Overview
Title
Information Collection Request Submission for OMB Review; Reopening of Comment Period
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Peace Corps made a mistake and didn't give people enough time to share their thoughts about a project, so they are now giving everyone extra time to send in their comments. They want to make sure everyone has a fair chance to speak up!
Summary AI
The Peace Corps announced the reopening of the comment period for a document originally published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2020. This notice was about collecting feedback on an information collection request for OMB Review. Initially, the public was given only 30 days to comment, but it was supposed to be a 60-day period. Therefore, the Peace Corps is extending the comment period by an additional 30 days, allowing submissions until March 18, 2021.
Abstract
The Peace Corps published a document in the Federal Register of December 7, 2020, concerning request for comments on an information collection request submission for OMB Review. The purpose of this notice is to reopen the document comment period.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document announced by the Peace Corps involves reopening a public comment period that was initially announced in December 2020. This comment period is related to an information collection request submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The initial comment period was mistakenly set for 30 days, when it should have been 60 days, prompting the Peace Corps to extend it by an additional 30 days. Comments will now be accepted until March 18, 2021.
General Overview
The reopening of the comment period provides the public with an opportunity to voice their opinions or concerns regarding a specific information collection by the Peace Corps. Feedback from the public is critical for ensuring that government agencies are acting in ways that are efficient and meet the public's needs. The extension is meant to correct the previous oversight, thereby ensuring compliance with standard procedures for public consultations.
Significant Issues
There are a few notable concerns with the document as presented. First, it does not specify why the mistake in the initial comment period length occurred, leaving room for speculation regarding procedural oversight within the organization. Second, there is a lack of detail on the specific nature of the information being collected, potentially making it difficult for the public to provide informed and meaningful feedback. Without understanding what the information collection involves, stakeholders may struggle to assess its impact or relevance to them.
Additionally, the requirement for comments to be submitted in-text rather than in document attachments may pose a challenge for some individuals, particularly if their feedback includes complex data or analyses typically better suited for attachments. Lastly, the document does not offer an explanation for the necessity of reopening the comment period, which could help to validate the decision in the eyes of the public.
Impact on the Public
By extending the comment period, the document affects the public in multiple ways. Most significantly, it provides additional time for interested individuals and organizations to prepare and submit their feedback. This could lead to more comprehensive and thoughtful submissions, positively impacting the Peace Corps' decision-making process.
Impact on Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly affected by the information collection, the reopened comment period offers an additional chance to influence how the data might be collected and used. This could include Peace Corps volunteers, potential volunteers, or administrative personnel within or related to the organization. However, the absence of clarity about what exactly the information collection request entails may hinder their ability to respond effectively.
In conclusion, while the reopening of the comment period generally reflects positively on the Peace Corps' willingness to correct procedural missteps, the document falls short in providing sufficient information and justifications that could empower stakeholders and the broader public in their feedback efforts.
Issues
• The document does not explain why the initial comment period was incorrectly set to 30 days instead of the required 60 days, which could indicate a lack of procedural oversight.
• There is no information provided on the specific nature of the information collection request, which could make it challenging for stakeholders to provide meaningful comments.
• The contact email for comments specifies that comments must be made in text and not in attachments, but does not provide a reason for this restriction, which could be considered overly restrictive or burdensome.
• No information is provided in the document to indicate why the reopening of the comment period is necessary, such as public demand or significant issues raised during the initial comment period.