Comment Request: National Science Foundation Proposal and Award Information-NSF Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures Manual, 45076-45078 [06-6761]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45076
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
John Castanho, International Longshore
& Warehouse Union.
Warren Fairley, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers.
Michael J. Flynn, International
Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers.
Robert E. Gleason, International
Longshoremen’s Association.
Stephen D. Hudock, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health.
Charles R. Leon, Washington State
Department of Labor and Industries.
Marc MacDonald, Pacific Maritime
Association.
Captain Teresa Preston, Atlantic Marine
Holding Company.
Donald V. Raffo, General Dynamics.
Captain Lorne W. Thomas, United
States Coast Guard.
James R. Thornton, Northrop Grumman
Newport News Shipyard.
David J. Tubman, Jr., Marine Engineers’
Beneficial Association.
Ernest D. Whelan, International Union
of Operating Engineers-Local 25,
Marine Division.
IV. Future Meetings
As specified in the MACOSH charter,
OSHA will convene up to three
MACOSH committee meetings per year.
OSHA expects to convene the first
meeting in September or October of this
year. As soon as meeting arrangements
are completed, OSHA will announce the
specific date and location of the
meeting, along with a list of topics to be
discussed, in the Federal Register.
OSHA encourages the public to attend
all MACOSH meetings.
V. Authority
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
This notice was prepared under the
direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health. It is issued under the
authority of Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of
the Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), 29
CFR part 1912 and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.
2).
Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of
July, 2006.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 06–6746 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–M
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice Date 06–049]
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive
License
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Grant
Exclusive License.
Dated: July 31, 2006.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and
Management.
[FR Doc. E6–12820 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice is issued in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and
37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby
gives notice of its intent to grant an
exclusive, worldwide license to practice
the invention described in Invention
Disclosure KSC–12983 entitled
‘‘Mercury Emission Control System’’ to
Phoenix Systems International, having
its principal place of business in Pine
Brook, New Jersey. The patent rights in
this invention will be assigned to the
United States of America as represented
by the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The prospective exclusive license will
comply with the terms and conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
DATES: The prospective exclusive
license may be granted unless, within
fifteen (15) days from the date of this
published notice, NASA receives
written objections including evidence
and argument that establish that the
grant of the license would not be
consistent with the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Competing applications completed and
received by NASA within fifteen (15)
days of the date of this published notice
will also be treated as objections to the
grant of the contemplated exclusive
license. Objections submitted in
response to this notice will not be made
available to the public for inspection
and, to the extent permitted by law, will
not be released under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the
prospective license may be submitted to
Patent Counsel, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Mail Code CC–A, NASA John
F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy
Space Center, FL 32899. Telephone:
321–867–7214; Facsimile: 321–867–
1817.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Randall M. Heald, Patent Counsel,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Mail Code
CC–A, NASA John F. Kennedy Space
Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL
32899. Telephone: 321–867–7214;
Facsimile: 321–867–1817. Information
about other NASA inventions available
for licensing can be found online at
https://techtracs.nasa.gov/.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Comment Request: National Science
Foundation Proposal and Award
Information—NSF Proposal and Award
Policies & Procedures Manual
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans
to request renewed clearance of this
collection. In accordance with the
requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
we are providing opportunity for public
comment on this action.
After obtaining and considering
public comment, NSF will prepare the
submission requesting OMB clearance
of this collection for no longer than 3
years.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Agency’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
DATES: Written comments should be
received by October 10, 2006 to be
assured of consideration. Comments
received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Written comments
regarding the information collection and
requests for copies of the proposed
information collection request should be
addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm.
295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail
to splimpto@nsf.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292–7556 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science
Foundation Proposal and Award
Information—NSF Proposal and Award
Policies & Procedures Manual.
OMB Approval Number: 3145–0058.
Expiration Date of Approval: July 31,
2007.
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to extend with revision an
information collection for three years.
Proposed Project: The National
Science Foundation (NSF) is seeking to
revise its existing mechanism for
issuance of proposal and award policies
and procedures. Previously, these
policies and procedures were contained
in two separate issuances; the Grant
Proposal Guide and the Grant Policy
Manual. These documents were each
separately maintained and issued with
different effective dates and significant
redundancies between the two
documents. We have now collapsed
these two documents into a new policy
framework: the NSF Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Manual.
