Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, 51363-51375 [2014-20521]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
II. Method of Collection
Electronic Form.
III. Data
Title: NASA Complaint of
Discrimination Form
OMB Number: 2700–XXXX
Type of review: Existing collection in
use without an OMB control number.
Affected Public: Individuals
Estimated Number of Respondents: 85
Estimated Annual Responses: 80 per
year
Estimated Time per Response: 30
minutes
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 60 hours
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $500.00
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of NASA, including
whether the information collected has
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
NASA’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including automated
collection techniques or the use of other
forms of information technology.
Fran Teel,
NASA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–20487 Filed 8–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
SUMMARY:
GPG section and topic
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
GPG, Chapter I.F.2. Inclement Weather
Policy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 79 FR 26778, and 54
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. The full submission
may be found at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
The National Science Foundation
(NSF) is announcing plans to request
renewed clearance of this collection.
The primary purpose of this revision is
to implement 2 CFR 200, Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance).
NSF has requested and received from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval to implement the
Uniform Guidance through NSF’s
longstanding practice of implementing
these requirements via use of a policy
rather than regulation. In conjunction
with the terms and conditions of the
award, the Proposal and Award Policies
and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), and its
predecessors, have served as NSF’s
implementation vehicle for OMB
Circular A–110 since its initial issuance
in 1976.
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
Commenter
Jkt 232001
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 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or
send email to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339, which is accessible 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year
(including federal holidays).
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:
Summary of Comments on the National
Science Foundation Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide
and NSF’s Responses
The draft NSF PAPPG was made
available for review by the public on the
NSF Web site at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/
dias/policy/. In response to the Federal
Register notice published May 9, 2014,
at 79 FR 26778, NSF received 54
comments from 18 different
institutions/individuals. Following are
three tables showing the summaries of
the comments received on the PAPPG
sections, with NSF’s response.
Comment
Council on Governmental Relations.
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
51363
NSF response
We encourage NSF to add additional clarification and modification to this section that
reflect more accurately the challenges
faced in natural and/or anthropogenic
events. The ability of a potential applicant
to request prior approval for natural or anthropogenic events can be severely affected by the very event that prevents timely submission.
The section has been revised to delete
‘‘prior’’ from the approval requirement,
given the unanticipated nature of natural or
anthropogenic events.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
51364
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
GPG section and topic
Commenter
Comment
Council on Governmental Relations.
GPG, Chapter I.F.2. Inclement Weather
Policy.
Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.d.(ii) Use of
URLs outside the
Project Description.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
GPG, Chapter I.F.2. Inclement Weather
Policy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.f.(i)(e) Biographical Sketches:
Collaborators &
Other Affiliations.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.f.(ii) Biographical Sketches: Other
Personnel.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
NSF response
We request that NSF modify this section to
include a provision for: (1) Notification by
the potential applicant as soon as possible
but no later than five (5) days after the
event and, based on that notification; (2) a
determination and authorization, as appropriate, by the program officer for a late
submission. NSF could alleviate the anxiety
associated with unanticipated institutional
closings by providing a standard exception
for situations of short duration. Campuses
can be closed for a variety of reasons including natural or anthropogenic events,
which can require several days to return to
normal operations. The recommendation
above can help address that situation. Recently, however, campuses have been
closed for a day for ‘‘man-made’’ events including sightings of armed assailants and
other health and safety issues. We ask
NSF to consider a standard exception of
one day (next business day) for applicants
whose campus is closed for an unanticipated event. The application could be submitted with documentation from the authorized institutional official or the official’s designee.
Similarly, we suggest that NSF consider a
standard provision for late submission in
those cases where NSF is unable to operate because of natural, anthropogenic, and
weather related or other events. Such a
provision could set a specific number of
days after the event for a new submission
deadline. For example, in the case of closures because of inclement weather, the
deadline could be set as the day following
reopening of federal offices. Any deviations
from this standard could be announced on
the NSF Web site.
Recommend that this policy provide additional flexibility for ‘‘after the fact approval’’,
for circumstances such as unforeseen natural disasters that may not have allowed
an investigator or institution to seek and
obtain NSF approval prior to the deadline.
