Overview
Title
Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0120
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Coast Guard wants people to tell them if applying for some jobs is too hard or could be made easier. They want to make sure asking questions on the forms is okay and not too much work for people trying to get these jobs.
Summary AI
The U.S. Coast Guard is requesting public comments on its application to extend the usage of the Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application form. This form is used by individuals applying for Coast Guard jobs that aren't part of the regular government personnel system, as they no longer use the federal employment form that was previously available. Comments on the usefulness, burden, and potential improvements of this information collection can be submitted until January 16, 2025, through specified online portals. The request seeks to ensure the application process remains effective and does not unnecessarily burden applicants.
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: 1625-0120, U.S. Coast Guard Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application; 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
General Summary of the Document
The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a notice seeking public comments on its request to continue using the Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application form. This form is essential for those wishing to apply for jobs within a subset of the Coast Guard workforce not covered by the usual federal employment systems like USA Jobs. The existing approval for this form, identified with OMB Control Number 1625-0120, is set to expire, and the Coast Guard aims to renew it without any changes. Comments from the public are invited by January 16, 2025.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The document is layered with technical jargon and references to regulatory statutes, which could be challenging for individuals who are not familiar with governmental or legal terminologies. Acronyms such as ICR, OIRA, OMB, and NAF appear frequently but are not explained in lay terms. This could create a barrier to understanding for the public. Moreover, the document fails to adequately explain why USA Jobs is not a viable platform for the NAF system, merely citing cost and turnover as factors. Providing more context on these challenges could foster better comprehension and meaningful public input.
Another area of improvement could be a clearer explanation of how the estimated hour burden on applicants is calculated. Without transparency in this process, stakeholders may question the validity of the Coast Guard's projections and assumptions.
The document also misses an opportunity to highlight innovations or efficiencies that could be introduced to streamline the current process, which could significantly reduce the administrative overhead associated with the form.
Impact on the Public
The notice and its implications could affect job seekers applying for these specific Coast Guard positions. Since the employment process relies on a unique form distinct from the standard federal systems, potential applicants must navigate an additional layer of paperwork. Understanding the burden and necessity of this form can influence the extent to which the public might engage in or support this administrative process.
For the general public, the notice primarily serves as a heads-up for those potentially impacted by the renewal of this information collection. It outlines avenues to express concerns or suggestions. A well-informed response from the public might guide improvements in the procedure, making it more transparent and user-friendly.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, particularly potential job applicants and Coast Guard human resources, are central to the concern here. For applicants, the continuation of this form represents continuity in applying for positions, albeit with unchanged paperwork requirements. The process and methodology for calculation of burden hours remain opaque, potentially leading to distrust or frustration for the applicants who feel overwhelmed by administrative tasks.
For the Coast Guard, the initiative to renew the use of this form reflects an ongoing need to fill positions through methods distinct from broader government employment avenues. Maintaining this capability is crucial, but it also places the responsibility on the Coast Guard to ensure the process is as efficient as possible.
In conclusion, while the Coast Guard's notice is an essential procedural element in maintaining a segment of its workforce, the opaque language and structure may hinder its effectiveness in gathering insightful public feedback necessary for meaningful improvements.
Issues
• The document uses technical jargon (ICR, OIRA, OMB, NAF) that may not be readily understood by the general public, leading to potential confusion.
• The document relies heavily on references to legal and regulatory citations (such as 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) without providing an accessible explanation for non-expert readers.
• The sheer volume of procedural details might be overwhelming for individuals without a background in administrative law or government processes.
• The rationale for not using USA Jobs for NAF is briefly mentioned but could be expanded to enhance understanding, particularly about cost and turnover rate implications.
• The document assumes familiarity with forms like OF-612, which could be clarified for readers unfamiliar with these processes.
• Information regarding how the estimated hour burden was calculated is not sufficiently detailed, which might raise questions about accuracy and methodology.
• The document does not provide any newer technology or procedural recommendations that may potentially reduce administrative overhead or streamline the information collection process.