Part I of this document will include
NSF Proposal Preparation and
Submission Guidelines, i.e., the Grant
Proposal Guide (GPG), and Part II will
include the NSF Award &
Administration Manual (previously
known as the GPM). This initial
issuance of the NSF Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Manual
will be effective January, 2007. Future
issuances of this Manual will be
supplemented with additional
documents, such as the NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide.
We believe that this new policy
framework will assist both NSF
customers as well as NSF staff by:
1. Improving both awareness and
knowledge of the complete set of NSF
policies and procedural documents;
2. Increasing ease of access to the
policies and procedures that govern the
entire grant lifecycle; and
3. Eliminating redundancies between
coverage in the documents.
This streamlining process also will
combine the Grant Proposal Guide
(OMB Clearance No. 3145–0058) with
the Proposal Review Process (3145–
0060) to streamline the proposal and
award management processes for
applicants and awardees. This will
allow NSF to better manage
amendments between the two
collections due to administrative
changes. Following OMB approval, this
information will be available to the
community via the Internet.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
The National Science Foundation
(NSF) is an independent Federal agency
created by the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861–75). The Act states the
purpose of the NSF is ‘‘to promote the
progress of science; [and] to advance the
national health, prosperity, and welfare
by supporting research and education in
all fields of science and engineering.’’
The Act authorized and directed NSF to
initiate and support:
• Basic scientific research and
research fundamental to the engineering
process;
• Programs to strengthen scientific
and engineering research potential;
• Science and engineering education
programs at all levels and in all the
various fields of science and
engineering;
• Programs that provide a source of
information for policy formulation; and
• Other activities to promote these
ends.
From those first days, NSF has had a
unique place in the Federal
Government: It is responsible for the
overall health of science and
engineering across all disciplines. In
contrast, other Federal agencies support
research focused on specific missions
such as health or defense. The
Foundation also is committed to
ensuring the nation’s supply of
scientists, engineers, and science and
engineering educators.
The Foundation fulfills this
responsibility by initiating and
supporting merit-selected research and
education projects in all the scientific
and engineering disciplines. It does this
through grants and cooperative
agreements to more than 2,000 colleges,
universities, K–12 school systems,
businesses, informal science
organizations and other research
institutions throughout the U.S. The
Foundation accounts for about onefourth of Federal support to academic
institutions for basic research.
Over the years, NSF’s statutory
authority has been modified in a
number of significant ways. In 1968,
authority to support applied research
was added to the Organic Act. In 1980,
The Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act gave NSF standing
authority to support activities to
improve the participation of women and
minorities in science and engineering.
Another major change occurred in
1986, when engineering was accorded
equal status with science in the Organic
Act. NSF has always dedicated itself to
providing the leadership and vision
needed to keep the words and ideas
embedded in its mission statement fresh
and up-to-date. Even in today’s rapidly
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45077
changing environment, NSF’s core
purpose resonates clearly in everything
it does: Promoting achievement and
progress in science and engineering and
enhancing the potential for research and
education to contribute to the Nation.
While NSF’s vision of the future and the
mechanisms it uses to carry out this
charges have evolved significantly over
the last four decades, its ultimate
mission remains the same.
Use of the Information: The regular
submission of proposals to the
Foundation is part of the collection of
information and is used to help NSF
fulfill this responsibility by initiating
and supporting merit-selected research
and education projects in all the
scientific and engineering disciplines.
NSF receives more than 40,000
proposals annually for new projects,
and makes approximately 10,500 new
awards.
Support is made primarily through
grants, contracts, and other agreements
awarded to more than 2,000 colleges,
universities, academic consortia,
nonprofit institutions, and small
businesses. The awards are based
mainly on evaluations of proposal merit
submitted to the Foundation (proposal
review is cleared under OMB Control
No. 3145–0060).