Can the NSF policy on URLs in other documents be clarified? In the Project description, we understand that these are discouraged per GPG II.C.2.d.ii. At MIT, we have
had a couple of funding divisions ask for
proposal file updates to remove links from
the references biographical sketches
whereas other divisions do not require this.
The GPG states that appropriate citations
for references cited (II.C.2.e) or Biosketch
‘‘products’’ (II.C.2.f) may include URLs, so
it’s unclear how to treat this as many PDF
generating programs automatically treat
URLs as links.
Biosketch section (e) adds ‘‘the total number
of collaborators and co-editors also must
be identified’’. Should this change versus
14–1 be highlighted?
The section has been updated to specifically
address the closure of NSF. Additionally,
the revised language developed by NSF
provides greater flexibility than the language proposed by the commenter. NSF
believes that such flexibility is important
given the nature of the deviation request.
This section suggests that information on the
qualifications other personnel may be included, but it is unclear where this should
be included. FastLane does not include a
place to upload biosketches for non-senior
personnel. Can the correct place to include
non-senior bio information be specified?
New language has been added to the Biographical Sketch(es) instructions which
states: ‘‘Such information should be clearly
identified as ‘Other Personnel’ biographical
information and uploaded along with the
Biosketches for Senior Personnel in the
Biosketches section of the proposal.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment has been addressed by the inclusion of a new change which authorizes an
after the fact approval.
NSF believes the existing language on inclusion of URLs is clearly articulated and further action is neither necessary nor appropriate.
This change will be highlighted in the Summary of Significant Changes.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
GPG section and topic
Commenter
Comment
University of Wisconsin.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi) Other Direct Costs.
Trish Lowney ..............
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi)(a) Materials & Supplies, including Costs of
Computing Devices.
University of Alabama
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi)(c) Consultant Services.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(ii); AAG,
Chapter V.B.1.b.
Fringe Benefits.
Trish Lowney ..............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
51365
NSF response
Both of these sections describe the ability of
the grantee to charge fringe benefits as direct costs, given that charges are made in
accordance with usual accounting practices
and/or with approval of the cognizant federal agency. Reference also is made to 2
CFR § 200.431, within which part (b)(3)(i)
states that, ‘‘Payments for unused leave
when an employee retires or terminates
employment are allowable as indirect costs
in the year of payment.’’ We want to confirm our understanding that NSF policy
does not preclude costs of unused leave at
retirement and termination from being directly charged to NSF awards. We recognize that NSF policy indicates that such
payments may be subject to reasonableness determination. Additionally, we seek
affirmation that 2 CFR § 200.431 is incorporated into NSF policy to acknowledge
that such unused leave also may be allowable as indirect costs and is not a directive
to institutions to charge such costs as indirect costs.
‘‘Examples include . . . And construction of
equipment or systems not available off-the
shelf.’’
Confusing: Doesn’t fabricated equipment
(construction of equipment or systems not
available off-the-shelf) that meets the institution’s capitalization threshold (e.g.,
$5,000) ought to be included in the equipment budget line (e.g., MRI development
options awards)?
The University appreciates the clarification
that a computing device is a supply as long
as it does not meet the lesser of institution’s capitalization level or $5,000. It would
be helpful if the PAPPG also included in
this section the following statement found
at 200.453(c) in the Uniform Guidance:
‘‘In the specific case of computing devices,
charging as direct costs is allowable for devices that are essential and allocable, but
not solely dedicated, to the performance of
a Federal Award.’’
‘‘. . . services rendered by persons who are
members of a particular profession. . .
And who are not officers or employees of
the proposing institution. . .’’
Clarify whether or not ‘‘persons’’ include organizations/entities that meet definition of
contractor and should be managed by a
contract for provision of consultant services.
Clarify whether that the contracting vehicle to
be used must comply with Appendix II of
the UG.
This issue will be addressed in the latest
version of the Frequently Asked Questions
that are being developed by the Office of
Management and Budget. As such, it
would not be appropriate for the issue to
be resolved by NSF.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Language has now been modified to help
eliminate confusion regarding where equipment should be addressed in the budget.
