Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Science Foundation is asking people to say what they think about a computer system that helps students and teachers apply for science opportunities. They want to make sure it works well and is easy to use.
Summary AI
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has requested public comments on a proposed information collection renewal submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This request relates to the NSF's Education and Training Application Pilot, which helps connect students and educators with NSF-funded opportunities. While currently used for various programs, the application system aims to streamline applications and data gathering for participants. Public comments on this proposed renewal are invited within 30 days of the notice's publication.
Abstract
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
This document from the Federal Register details a request for public comments by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a proposed renewal of its Education and Training Application Pilot, also known as ETAP. Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, this system is designed to connect students and educators with NSF-funded opportunities, such as research experiences, fellowships, and more. The goal of the application system is to streamline the process and gather data efficiently from applicants and participants in NSF programs. The public is invited to provide comments within 30 days of this notice.
General Summary
The NSF is requesting public input on extending, with revisions, an information collection mechanism called the Education and Training Application Pilot. This system acts as a common, customizable application platform supporting multiple NSF-funded programs. Initially developed for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program, it has been expanded for broader use in other initiatives aimed at developing human capital in STEM fields.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues and concerns emerge in this document:
Estimated Burden Calculation: While it states the estimated total annual burden on respondents is 270,378 hours, the document lacks specifics on how this number was derived. A clearer breakdown of these estimates would aid in transparency and understanding.
Lack of Clarity on Application Burden Reduction: There is some ambiguity about how exactly the ETAP reduces the burden on both Principal Investigators and applicants. More detailed examples or a simplified explanation could help communicate its benefits effectively.
Duplication with Other Platforms: It's unclear if there is any overlap between ETAP and other existing systems or platforms for applications and data collection. Clarification on how ETAP fits within or improves upon current processes would be beneficial.
Use of Collected Data: The document does not detail how the data collected will be used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of NSF-funded programs. A more transparent explanation of how this data will be protected and utilized for improved outcomes would address potential public concerns regarding data privacy.
Privacy Measures: There is no mention of what safeguards are in place to protect the data collected through the ETAP system, which could be concerning for potential respondents who value their privacy.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The document presents significant implications for various groups:
General Public: For applicants and their references, this renewed information collection aims to consolidate and simplify applying for NSF opportunities, potentially saving time and effort.
Educators and Students: For these stakeholders, especially those engaged in STEM disciplines, the system could offer a more accessible and streamlined entry point into a multitude of funding opportunities, such as internships and scholarships.
Principal Investigators: While the ETAP could significantly simplify their recruitment process, its success largely depends on the system's functionality and ease of use. If the platform is intuitive and user-friendly, it can significantly reduce administrative burdens.
In conclusion, while the ETAP initiative has the potential to enhance accessibility to NSF-funded opportunities, its success will depend on addressing the identified concerns. Clarification and improvements could help increase confidence and engagement from all those involved.
Issues
• The document mentions the National Science Foundation's Education and Training Application Pilot and its estimated burden on respondents, but does not provide a clear breakdown of how the total estimated annual burden of 270,378 hours was calculated.
• The document could benefit from clearer language on how the customizable, common application system (ETAP) reduces the burden on Principal Investigators and applicants.
• The potential overlap or duplication of effort with other platforms or existing systems for application and data collection is not addressed in the document.
• The explanation of ETAP's centralized platform is slightly complex; simplifying the description might enhance understanding for all potential stakeholders.
• The specifics on how the data collected through ETAP will be used to monitor and evaluate the impact of NSF programs are not detailed in the document.
• There is no discussion on the privacy or data protection measures in place for the data collected via the ETAP system.
• Ambiguity exists around whether all NSF-funded programs are required to transition to using ETAP, or if it remains an optional tool for Principal Investigators.
• The document states that this is the second notice for public comment, yet no additional efforts to solicit public feedback beyond federal register notices are mentioned.