Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, 66198-66200 [E6-19104]
Download as PDF
66198
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices
Type of Information Collection: New
collection.
Title: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM II) Program Questionnaire.
Affected Public: Persons arrested and
booked in one of 10 pre-selected
booking facilities in the United States in
one of two, 2-week data collection
cycles spanning six months.
Estimated Burden: ADAM II proposes
10 sites that each conduct two cycles of
surveys from 250 arrestees per cycle.
The total number of participants is
5000. The average survey estimate is 20
minutes. Total burden estimate is 1667
hours.
Goals: ONDCP intends to obtain druguse data that is directly comparable to
data collected under the 2000–2003
National Institute of Justice sponsored
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
program; provide consistent data
collection points to support statistical
trend analysis for the use of heroin,
cocaine, crack, marijuana and
methamphetamine; monitor the spread
or emergence of methamphetamine use;
and, support ONDCP’s efforts to
estimate chronic drug use and examine
drug market behaviors.
Comment Request: Public comments
should address whether the proposed
data is proper for the functions of the
agency; whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
ONDCP’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions; the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and, the
burden on proposed respondents,
including the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, such as electronic
submission of responses. Comments
will be accepted for sixty days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Cohen, ONDCP, Office of
Planning and Budget, 750 17th Street
#534, Washington DC 20503; telephone
(202) 395–5598; facsimile (202) 395–
5571.
Dated: November 7, 2006.
Daniel R. Petersen,
Assistant General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6–19081 Filed 11–9–06; 8:45 am]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3180–02–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY:
National Science Foundation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Nov 09, 2006
Jkt 211001
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: 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, Pub. L. 104–13.
This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 71 FR 52348, 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. Comments regarding
(a) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725 17th Street, NW., Room
10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation,
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295,
Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send e-mail
to splimpto@nsf.gov. Comments
regarding these information collections
are best assured of having their full
effect if received within 30 days of this
notification. Copies of the submission(s)
may be obtained by calling 703–292–
7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Model Institutions
for Excellence Graduates’ Survey.
OMB Approval Number: 3145–NEW.
Expiration Date of Approval: Not
applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to establish an information
collection for three years.
Proposed Project: The Division of
Human Resource Development (EHR/
HRD) of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) has requested impact
information on the Model Institutions
for Excellence (MIE) Program. Jointly
funded by NSF and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), the MIE Program funded eight
minority-service undergraduate
institutions to promote
underrepresented minority participation
in the fields of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM).
Now NSF seeks follow-up information
on program graduates to determine
whether or not they have continued
their education in STEM graduate
programs and/or STEM employment,
and how the MIE program influenced
their decisions with respect to graduate
school and employment. NSF proposes
a one-time on-line survey of the 931
MIE students who received bachelor’s
degrees in a STEM field from one of the
MIE colleges between 2002 through
2005.
Estimate of Burden: The Foundation
estimates that, on average, 30 minutes
per respondent will be required to
complete the survey, for a total of 465.5
hours for all respondents. Respondents
from the eight institutions that received
NSF MIE support will complete this
survey once.
Respondents: STEM graduates from
MIE programs.
Estimated Number of Responses: 931.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 465.5 hours.
Dated: November 7, 2006.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. E6–19103 Filed 11–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: 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, Pub. L. 104–13.
This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 71 FR 45076, and no
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices
substantial 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. Comments regarding
(a) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW.,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or
send email to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Comments regarding these information
collections are best assured of having
their full effect if received within 30
days of this notification. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science
Foundation Proposal and Award
Information—NSF Proposal and Award
Policies & Procedures Guide.’’
OMB Approval Number: 3145–0058.
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to extend with revision an
information collection for three years.
Proposed Project: NSF is seeking to
improve its existing mechanisms for the
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Nov 09, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 Guide.
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 Guide (previously
known as the GPM). These documents
will be available as a single html file on
the NSF Web site. This initial issuance
of the NSF Proposal and Award Policies
and Procedures Guide will be effective
following approval by OMB of this
information collection request. Future
issuances of this Guide will be
supplemented with additional
documents, such as the NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide.
