Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The MSPB wants to make it easier for people to ask for help, like special tools or changes, at work or when they're applying for a job, to do their best. They are asking people to tell them if their new plan for collecting this information is clear and if it works well.
Summary AI
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is seeking public input on a new process for collecting information related to requests for reasonable accommodations. These accommodations are necessary for applicants, employees, and participants in MSPB programs who have disabilities, medical or pregnancy-related conditions, or religious needs. This initiative aims to comply with federal laws like the Rehabilitation Act and the Civil Rights Act by streamlining how accommodation requests are processed. The MSPB is collecting comments to evaluate the necessity, accuracy, and practicality of this information collection process.
Abstract
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, intends to request approval of a new information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. MSPB is submitting this Information Collection Request (ICR), entitled Accommodation Request Form, OMB Control No. 3124-0NEW, for approval in accordance with Federal regulations, and is requesting public comments. This collection was developed as part of MSPB's effort to streamline the process for collecting information from employees and applicants to MSPB, as well as participants in MSPB functions (parties and/or participants in MSPB appeals, respondents to surveys, and all other individuals engaged in activity conducted by the MSPB), who seek a reasonable accommodation in order for MSPB to carry out its functions with respect to these individuals. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document in question is an official notice from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), proposing a new method for collecting information regarding accommodation requests. These accommodations are aimed at helping individuals with disabilities, medical or pregnancy-related conditions, or religious needs to participate fully in activities associated with the MSPB, which handles appeals and other employment-related functions. As part of a regular procedure, the MSPB is inviting public comments to assess the necessity and efficiency of this new information collection process.
Key Issues and Concerns
A recurring theme in the document is its reliance on technical jargon and bureaucratic terminology. Terms like "ICR Status" and references to specific legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Civil Rights Act may not resonate well with the general public. This language could distance readers who might otherwise be interested in participating in the commenting process.
Moreover, the instructions for submitting comments, while detailed, could benefit from simplification. The document mentions several submission methods and the requirement to reference specific numbers, which might confuse or deter potential respondents.
Another source of ambiguity is the estimated total cost of the process, set at $2,653. The document does not break down this number, leaving readers uncertain of what it ultimately covers. Greater transparency in this aspect would enhance public trust and understanding.
Additionally, the methodology for estimating the number of respondents and the associated data is not thoroughly explained. This lack of detail leaves room for doubt regarding the accuracy and reliability of these figures.
Impact on the General Public
For the general public, the document signifies a potential shift in how reasonable accommodations are managed, at least within the context of the MSPB’s functions. While this might seem abstract, it has practical implications for anyone engaged with MSPB processes, such as federal employees or applicants who need accommodations.
The public solicitation for comments underscores an effort to involve citizens in the governmental process, aligning with democratic values. However, the complexity of the document might limit this engagement to those who are already familiar with or willing to navigate the intricacies of federal procedures.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved, such as individuals requiring accommodations, employees of the MSPB, or participants in related programs, the document proposes changes that could streamline how they request and receive necessary modifications. This could potentially improve efficiency and satisfaction with the MSPB’s processes.
On the positive side, these efforts signal compliance with federal statutes that protect against discrimination, thus fostering an inclusive environment at the MSPB. For these stakeholders, the proposed changes might lead to better access to employment opportunities and program participation without the hindrance of procedural barriers.
On the flip side, if the process becomes too complex or bureaucratic due to insufficient clarity or transparency, it could discourage requests and thus negatively affect those who most need these accommodations. Moreover, stakeholders like businesses might find themselves needing to adapt to new reporting or compliance requirements, which could usher in new challenges or costs.
In sum, while this document proposes potentially beneficial changes, it leaves room for improvements in clarity, transparency, and engagement.
Financial Assessment
The document from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board discusses a proposed information collection activity related to reasonable accommodation requests. Within the text, there is a specific mention of financial information regarding the estimated total cost of the initiative. The document states that the estimated total cost associated with this information collection is $2,653.
Summary of Financial References
The financial reference highlights the projected cost of implementing the proposed accommodation request information collection. This figure presumably encompasses various expenses involved in the process, which could include administrative costs, materials, technology use, and possibly personnel labor costs.
Relation to Identified Issues
One of the identified issues in the document is the lack of detailed explanation regarding how this $2,653 was calculated and what specific components the cost covers. Given that the document is intended for public comment and review, it would be beneficial for the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board to provide a breakdown or more detailed explanation of this cost. This could improve transparency and address concerns about the potential vagueness of the financial information presented.
Additionally, by detailing how these costs are calculated, stakeholders can better assess whether the financial allocation is reasonable and justifiable. More explicit information regarding the costs could help clarify how the estimated total aligns with the administrative and operational efforts required to process accommodation requests effectively.
Overall, while the document outlines the necessary procedures for public comment, clarifying the financial aspects would contribute significantly to the public's understanding and engagement with the proposed information collection initiative.
Issues
• The document uses bureaucratic and technical language that might be difficult for the general public to understand, such as 'ICR Status' and references to various laws and regulations.
• The purpose of the information collection might not be entirely clear to all readers, as it involves specific federal acts and procedures that may not be familiar to everyone.
• The instructions for submitting comments are detailed but might be perceived as complex due to the multiple methods and specific references needed (e.g., OMB Control No. 3124-0NEW), which could be streamlined or clarified.
• There is a lack of detailed explanation regarding how the estimated total cost of $2,653 was calculated or what it specifically covers. This may appear vague and could benefit from more transparency.
• The document does not provide examples or case scenarios to illustrate the purpose or process of accommodation requests, which could help in understanding practical applications.
• The section on 'Estimated Total Number of Respondents' and related data (frequency, burden hours, etc.) lacks a detailed explanation of how these estimates were derived, which could be perceived as insufficiently justified or potentially inaccurate.