Overview
Title
Submission for Review: 3206-0230, Life Insurance Election, Standard Form (SF) 2817
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to see if people like or have ideas to change a paper that federal workers fill out to pick their life insurance. They are asking everyone to share thoughts about this before April 26, 2021, to help them make the form better and less confusing.
Summary AI
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is inviting public comments on a revised information collection request concerning the Life Insurance Election form, known as SF 2817. Comments are being accepted until April 26, 2021, and can be submitted through the Federal Rulemaking Portal. This request for comments is part of the process required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, as the form involves collecting information from federal employees and assignees, who are individuals that manage an employee's life insurance. The feedback sought includes evaluations of the necessity, accuracy, and burden of the information collected.
Abstract
Federal Employees Insurance Operations (FEIO), Healthcare & Insurance (HI), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), SF 2817--Life Insurance Election.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding the revised information collection request for the Life Insurance Election Form (SF 2817). This form is primarily used by federal employees and certain individuals known as assignees to elect life insurance coverage. The OPM is seeking public comments on this form until April 26, 2021, as part of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act—a law intended to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals and ensure the information gathered is necessary and useful.
General Summary
The notice informs the public about the opportunity to comment on the SF 2817 form. It provides details about how comments can be submitted, encourages feedback on specific aspects of the form's utility, accuracy, and burden, and specifies who the information collection impacts—namely federal employees and particular assignees.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One prominent issue is the lack of detail regarding any costs or expenditures involved in processing these forms. This gap makes it challenging to assess whether there is any wasteful spending associated with this process. Additionally, it is unclear how efficiently the process for soliciting comments is being conducted, nor is there information on how these comments will be used or their practical impact on decision-making at the OPM. This absence of transparency might limit the perceived value of the public’s input.
Furthermore, the language used could be simplified for better clarity and comprehension. Terms such as "assignees who are not federal employees" and phrases like "permitting electronic submissions of responses" are potentially confusing without further explanation or context. More detailed information on the estimated time and burden on respondents would help clarify the rationale behind these figures, fostering better understanding and responses from the public.
Potential Public Impact
Broadly, public engagement in providing feedback ensures that the forms used by federal employees and other stakeholders remain relevant and efficient. However, if the comments are not effectively used or considered due to unclear or inefficient processes, this could discourage public participation and diminish trust in how the OPM manages these information collections.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal employees and assignees, these forms determine important aspects of their life insurance coverage. Therefore, any revisions based on public comments can positively or negatively affect them, depending on the nature of the changes. Ideally, thoughtful consideration of comments could lead to improvements in how these forms are administered, reducing any unnecessary burden on these groups. Conversely, if their feedback is not effectively integrated, stakeholders might feel disregarded or burdened by administrative inefficiencies.
In summary, while the notice represents an important step in gathering public input, attention to transparency, clarity, and procedural efficiency will be crucial. This will ensure that stakeholder feedback leads to meaningful improvements in the management of the SF 2817 form process.
Issues
• The document does not provide sufficient detail on any potential costs or expenditures associated with processing SF 2817 forms, making it difficult to identify if there is wasteful spending.
• There is no information on whether the comment solicitation process is being carried out efficiently or cost-effectively.
• The document lacks information on how the comments received will be used or considered by the Office of Personnel Management, leaving unclear the impact of the public's input.
• The language around the burden of the collection of information could be simplified. Phrases such as 'permitting electronic submissions of responses' can be rephrased for clarity.
• The use of terms like 'assignees who are not federal employees' may be confusing without further context or examples, potentially leading to misunderstandings about who is affected by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
• The mention of the estimated time per respondent and total burden hours is brief and lacks an explanation or breakdown, which might lead to questions about the methodology for these estimates.