Overview
Title
Information Collection Request Submission for OMB Review; Reopening of Comment Period
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Peace Corps wants to hear what people think about some paperwork they plan to submit for approval. They are giving everyone extra time to share their thoughts because they didn't give enough time the first time around.
Summary AI
The Peace Corps is reopening the comment period for a document that originally called for feedback on submitting an information collection request for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Initially, the notice published on December 8, 2020, had a 30-day period that ended on January 7, 2021, but it should have allowed for 60 days. This action gives the public an additional 30 days to submit comments, with the new deadline set for March 19, 2021. Comments should be emailed to Virginia Burke at the Peace Corps.
Abstract
The Peace Corps published a document in the Federal Register of December 8, 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 in question involves a significant procedural matter concerning public participation in the government’s decision-making process. It pertains to a notice by the Peace Corps that reopens the comment period for an information collection request. Originally published in December 2020, the notice mistakenly provided only a 30-day window for public comment, closing on January 7, 2021, instead of the standard 60-day period. Consequently, the comment period has been extended, allowing an additional 30 days for public feedback until March 19, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from this notice:
Insufficient Explanation for Initial Error: The document highlights an administrative oversight where the original comment period was incorrectly set for 30 days. However, the notice does not provide a rationale or explanation for this initial error. Transparency regarding the mistake could improve the public's understanding of, and trust in, governmental procedures.
Lack of Detailed Context: The notice lacks specific information about the nature or purpose of the information collection request under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For the public to provide meaningful feedback, additional context on how the information will be used and its potential impact on various stakeholders would be beneficial.
Terminology Clarity: Although the document strives to communicate clearly, it includes terminology like "OMB Review," "FR Doc," and "BILLING CODE" without further explanation. These terms may not be immediately clear to readers unfamiliar with the workings of the Federal Register and related processes.
Comment Submission Requirements: The requirement that comments be included in the body of an email, not as attachments, could pose a limitation. This might prevent some individuals from using preferred formats for their responses or lead to confusion if this guideline is not communicated clearly.
Broad Public Impact
The reopening of the comment period is a democratic exercise in transparency and public participation, and it potentially affects all Americans, as it concerns the collection and management of information by a government agency. Such processes impact how the government interacts with citizens and compiles data to inform policy decisions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Applicants to the Peace Corps: Individuals applying to or serving in the Peace Corps may be directly affected, depending on the nature of the data being collected. Hence, they would benefit from understanding what information will be gathered and how it will be used.
Privacy Advocates: This reopening provides an opportunity for groups concerned with data privacy and information security to voice their concerns or support regarding how information is collected and managed.
In sum, the extension of the comment period is a welcome rectification, allowing for broader participation. However, the effectiveness of the process could be enhanced by providing additional context, addressing the initial oversight's cause, and ensuring terminology and submission guidelines are clear to all. Stakeholders engaged with the Peace Corps and those concerned with privacy and information practices have a vested interest in participating in this dialogue.
Issues
• The document does not contain any specific information about potential spending, making it impossible to identify any wasteful spending or favoritism.
• The notice could benefit from additional context regarding the impact of the information collection request and who it affects.
• There is a mention of reopening the comment period because it was initially too short, but no explanation is provided for why it was originally set to 30 days instead of the typical 60 days.
• The document generally uses accessible language, but terms like 'OMB Review,' 'FR Doc,' and 'BILLING CODE' are not clearly explained for readers who may not be familiar with Federal Register terminology.
• The document provides an email contact for comments but advises that comments must be in the text body, which could be a restriction for some commenters or could result in confusion if not clearly conveyed.