Overview
Title
Information Collection: NRC Form 64, Travel Voucher
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to keep using a form called "Travel Voucher" to pay back people for travel costs when they go on work trips. They're asking people to tell them what they think about this by March 25, 2021, but they ask not to include private details because that information will be shared publicly.
Summary AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew permission for collecting information using NRC Form 64, which is titled "Travel Voucher." This form, along with NRC Form 64A, is used by personnel working with the NRC to apply for travel expense reimbursements when traveling for business purposes such as inspections, reviews, and training. The NRC is seeking public comments on this information collection request by March 25, 2021, and stresses that including personal information in comments is discouraged as it will be made public.
Abstract
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 64, "Travel Voucher."
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a notice about its submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeking permission to continue collecting information through NRC Form 64, titled "Travel Voucher." This form, along with its counterpart, NRC Form 64A, is designed for personnel engaged in business activities with the NRC—such as inspections, reviews, or training—to request reimbursement for their travel expenses. Public comments regarding this information collection are invited until March 25, 2021, and individuals are advised against including personal information in their submissions as it will be publicly accessible.
Summary and Intent
The document primarily aims to inform and solicit feedback from the public regarding the NRC's process of collecting and reviewing travel expense claims through its standardized forms. NRC Form 64 is integral for ensuring that individuals working in association with the NRC are reimbursed fairly for essential travel-related expenses incurred while performing official duties.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document that warrant attention:
Lack of Financial Details: The document does not provide specific dollar amounts regarding estimated reimbursements or the overall budget expected for this information collection. Such information would be crucial for assessing potential financial implications or pitfalls, such as wasteful spending.
Confusion in Reporting Metrics: Both the estimated number of responses and respondents are listed as 500. This could cause confusion or suggest redundancy if not every respondent is expected to complete one response.
Oversight and Verification Concerns: There is no mention of a verification or oversight process for reimbursement claims, raising potential concerns about fraud or misuse of funds.
Ambiguity in Target Audience: While the document specifies that "Agreement State personnel, State Liaison Officers, and Tribal representatives" are required to respond, it lacks clarity on what specific roles or positions fall under these categories.
Inconvenient Information Accessibility: Instructions for obtaining information and submitting comments are dispersed throughout the text, which might confuse individuals attempting to comply with these processes.
Unclear Feedback Utilization: The document does not clarify how comments will be utilized or addressed, potentially discouraging meaningful public participation.
Personal Information Warning: Although there's a warning that personal information will not be removed from public submissions, it does not adequately explain the practical consequences for commenters.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this document represents a typical procedural notice by a government agency seeking to comply with legal requirements for transparency and public participation under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Engagement by stakeholders could lead to an informed policy that aligns well with those affected while ensuring taxpayer money is used effectively.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders, such as those required to use NRC Form 64, this document could have several implications:
Positive: The opportunity to provide input that may streamline or clarify the reimbursement process.
Negative: Without clear information on oversight or eligibility, stakeholders might face challenges in understanding the full scope of their responsibilities or the reliability of the claim process.
Ultimately, the document serves as a call to ensure that public funds are managed transparently and effectively, and that individuals involved in regulatory travel feel confident in the reimbursement mechanisms available to them. However, addressing the highlighted issues would improve clarity and functionality for all involved parties.
Issues
• The document does not specify any dollar amounts regarding the estimated reimbursements or overall budget for this information collection, which could hinder the evaluation of potential wasteful spending.
• The estimated number of responses and respondents are both stated as 500, but it seems this may lead to confusion or redundancy regarding how these figures are determined (e.g., is each respondent expected to submit one response?).
• There is no mention of any verification or oversight process for the reimbursement claims, which could raise concerns about potential fraud or misuse of funds.
• The description of who needs to respond ('Agreement State personnel, State Liaison Officers, and Tribal representatives') could be clearer by providing specific criteria for eligibility or examples of positions/roles that fall under these categories.
• Instructions for obtaining information and submitting comments are scattered and not consolidated in a straightforward manner, which might be confusing for readers.
• The process for seeking comments does not clearly specify how feedback will be used or whether it will be addressed, which may deter meaningful participation.
• There is a warning about personal information not being edited, but there isn't a clear explanation of what this means in practical terms for commenters.