Language has been incorporated as requested.
NSF has implemented consultant services
consistent with 2 CFR 200.459 which
states: ‘‘Costs of professional and consultant services rendered by persons who are
members of a particular profession or possess a special skill, and who are not officers or employees of the non-Federal entity, are allowable, subject to paragraphs (b)
and (c) when reasonable in relation to the
services rendered and when not contingent
upon recovery of the costs from the Federal government. In addition, legal and related services are limited under § 200.435
Defense and prosecution of criminal and
civil proceedings, claims, appeals and patent infringements.’’ As such, it would not
be appropriate to deviate from this language.
Additional language has been added to the
consultant services section to address
compliance with Appendix II of the Uniform
Guidance.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
51366
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
GPG section and topic
Commenter
Comment
Council on Governmental Relations.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi)(e) Subawards, Foreign
Subrecipients.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi)(e) Subawards, Foreign
Subrecipients.
University of Minnesota.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi)(e) Subawards, Budgets.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(vi)(d) Computer Services.
University of Wisconsin.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
NSF response
We appreciate that NSF has acknowledged
that computing devices below an institution’s equipment threshold are allowable.
However, per Chapter II.2C.g.(vi)(d), the
reference to ‘‘computer equipment’’ may
create confusion in the community by suggesting that computing devices are unallowable. Per this section: ‘‘As noted in
Chapter II.C.2.g.(iii) above, general purpose (such as word processing, spreadsheets, communication) computer equipment should not be requested.’’ We request that you consider deleting this reference, since most such devices do not
rise to the level of equipment. Or, alternatively, reinforcement that computing devices below an institution’s equipment
threshold are allowable would be a helpful
footnote to include and would be an important reminder to auditors of the differentiation between supplies and equipment.
In GPG II.C.2.g.vi.e, the old policy that foreign subawardees are not eligible for indirect costs is mentioned. However, GPG
II.C.2.g.viii references 2 CFR 200.414,
which indicates a 10% de minimus rate is
allowable for foreign grantees. Should this
also apply to foreign subawardees?
The phrase is inconsistent with the Uniform
Guidance’s section 200.331, which allows
for a 10% MTDC de minimus rate. The
ability to apply the 10% MTDC de minimus
rate is correctly spelled out on the following
page (II–18) in the indirect cost section. It
would be helpful to have the first reference
corrected to avoid confusion.
NSF recently clarified that each proposal’s
budget justification is limited to three
pages, including a collaborative proposal
from a single organization that contains a
subaward(s). However, if a subaward is requested post-award, a proposer may submit up to a three-page budget justification
for each subaward. This creates an inconsistency regarding what is submitted to obtain a subaward approval. A subaward
budget justification may contain critical information regarding proposed costs, and
we recommend that all subawards be allowed to include a budget justification of up
to three pages, regardless of whether they
are submitted with a new proposal or as a
post-award action.
Additional language has been added to point
users to the appropriate section of the
budget preparation instructions for guidance on the acquisition of computing devices.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Language in both the subaward and indirect
cost sections of the Grant Proposal Guide
has been revised to clarify application of a
de minimus rate.
Language in both the subaward and indirect
cost sections of the Grant Proposal Guide
has been revised to clarify application of a
de minimus rate.
This request has been incorporated and language has now been revised to read as
follows: ‘‘Each proposal must contain a
budget for each year of support requested,
unless a particular program solicitation stipulates otherwise. The budget justification
must be no more than three pages per proposal. . . For proposals that contain a
subaward(s), each subaward must include
a separate budget justification of no more
than three pages.’’
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
GPG section and topic
Commenter
Comment
Council on Governmental Relations.
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(viii) Indirect
Cost.
Trish Lowney ..............
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(viii). Indirect
Cost.
University of Minnesota.
GPG, Chapter II.D.3..
Ideas Lab.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
GPG, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(viii) Indirect
Cost.
Council on Governmental Relations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
51367
NSF response
The first two sections referenced above state:
‘‘Foreign grantees that have never had a
negotiated indirect cost rate are limited to
an indirect cost rate recovery of 10% of
modified total direct costs. Foreign grantees that have a negotiated rate agreement
with a U.S. federal agency may recover indirect costs at the current negotiated rate.’’
