Overview
Title
Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Institute for Standards and Technology NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Information Management System (IMS) and Summer School Application
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Commerce wants to collect information from 2,000 people to help operate a special research center where scientists do experiments. They are asking if people think this is a good idea and want to hear back in 30 days.
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce plans to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Information Management System and Summer School Application. This request seeks to extend a current information collection, requiring input from 2,000 respondents, each providing an average of one hour of their time. The information collected is used for tasks like registering NCNR users, collecting scientific experiment proposals, allocating experimental resources, and managing research results. The public, particularly scientific personnel using the NCNR facility, is invited to comment on this proposal within 30 days of publication.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the Department of Commerce outlining its intent to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Information Management System. This collection serves various purposes, including registering users, collecting proposals for scientific experiments, scheduling experiment dates, and managing research results related to the NCNR.
General Summary
This information collection request is aimed at extending a current program, engaging around 2,000 respondents, all of whom are expected to dedicate approximately one hour each to the process. The activities include the management of data necessary for NCNR operations, such as user registration and proposal review, as well as tasks associated with the NCNR Summer School. Scientific personnel who use the NCNR facility are the primary audience for this collection. The notice provides an additional 30-day window for public comment, allowing stakeholders to voice concerns or suggestions regarding the proposed collection activities.
Significant Issues and Concerns
While the document lays out the intent and basic structure of the information collection request, certain aspects lack clarity or detail. Notably, the abstract is absent, which can hinder an immediate understanding of the request's scope. Furthermore, while it quantifies the burden of 2,000 hours on the respondents, the document does not thoroughly explain how this data will benefit the respondents or the broader public. This absence of justification may lead to questions about the necessity of the burden imposed.
The mention of a previous request for public comments is vague; there is no information on the feedback received or how it influenced the current request. Additionally, the document references a "regularly scheduled peer review" without specifying the frequency or criteria of these reviews. This lack of detail could confuse those directly involved in the process. The reference to "managing the Health Physics training" of scientists is also introduced without explanation, leaving readers uncertain about its relation to the information collection.
Security concerns are notable as the document does not address how the collected information, potentially containing sensitive scientific data, will be securely managed.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
For the general public, this information collection request may appear to have limited direct impact given its focus on scientific research facilities and personnel. However, the potential outcomes—advancement in scientific research and efficient resource allocation at the NCNR—could indirectly benefit society by supporting scientific innovation and research capability.
For stakeholders, particularly the scientific personnel engaged with the NCNR, the document impacts how they interact with the facility. It dictates the administrative processes and time commitments required for conducting research at NCNR. A more detailed understanding of peer review procedures and security measures for collected data would be beneficial for these stakeholders.
Overall, while the notice serves essential functions for operational management at NCNR, the lack of detail in key areas could impede stakeholders' ability to fully grasp and engage with the process as intended. Addressing these gaps would enhance the transparency and efficacy of the information collection, fostering better confidence in its necessity and execution.
Issues
• The document lacks a clear abstract or detailed summary, making it difficult to immediately grasp the full scope and intent of the information collection request.
• The potential burden on respondents is quantified (2,000 burden hours), but there is no detailed explanation of how the data will directly benefit the respondents or the public at large, which might raise concerns about the justification of the burden.
• The document refers to a previous request for public comments but does not elaborate on the nature or outcomes of comments received, leaving ambiguity about public input and response.
• The phrase 'Regularly scheduled peer review of said proposals' is vague and might require clarification on how often and under what criteria the reviews are conducted.
• The document does not specify how the information collected will be securely managed, especially given the sensitive nature of scientific research and potential intellectual property.
• The phrase 'managing the Health Physics training of arriving scientists' is introduced without context or explanation, which could lead to ambiguity regarding what this training entails or how it impacts the information collection process.