Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Special Volunteer and Guest Researcher Assignment (Office of Intramural Research, Office of the Director)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The NIH wants permission to keep asking people to fill out a form that helps them decide if someone can volunteer or do research at their place. They're giving folks 30 more days to say what they think about this.
Summary AI
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has asked for approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue collecting information using the Special Volunteer and Guest Researcher Assignment form. This form helps decide if a Guest Researcher can use NIH facilities or if a Special Volunteer can offer services. The notice extends the opportunity for public comment for another 30 days. The form has no cost to respondents beyond their time and has an estimated total annual burden of 652 hours.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announcing its submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of the Special Volunteer and Guest Researcher Assignment form. This form is important as it helps NIH decide whether a Guest Researcher can use its facilities or if a Special Volunteer can offer their services. The notice extends the period for public comment by another 30 days to gather more input from the community.
General Summary
This notice is part of a routine process under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, requiring federal agencies to seek comment and approval for continued information collection efforts. Specifically, NIH is reaching out to ensure it has the necessary authority to keep using a form that assists in determining the eligibility of Guest Researchers and Special Volunteers at its facilities. The total annual burden of this data collection is projected to be 652 hours, and respondents face no costs beyond their time.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document raises some concerns:
Burden Justification: It doesn't provide a detailed explanation of why the form demands 652 annualized burden hours. Understanding these hours' derivation is crucial for transparency.
Lack of Cost Breakdown: While the text claims there are no costs other than time, it could better serve the reader with an estimate of the time commitment involved, detailing how these hours translate into workload for the respondents.
Hyperlink Format Issue: The document includes a non-functional hyperlink format for submitting written comments, potentially complicating public participation.
Instruction Clarity: The guidance given for locating the information collection on the www.reginfo.gov website might be difficult for those unfamiliar with the site’s layout.
Application Evaluation Process: There’s insufficient detail about the criteria or process used to evaluate these applications, which may leave stakeholders questioning the fairness and transparency of the decision-making process.
Purpose and Outcomes: The document does not explicitly detail the purpose and expected outcomes of the data collection, leaving potential respondents uncertain about the efficacy and goals of their participation.
Public Impact
Broadly, this document may affect the public by ensuring continued oversight and clarity around how NIH involves volunteers and researchers at its facilities. Public feedback is critical in maintaining these checks and balances, highlighting areas for improvement in both form use and administrative processes.
Impact on Stakeholders
For potential Guest Researchers and Special Volunteers, the form is pivotal in establishing their roles and activities at NIH. The process’ transparency and justifications for associated burdens may impact their willingness to participate. If stakeholders perceive the process as opaque or inefficient, it could potentially discourage involvement. Conversely, streamlined processes can foster a collaborative environment conducive to NIH’s scientific pursuits.
Overall, while this notice takes necessary steps to engage the public, enhancements in clarity, transparency, and user-friendly design could better support its goals and positively influence stakeholder experiences.
Issues
• The document does not provide detailed information on why the Special Volunteer and Guest Researcher Assignment form requires 652 annualized burden hours, which may need further justification.
• There is no detailed breakdown of the total costs associated with the time investment of respondents, which could be a concern for transparency and fiscal responsibility.
• The address for submitting written comments includes a non-functional hyperlink format, which could be a barrier to public participation.
• The instructions for finding the specific information collection on the website www.reginfo.gov might be challenging for individuals unfamiliar with the website's layout.
• The document lacks a detailed explanation of the process for evaluating and approving Guest Researcher or Special Volunteer applications, which could raise concerns about the criteria being vague or subjective.
• The text states that there are no costs to respondents other than their time, but it may be useful to provide estimates of time commitment to better understand potential costs to respondents.
• The purpose and intended outcomes of the data collection are not explicitly detailed, which might lead to questions about the necessity and goals of the collection.