicates that the process involves a significant level of documentation, which must be justified in terms of its necessity and practicality. The Coast Guard is particularly keen to hear about the practical use and clarity of the information collected, as well as suggestions for reducing any related burdens.
Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the document that could be addressed to enhance understanding and transparency:
Technical Jargon: The document is laden with technical terms and abbreviations such as ICR, OIRA, MMC, and STCW, which may not be immediately clear to the general public. Providing a glossary or explanations for these abbreviations could aid comprehension.
Lack of Explanation for Increased Burden: There is mention of an increase in the annual estimated number of responses, leading to a higher hour burden estimate. However, there is no explanation for this surge, which could leave readers questioning the justification for the increased collection.
Complex Language: The text's use of legal and bureaucratic terms may pose an obstacle to effective understanding by lay readers. Simplifying the language could make the document more accessible.
Insufficient Form Descriptions: Various forms are referenced, but the lack of specific descriptions of these forms might confuse those who are supposed to complete them.
Limited Explanation on Necessity: The document relies heavily on compliance with regulations as justification for the information collection. A more detailed explanation of the collection's necessity could improve transparency and public understanding.
Lack of Detail on Burden Reduction: While the solicitation of public comments is a step towards transparency, it is unclear what proactive measures have been taken to minimize the burden on respondents. Insight into possible automated solutions or efforts to reduce repetitive paperwork could be reassuring.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document reflects the Coast Guard’s efforts to comply with bureaucratic regulations while being mindful of public burden. For the general public, particularly those seeking Merchant Mariner Credentials or Medical Certificates, this notice is crucial. It serves as an opportunity to engage with and potentially influence the regulatory process, ensuring that the documentation requirements are not excessively burdensome.
Impact on Stakeholders
For individuals applying for Merchant Mariner Credentials or Medical Certificates, this document symbolizes ongoing administrative processes that could significantly affect their professional lives. On the positive side, soliciting comments presents a chance for these stakeholders to voice concerns, offer practical suggestions, and potentially mitigate cumbersome processes. On the negative side, if not sufficiently clarified, the complexities and potential misunderstandings in the document could pose challenges in compliance and timely application processing.
In conclusion, while the document conveys necessary procedural updates, addressing the highlighted issues could enhance clarity, engagement, and, consequently, compliance among stakeholders. The Coast Guard appears open to reforming procedures based on public input, which is a positive indicator of adaptive governance.
Issues
• The document uses technical terms and abbreviations (e.g., ICR, OIRA, MMC, STCW) without providing a glossary or explanation, which could be confusing for lay readers.
• The document mentions an 'increase in the estimated annual number of responses' but does not explain why there is an increase, which could affect the perceived necessity of the burden.
• Complex sentences and legal jargon might make it difficult for an average reader to fully understand the requirements and implications. Simplifying language could improve clarity.
• There are references to various forms (e.g., CG-719B, CG-719C) without descriptions of what each form specifically entails, which might confuse respondents.
• The document summary and supplementary information sections provide limited explanation for the necessity of the information collection, beyond compliance with regulations. A more detailed justification could improve transparency.
• The document does not specify what steps have been taken to minimize the burden on respondents, aside from soliciting public comments. Further details on efforts to implement automated solutions or reduce repetition might be beneficial.