The Foundation has a continuing
commitment to monitor the operations
of its information collection to identify
and address excessive reporting burdens
as well as to identify any real or
apparent inequities based on gender,
race, ethnicity, or disability of the
proposed principal investigator(s)/
project director(s) or the co-principal
investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
Proposal Evaluation Process
The Foundation relies heavily on the
advice and assistance of external
advisory committees, ad-hoc proposal
reviewers, and to other experts to ensure
that the Foundation is able to reach fair
and knowledgeable judgments. These
scientists and educators come from
colleges and universities, nonprofit
research and education organizations,
industry, and other Government
agencies.
In making its decisions on proposals
the counsel of these merit reviewers has
proven invaluable to the Foundation
both in the identification of meritorious
projects and in providing sound basis
for project restructuring.
Review of proposals may involve
large panel sessions, small groups, or
use of a mail-review system. Proposals
are reviewed carefully by scientists or
engineers who are expert in the
particular field represented by the
proposal. About 50% are reviewed
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45078
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
exclusively by panels of reviewers who
gather, usually in Arlington, VA, to
discuss their advice as well as to deliver
it. About 35% are reviewed first by mail
reviewers expert in the particular field,
then by panels, usually of persons with
more diverse expertise, who help the
NSF decide among proposals from
multiple fields or sub-fields. Finally,
about 15% are reviewed exclusively by
mail.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Use of the Information
The information collected is used to
support grant programs of the
Foundation. The information collected
on the proposal evaluation forms is used
by the foundation to determine the
following criteria when awarding or
declining proposals submitted to the
Agency: (1) What is the intellectual
merit of the proposed activity? (2) What
are the broader impacts of the proposed
activity?
The information collected on reviewer
background questionnaire (NSF 428A) is
used by managers to maintain an
automated database of reviewers for the
many disciplines represented by the
proposals submitted to the Foundation.
Information collected on gender, race,
and ethnicity is used in meeting NSF
needs for data to permit response to
Congressional and other queries into
equity issues. These data also are used
in the design, implementation, and
monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the
participation of various groups in
science, engineering, and education.
Confidentiality
When a decision has been made
(whether an award or a declination),
verbatim copies of reviews, excluding
the names of the reviewers, and
summaries of review panel
deliberations, if any, are provided to the
PI. A proposer also may request and
obtain any other releasable material in
NSF’s file on their proposal. Everything
in the file except information that
directly identifies either reviewers or
other pending or declined proposals is
usually releasable to the proposer.
While listings of panelists’ names are
released, the names of individual
reviewers, associated with individual
proposals, are not released to anyone.
Because the Foundation is committed
to monitoring and identifying any real
or apparent inequities based on gender,
race, ethnicity, or disability of the
proposed principal investigator(s)/
project director(s) or the co-principal
investigator(s)/co-project director(s), the
Foundation also collects information
regarding race, ethnicity, disability, and
gender. This information also is
protected by the Privacy Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Burden on the Public: For the Grant
Proposal Guide, NSF estimates that an
average of 120 hours is expended for
each proposal submitted. An estimated
40,000 proposals are during the course
of one year for a total of 4,800,000
public burden hours annually.
For the proposal review process, NSF
estimates that anywhere from one hour
to twenty hours may be required to
review a proposal. It is estimated that
approximately five hours are required to
review an average proposal. Each
proposal receives an average of 6.3
reviews, with a minimum requirement
of three reviews for an estimated total of
600,000 hours. The estimated burden for
the Reviewer Background Information
(NSF 428A) is estimated at 5 minutes
per respondent with up to 10,000
potential new reviewers for a total of 83
hours. The estimated total is 600,083 for
the reviewer process and the reviewer
background information.
The estimated aggregated total for
both the Grant Proposal Guide and the
proposal review process is 5,400,083
hours.
Dated: August 3, 2006.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 06–6761 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act; Federal Register Notice
Weeks of August 7, 14, 21, 28;
September 4, 11, 2006.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
DATE:
Week of August 7, 2006
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of August 7, 2006.
Week of August 14, 2006—Tentative
Thursday, August 17, 2006
10 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative).
a. Louisiana Energy Services, LP
(National Enrichment Facility)
Docket No. 70–3103–ML, Petitions
for Review of LBP–06–15.