This seems to suggest that this rule would
not be applicable to domestic grantees; we
request that this section be clarified to
state these rules apply to all grantees. The
third reference above states: ‘‘Foreign subrecipients are not eligible for indirect cost
recovery unless the subrecipient has a previously negotiated rate agreement with a
U.S. Federal agency that has a practice of
negotiating rates with foreign entities.’’ This
seems to be inconsistent with the previously referenced sections and the Uniform Guidance; we request that this section
be updated, accordingly.
Foreign Grantees that have never had negotiated IDC are limited to 10% MTDC.
Seems to conflicts with II–17/(e) Subawards:
foreign subrecipients not eligible for IDC.
Consistency needed or otherwise explain why
handled differently D14.
We would like to take this opportunity to
thank NSF for its clear and unambiguous
statement in its proposed implementation
plan about the need for pass-through entities to honor their subrecipient’s negotiated
F&A rate. NSF’s well-articulated position on
this supports full cost recovery.
It is not clear what the nature and extent of
support from NSF will be for participants in
Stage 3 of the Ideas Lab. If a participant is
expected to travel and/or contribute substantial portions of their time—substantial
enough to re-allocate their institutional responsibilities—we believe the institution
should be a party to any agreement to participate. If, as indicated, the Stage 2 selection process uses the preliminary proposal
format in Fastlane with the required submission through the Sponsored Program
Office, our concerns about notification are
alleviated. If there are costs associated
with participation that will be provided by
NSF, we assume that participant support
would be allocated as a grant through the
institution with the usual budgetary considerations related to participant support.
Because of the collaborative nature of the
Ideas Lab, we assume any Stage 4 invited
full proposals will be submitted according
to the Special Guidelines described at
GPG Ch. II d. 5. This approach raises
some questions concerning the submission
process and we encourage NSF to clarify
the submission process either in the Funding Opportunity Announcement or in the
PAPPG.
Will the participating institutions have the option to submit either a single proposal or simultaneous proposals from all participating
organizations?
Will renewal proposals require a preliminary
proposal or submission of a full proposal
within a regular funding cycle?
Language in both the subaward and indirect
cost sections of the Grant Proposal Guide
has been revised to clarify application of a
de minimus rate.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Language in both the subaward and indirect
cost sections of the Grant Proposal Guide
has been revised to clarify application of a
de minimus rate.
Thank-you. No NSF response required.
Language has now been added to specify the
anticipated length of the Ideas Lab.
The funding opportunity will clearly instruct
the selected teams on how the full proposal should be prepared, and will address
whether it should be submitted either as a
single proposal or as simultaneous proposals from all participating organizations.
Unless otherwise specified in the funding opportunity, renewal proposals will be submitted as standard research proposals following the guidance provided in the Grant
Proposal Guide.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
51368
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
GPG, Chapter II.D.6.
Proposals for Equipment.
Trish Lowney ..............
Council on Governmental Relations.
GPG, Chapter II.D.8.
Dual Use Research
of Concern.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Notes that equipment to be purchased, modified or constructed must be described . . .
Seems to conflict with II–16 other direct costs
presented above? That is, constructed
equipment—equipment if > capitalization
threshold and in equipment budget line
(with associated alteration and modification
costs) and *not* in other direct costs?
We appreciate that the provisions for meeting
the US Government Policy for Oversight of
Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern and the proposed US Government
Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life
Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern
have been described as contingent on the
publication of the final US Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life
Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.
However, we understand that these are two
separate but linked policies and that the
agencies are expected to meet the requirements of the US Government Policy for
Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. We agree with the observation at AAG Ch. VI B 5 b. that it is unlikely that NSF sponsored research will fall
under these policy requirements. Nonetheless, it may be helpful to offer more direction at GPG Ch. II D. 9 to the grantee concerning the implementation of the policy for
agencies. An indication of how NSF will engage in the development of plans with
grantee organizations to mitigate the risks
associated with DURC may be helpful.
Such a statement or provision could outline
the path for communications with NSF as
in the AAG and the process for reporting
by the PI/PD described in the agency policy.