This new policy framework will assist
both NSF customers as well as NSF staff
by:
1. Improving both the 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;
3. Eliminating duplicative coverage
between the two documents;
4. Increasing the transparency of our
proposal and award process; and
5. Allowing NSF to better manage
amendments between the two
documents necessitated by
administrative changes.
This 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 necessitated by
administrative changes. Following OMB
approval, this information will be
available electronically by 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66199
• 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 2,800 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
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 its
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
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
66200
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 2006 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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 2,800 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 currently 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 54% are reviewed
exclusively by panels of reviewers who
gather, usually in Arlington, VA, to
discuss their advice as well as to deliver
it. About 33% 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 9% are reviewed exclusively by
mail.
Use of the Information
The information collected is used to
support grant programs of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Nov 09, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 a listing of panelists’ names is
released annually, 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
45,000 proposals are expected during
the course of one year for a total of
5,400,000 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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposal receives an average of 6
reviews, with a minimum requirement
of three reviews for an estimated total of
1,350,000 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
1,350,083 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 6,750,083
hours.
Dated: November 7, 2006.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. E6–19104 Filed 11–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Proposal Review, Notice of Meetings
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, as amended), the National Science
Foundation (NSF) announces its intent
to hold proposal review meetings
throughout the year. The purpose of
these meetings is to provide advice and
recommendations concerning proposals
submitted to the NSF for financial
support. The agenda for each of these
meetings is to review and evaluate
proposals as part of the selection
process for awards. The review and
evaluation may also include assessment
of the progress of awarded proposals.
The majority of these meetings will take
place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
These meetings will be closed to the
public. The proposals being reviewed
include information of a proprietary or
confidential nature, including technical
information; financial data, such as
salaries; and personal information
concerning individuals associated with
the proposals. These matters are exempt
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the
Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF
will continue to review the agenda and
merits of each meeting for overall
compliance of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
These closed proposal review
meetings will not be announced on an
individual basis in the Federal Register.
NSF intends to publish a notice similar
to this on a quarterly basis. For an
advance listing of the closed proposal
review meetings that include the names
of the proposal review panel and the
time, date, place, and any information
on changes, corrections, or
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66198-66200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19104]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Submission for OMB review; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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, Pub. L. 104-13.
This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published
in the Federal Register at 71 FR 45076, and no
[[Page 66199]]
substantial 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.
Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
National Science Foundation, 725--17th Street, NW., Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295,
Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov. Comments
regarding these information collections are best assured of having
their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification.
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless
the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such persons are not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: ``National Science Foundation Proposal and
Award Information--NSF Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures
Guide.''
OMB Approval Number: 3145-0058.
Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an
information collection for three years.
Proposed Project: NSF is seeking to improve its existing mechanisms
for the 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 Guide.
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 Guide (previously known
as the GPM). These documents will be available as a single html file on
the NSF Web site. This initial issuance of the NSF Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Guide will be effective following approval by
OMB of this information collection request. Future issuances of this
Guide will be supplemented with additional documents, such as the NSF
Grants.gov Application Guide.
This new policy framework will assist both NSF customers as well as
NSF staff by:
1. Improving both the 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;
3. Eliminating duplicative coverage between the two documents;
4. Increasing the transparency of our proposal and award process;
and
5. Allowing NSF to better manage amendments between the two
documents necessitated by administrative changes.
This 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 necessitated by administrative
changes. Following OMB approval, this information will be available
electronically by 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 2,800 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 its 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
[[Page 66200]]
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 2,800 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 currently 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 54% are reviewed exclusively by
panels of reviewers who gather, usually in Arlington, VA, to discuss
their advice as well as to deliver it. About 33% 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 9% 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 a listing of panelists' names is released annually, 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 45,000 proposals are expected during the course of one
year for a total of 5,400,000 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 reviews, with
a minimum requirement of three reviews for an estimated total of
1,350,000 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 1,350,083 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 6,750,083 hours.
Dated: November 7, 2006.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. E6-19104 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P