(Tentative).
b. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo
Canyon ISFSI), Docket No. 72–26–
ISFSI ‘‘Motion by San Luis Obispo
Mothers for Peace, Sierra Club, and
Peg Pinard for Declaratory and
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Injunctive Relief with respect to
Diablo Canyon ISFSI’’ (Tentative).
c. AmerGen Energy Company, LLC
(License Renewal for Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station) Docket
No. 50–0219, Legal challenges to
LBP–06–07 and LBP–06–11
(Tentative).
Week of August 21, 2006—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of August 21, 2006.
Week of August 28, 2006—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of August 28, 2006.
Week of September 4, 2006—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of September 4, 2006.
Week of September 11, 2006—Tentative
Monday, September 11, 2006
9:30 a.m.—Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed—Ex. 1).
1:30 p.m.—Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed—Ex. 1 & 3).
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
9:30 a.m.—Meeting with Organization of
Agreement States (OAS) and
Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors (CRCPD) (Public
Meeting) (Contact: Shawn Smith,
(301) 414–2620).
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov.
1 p.m.—Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed—Ex. 1).
*The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings
call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.
Contact person for more information:
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/
policy-making/schedule.html.
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.,
braille, large print), please notify the
NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator,
Deborah Chan, at (301) 415–7041, TDD:
(301) 415–2100, or by e-mail at
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
This notice is distributed by mail to
several hundred subscribers; if you no
longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45076-45078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6761]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Comment Request: National Science Foundation Proposal and Award
Information--NSF Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures Manual
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to
request renewed clearance of this collection. In accordance with the
requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action.
After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare
the submission requesting OMB clearance of this collection for no
longer than 3 years.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
DATES: Written comments should be received by October 10, 2006 to be
assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the information collection and
requests for copies of the proposed information collection request
should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer,
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 295, Arlington, VA
22230, or by e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
[[Page 45077]]
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: ``National Science Foundation Proposal and
Award Information--NSF Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures Manual.
OMB Approval Number: 3145-0058.
Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2007.
Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an
information collection for three years.
Proposed Project: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is seeking
to revise its existing mechanism for issuance of proposal and award
policies and procedures. Previously, these policies and procedures were
contained in two separate issuances; the Grant Proposal Guide and the
Grant Policy Manual. These documents were each separately maintained
and issued with different effective dates and significant redundancies
between the two documents. We have now collapsed these two documents
into a new policy framework: the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Manual.
Part I of this document will include NSF Proposal Preparation and
Submission Guidelines, i.e., the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), and Part
II will include the NSF Award & Administration Manual (previously known
as the GPM). This initial issuance of the NSF Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Manual will be effective January, 2007. Future
issuances of this Manual will be supplemented with additional
documents, such as the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.
We believe that this new policy framework will assist both NSF
customers as well as NSF staff by:
1. Improving both awareness and knowledge of the complete set of
NSF policies and procedural documents;
2. Increasing ease of access to the policies and procedures that
govern the entire grant lifecycle; and
3. Eliminating redundancies between coverage in the documents.
This streamlining process also will combine the Grant Proposal
Guide (OMB Clearance No. 3145-0058) with the Proposal Review Process
(3145-0060) to streamline the proposal and award management processes
for applicants and awardees. This will allow NSF to better manage
amendments between the two collections due to administrative changes.
Following OMB approval, this information will be available to the
community via the Internet.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal
agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is
``to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national
health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in
all fields of science and engineering.'' The Act authorized and
directed NSF to initiate and support:
Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the
engineering process;
Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research
potential;
Science and engineering education programs at all levels
and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
Programs that provide a source of information for policy
formulation; and
Other activities to promote these ends.
From those first days, NSF has had a unique place in the Federal
Government: It is responsible for the overall health of science and
engineering across all disciplines. In contrast, other Federal agencies
support research focused on specific missions such as health or
defense. The Foundation also is committed to ensuring the nation's
supply of scientists, engineers, and science and engineering educators.
The Foundation fulfills this responsibility by initiating and
supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the
scientific and engineering disciplines. It does this through grants and
cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12
school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other
research institutions throughout the U.S. The Foundation accounts for
about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic
research.