Dual Use Research of concern is at II.D.9,
not II.D.8.
Language has been revised in the Equipment
Proposal preparation instructions in GPG,
Chapter II.C.2.g.(iii) to address the issue.
GPG, Chapter II.D.8.
Dual Use Research
of Concern.
GPG, Chapter II.D.10.
Proposals for Conferences.
Boise State .................
Requiring an estimated total budget is inconsistent with NSF’s prohibition of voluntary
committed cost share.
The prohibition of voluntary committed cost
share is also referenced in the AAG, page
II–5, NSF 15_1 draft.
GPG, Chapter II.D.10.
Proposals for Conferences.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
GPG section and topic
Stanford University .....
Chapter II.D.10 of NSF’s PAPPG be clarified
to indicate that it only applies to direct
costs, if indeed that is the intent. It currently says ‘‘NSF funds are not to be spent
for meals and coffee breaks for intramural
meetings of an organization or any of its
components, but not limited to laboratories,
departments and centers either as direct or
indirect costs.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dual Use Research of Concern will now not
be implemented in this version of the
PAPPG and all DURC-related language
has been removed.
Dual Use Research of Concern will now not
be implemented in this version of the
PAPPG and all DURC-related language
has been removed.
Language has been revised to read as follows: ‘‘Proposal Budget: A budget for the
conference that is prepared in accordance
with GPG Chapter II.C.2g. The budget may
include participant support for transportation (when appropriate), per diem costs,
stipends, publication and other conferencerelated costs. Note: Participant support
costs must be excluded from the indirect
cost base; see GPG Chapter II.C.2g(v). For
additional information on Program Income
associated with conferences, see AAG
Chapter III.D.4.’’
Language has been revised to read: ‘‘NSF
funds are not to be spent for meals and
coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an
organization or any of its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments and centers, as a direct cost.’’
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
GPG section and topic
Commenter
51369
Comment
GPG, Chapter III.F.
Use of the Term Proposer.
Council on Governmental Relations.
GPG, Chapter III.F.
NSF Risk Management Framework.
Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.
GPG, Exhibit III–1 NSF
Proposal & Award
Process Timeline.
University of Wisconsin.
GPG, Chapter IV.D.1.b.
Reconsideration.
Trish Lowney ..............
NSF response
We encourage NSF to standardize the language throughout this section with the
terms used throughout the PAPPG. The
use of the term ‘‘proposer’’ has created
some confusion in the community particularly at grantee institutions with multiple investigators. We request that ‘‘proposer’’ be
replaced with ‘‘grantee’’ because we understand that all new grantee institutions may
be evaluated under the Risk Management
Framework.
It is unclear what defines ‘‘all new proposers’’
that will be subjected to additional preaward financial and administrative review.
Recommend that NSF provide additional
clarification whether this additional scrutiny
will be limited to institutions that have
never received NSF funding. If this is the
intent, then the text should be modified to
reflect this.
The NSF Proposal and Award Process &
Timeline does not capture the new process
in which DGA or DACS may decide to decline an award after financial or administrative review. The graphic seems to indicate
that declines occur only at the Division Director level, which is no longer accurate.
Updating the graphic may prevent confusion regarding the declination process.
If a proposal has been declined by the NSB,
only an explanation will be available.
Unclear; the Board’s role or involvement in
the declination process seems not well defined.
NSF does not concur with this recommendation. There are significant differences in
terms of process, including with respect to
requirements imposed on proposers versus
awardees. The terms ‘‘proposer’’ and
‘‘grantee’’ are not interchangeable.
The language regarding the conduct of preaward financial and administrative review
has been modified to only include: ‘‘. . . all
proposers recommended for award that
have not received NSF funding in the last
five years, with particular focus on proposers whose cumulative NSF funding
would amount to $200,000 or more.’’
The Proposal and Award lifecycle graphic will
be modified to incorporate declinations
made by DGA or DACS.
NSF does not believe that further information
on NSB declinations, beyond that provided,
is necessary.
Award and Administration Guide (18
comments, including one duplication):
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
AAG, Chapter I.C.2.a. Research Terms & Conditions.
