FR 2025-01054

The Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a notice proposing to extend an information collection request as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This extension involves collecting reports from technology partnership ombudsmen at DOE national laboratories. These reports aim to demonstrate each laboratory's use of alternative dispute resolution techniques in their technology transfer programs. Public comments on this proposal are invited until March 17, 2025.

General Summary

The DOE is seeking to continue its collection of information for an additional three years. The purpose of this data collection is to evaluate how effectively national laboratories are incorporating alternative dispute resolution methods in technology transfer activities. This extension request is submitted in compliance with existing legislation, most notably the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Several issues arise from the DOE's notice. Firstly, the document does not clearly explain how the estimated figures for burden hours and costs were calculated, which could lead to questions about their validity. Additionally, the notice lacks clarity regarding how the collected reports will benefit or enhance the DOE's technology transfer program. This absence of explanation might lead to concerns over the practical utility of gathering such information.

Further, the document does not specify the alternative dispute resolution techniques being used, potentially leading to inconsistencies in the reported data. Lastly, the notice uses technical language when explaining the purpose of the collection, which might be challenging for a broader audience to understand, particularly those not familiar with the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000.

Impact on the Public

While the document mostly addresses technical aspects of the DOE's information collection process, it invites public feedback, thereby providing an opportunity for interested parties to express their opinions or concerns. The public invitation to comment suggests the DOE is open to suggestions that could potentially refine and improve the process.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders directly involved with DOE national laboratories, particularly the technology partnership ombudsmen, the impact could be considerable. These individuals are responsible for preparing the reports and engaging with the information collection process. Depending on the outcome of public comments and any subsequent modifications to the collection process, their roles might see changes that could either streamline or complicate their responsibilities.

For the broader scientific and research community, particularly those involved in technology transfer, the extension of this data collection process aims to improve the integration of dispute resolution techniques, potentially enhancing program efficiency and logistics. However, without clear communication of the benefits, these stakeholders may remain skeptical of the collection's utility.

In conclusion, while the DOE's notice attempts to maintain compliance and performance oversight through extended data collection, the document could benefit from improved clarity and more detailed explanations to address its potential impact effectively on both the public and specific stakeholders.

The document from the U.S. Department of Energy discusses an information collection request and includes several financial references, which are outlined in detail below.

Summary of Financial References

In the document, there are estimates provided for various financial aspects related to the information collection request. It states that the annual estimated number of respondents is 17, and the annual estimated number of total responses is 68. Additionally, the estimated burden of this information collection is quantified as 23 hours annually. The total projected cost for reporting and recordkeeping associated with this request is shown as $3,220.

Issues Related to Financial References

One primary concern in the document is the lack of clarity regarding how the estimates for burden hours and costs were calculated. The document does not specify the methodology behind these figures, leading to possible questions about their accuracy and validity. Stakeholders might want further transparency in the way these financial estimates are derived to assess whether they are reasonable and justified.

Additionally, there is an absence of information on how the $3,220 financial burden translates into practical benefits or improvements in the Department of Energy’s technology transfer program. Without understanding the specific advantages that the collection of these reports brings, the financial outlay may seem unjustified to some stakeholders.

Furthermore, the document’s purpose is defined in technical terms, referencing the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000. Simplification of this language could help a wider audience understand the significance of this expense in terms of enhancing the Department’s functions.

Overall, while the financial references give a numerical estimate of the cost associated with the collection, the absence of supporting details on computation and the practical implications of these costs may raise legitimate questions regarding the funding’s efficacy and intent.