Over the years, NSF's statutory authority has been modified in a
number of significant ways. In 1968, authority to support applied
research was added to the Organic Act. In 1980, The Science and
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act gave NSF standing authority to
support activities to improve the participation of women and minorities
in science and engineering.
Another major change occurred in 1986, when engineering was
accorded equal status with science in the Organic Act. NSF has always
dedicated itself to providing the leadership and vision needed to keep
the words and ideas embedded in its mission statement fresh and up-to-
date. Even in today's rapidly changing environment, NSF's core purpose
resonates clearly in everything it does: Promoting achievement and
progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for
research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision
of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out this charges have
evolved significantly over the last four decades, its ultimate mission
remains the same.
Use of the Information: The regular submission of proposals to the
Foundation is part of the collection of information and is used to help
NSF fulfill this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-
selected research and education projects in all the scientific and
engineering disciplines. NSF receives more than 40,000 proposals
annually for new projects, and makes approximately 10,500 new awards.
Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other
agreements awarded to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, academic
consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The awards are
based mainly on evaluations of proposal merit submitted to the
Foundation (proposal review is cleared under OMB Control No. 3145-
0060).
The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the
operations of its information collection to identify and address
excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify any real or apparent
inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the
proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-
principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
Proposal Evaluation Process
The Foundation relies heavily on the advice and assistance of
external advisory committees, ad-hoc proposal reviewers, and to other
experts to ensure that the Foundation is able to reach fair and
knowledgeable judgments. These scientists and educators come from
colleges and universities, nonprofit research and education
organizations, industry, and other Government agencies.
In making its decisions on proposals the counsel of these merit
reviewers has proven invaluable to the Foundation both in the
identification of meritorious projects and in providing sound basis for
project restructuring.
Review of proposals may involve large panel sessions, small groups,
or use of a mail-review system. Proposals are reviewed carefully by
scientists or engineers who are expert in the particular field
represented by the proposal. About 50% are reviewed
[[Page 45078]]
exclusively by panels of reviewers who gather, usually in Arlington,
VA, to discuss their advice as well as to deliver it. About 35% are
reviewed first by mail reviewers expert in the particular field, then
by panels, usually of persons with more diverse expertise, who help the
NSF decide among proposals from multiple fields or sub-fields. Finally,
about 15% are reviewed exclusively by mail.
Use of the Information
The information collected is used to support grant programs of the
Foundation. The information collected on the proposal evaluation forms
is used by the foundation to determine the following criteria when
awarding or declining proposals submitted to the Agency: (1) What is
the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? (2) What are the
broader impacts of the proposed activity?
The information collected on reviewer background questionnaire (NSF
428A) is used by managers to maintain an automated database of
reviewers for the many disciplines represented by the proposals
submitted to the Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, and
ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to
Congressional and other queries into equity issues. These data also are
used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to
increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering,
and education.
Confidentiality
When a decision has been made (whether an award or a declination),
verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and
summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the
PI. A proposer also may request and obtain any other releasable
material in NSF's file on their proposal. Everything in the file except
information that directly identifies either reviewers or other pending
or declined proposals is usually releasable to the proposer.
While listings of panelists' names are released, the names of
individual reviewers, associated with individual proposals, are not
released to anyone.
Because the Foundation is committed to monitoring and identifying
any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or
disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project
director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s),
the Foundation also collects information regarding race, ethnicity,
disability, and gender. This information also is protected by the
Privacy Act.
Burden on the Public: For the Grant Proposal Guide, NSF estimates
that an average of 120 hours is expended for each proposal submitted.
An estimated 40,000 proposals are during the course of one year for a
total of 4,800,000 public burden hours annually.
For the proposal review process, NSF estimates that anywhere from
one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is
estimated that approximately five hours are required to review an
average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of 6.3 reviews,
with a minimum requirement of three reviews for an estimated total of
600,000 hours. The estimated burden for the Reviewer Background
Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at 5 minutes per respondent with up
to 10,000 potential new reviewers for a total of 83 hours. The
estimated total is 600,083 for the reviewer process and the reviewer
background information.
The estimated aggregated total for both the Grant Proposal Guide
and the proposal review process is 5,400,083 hours.
Dated: August 3, 2006.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 06-6761 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