Cal Tech ..........................
University of Wisconsin ...
The note on page I–2 of the GPG indicates that the
Research Terms and Conditions ‘‘will be added to
this list, if available, at the time of issuance.’’
From the point of view of the research community, having the Research Terms and Conditions
reintroduced is extremely important and very beneficial. We urge NSF to use its influence to
strengthen the case for the return of the Research Terms and Conditions and appreciate your
efforts along those lines.
We appreciate the confirmation that all awards subject to statutory cost sharing have been closed
out. We also note that NSF has changed cost
sharing requirements. Where NSF previously required reports only when a cost sharing commitment of $500,000 or more existed, grantees must
now report on mandatory cost sharing on an annual and final basis. Although we assume that
this change is being made in conformance with
the Uniform Guidance, we acknowledge that this
new level of reporting will create an increased administrative burden on grantees.
The future of the Research Terms and Conditions is
currently being considered by the NSTC/RBM.
AAG, Chapter II.C.3.b. Cost
Sharing.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AAG Section and topic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NSF takes the imposition of new administrative requirements very seriously. Given the limited number of awards that have cost sharing requirements, and the importance of meeting the financial commitments made by the recipient, we believe it is important that organizations provide this
information to NSF, irrespective of the dollar
value of the cost sharing.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
51370
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
AAG, Chapter II.D.5.; AAG,
Chapter III.E. Grant
Closeout.
Council on Governmental
Relations.
COGR respectfully asks NSF to request a deviation
from OMB that the submission date for all financial, performance, and other reports and the liquidation date be set to a new standard of 120days after the end date of the period of performance.
Specifically, we request that the submission date for
all financial, performance, and other reports and
the liquidation date be set to a new standard of
120-days after the end date of the period of performance. Per 2 CFR § 200.343 Closeouts, (g),
Federal awarding agencies should complete all
closeout actions no later than one year after the
acceptance of all required final reports. This effectively sets the final closeout clock at 15
months (i.e., 90 days plus one year) after the end
date of the award. Within that time period, COGR
believes that all parties can work in a bi-lateral
fashion to ensure an award is closed in the most
timely, efficient, and accurate manner possible.
Under this bi-lateral closeout model, both the federal agency and the grantee recognize each other’s system and resource constraints and will
work together to provide sufficient flexibility toward achieving the final closeout objective.
AAG, Chapter II.D.5.; AAG,
Chapter III.E. Grant
Closeout.
University of California ....
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
We echo COGR’s request that NSF request a deviation from OMB to establish a new 120-day
standard to close out awards. We are committed
to submitting timely and accurate final reports.
However, additional administrative and compliance requirements, as well as increasing numbers of multi-disciplinary/multi-site projects make
meeting the 90-day deadline in an accurate and
complete fashion difficult. A new 120-day standard would, as COGR points out, allow both parties to finalize the closeout process with fewer
corrections and revisions, including coordinating
with lower tier partners.
MIT requests that the NSF apply for a deviation
from OMB allowing the closeout submission
deadline to be changed from the current 90standard to a new 120-day standard, as also requested by the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR). MIT has identified subawards as a
major factor contributing to delays in award closeout, and the additional 30 days would significantly
improve our compliance.
We recognize that closeouts require more work and
attention to detail than ever before, on the part of
both the federal awarding agency and the nonfederal awardee organization. This additional
work impacts all of us, and our primary goal with
this request is to complete the closeout in the
most timely, efficient, and accurate way possible.
Per 2 CFR § 200.343 Closeouts (g), the Federal
awarding agency should complete closeout within
15 months after the expiration date of an award
(90 days + 1 year), and we believe that allowing
awardee organizations an extra 30 days out of
this window should not negatively impact NSF’s
workflow.
NSF implemented award financial closeout requirements as established by the Uniform Guidance
paragraph 2 CFR § 200.343(b) which states that
‘‘a non-Federal entity must liquidate all obligations
incurred under the Federal award not later than
90 calendar days after the end date of the period
of performance as specified in the terms and conditions of the Federal award.’’ Additionally, NSF
complies with the requirements established by the
Uniform Guidance paragraph 200.343(e) which
states ‘‘the Federal awarding agency or passthrough entity must make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal
share of costs after closeout reports are received.’’ Adjustments to the Federal share of
costs can be completed by awardee institutions
through the Award Cash Management Service
(ACM$) and submitted on line to NSF for 18
months after the award expiration date. Downward adjustments can be submitted until the appropriations funding the award cancel. ACM$ enables awardee institutions to submit adjustments
with essentially no increased workload over that
of a standard payment request. NSF believes the
capabilities offered by ACM$ for adjustments to financially closed awards mitigate the effects of the
implementation of the 90-day financial closeout.
However, NSF is committed to the long standing
partnership with its awardee institution population.
As such, NSF will consider the feasibility of requesting a deviation from the Uniform Guidance
requirements. However, such a deviation would
be dependent upon the concurrence of other research oriented Federal agencies in order to establish a consistent requirement for the timing of
award financial closeout actions. NSF believes a
120-day standard award closeout would be feasible, if agreement can be reached within the
Federal agency research community. NSF believes a unilateral deviation from the Uniform
Guidance for award financial closeout would not
be consistent with the intent of the Uniform Guidance and could introduce the type of uncertainty
within the grant administration community that the
Uniform Guidance was intended to improve.
See answer to the Council on Governmental Relations on the same issue above.
AAG, Chapter II.D.5.; AAG,
Chapter III.E. Grant
Closeout.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AAG Section and topic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
See answer to the Council on Governmental Relations on the same issue above.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
Commenter
AAG, Chapter III.E. Financial Requirements and
Payments.
University of Minnesota ...
AAG, Chapter II.E. Record
Retention & Audit.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AAG Section and topic
University of Alabama .....
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Comment
51371
NSF response
We applaud NSF for the great partnership created See answer to the Council on Governmental Relawith Universities through the implementation of
tions on the same issue above.
the ACMS system and the replacement of the
FFR and Cash Request Function. The single system point of entry and acknowledgement and new
understanding that the amount drawn equated to
amount spent is a great step in moving to a
streamlined and more efficient financial process.
We encourage NSF to critically consider the
closeout process as described in the COGR letter.
While this is not a change in NSF policy, it is more The record retention language specified in Award &
burdensome that the requirements of the Uniform
Administration Guide Chapter II has been revised
Guidance found in 200.333: ‘‘Financial records
to read as follows: ‘‘1. Financial records, sup. . . and all other non-Federal entity records perporting documents, statistical records and all
tinent to a Federal award must be retained for a
other records pertinent to the NSF grant must be
period of three years from the date of submission
retained by the grantee for a period of three years
of the final expenditure report or, for Federal
from award financial closeout described in AAG
awards that are renewed quarterly or annually,
Chapter III.E.3, except as noted in 2 CFR
from the date of the submission of the quarterly
200.333.’’
or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or passthrough entity . . . Federal awarding agencies
and pass-through entities must not impose any
other record retention requirements upon nonFederal entities.’’.
Although it is becoming easier to track submission
of project reports to NSF, and the University appreciated NSF’s progress in this area, it is still
more complicated for recipients to identify and
record the project report submission date and to
ensure it is used for record retention purposes
when it occurs after the date of the award financial closeout and is, in practice, an additional
record retention requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
51372
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
AAG, Chapter II.E. Record
Retention & Audit.
University of Alabama .....
University of Minnesota ...
2 CFR 200.87—‘‘Research and Development (R&D)
R&D means all research activities, both basic and
applied, and all development activities that are
performed by non-Federal entities. The term research also includes activities involving the training of individuals in research techniques where
such activities utilize the same facilities as other
research and development activities and where
such activities are not included in the instruction
function. ‘‘Research’’ is defined as a systematic
study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge
or understanding of the subject studied. ‘‘Development’’ is the systematic use of knowledge and
understanding gained from research directed toward the production of useful materials, devices,
systems, or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes. While
NSF’s mission, ‘‘to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes’’ is advanced primarily through the support of science and engineering research, not all of the activities NSF
funds meet the definition of Research and Development, as other types of activities, such as education, also promote the progress of science. The
fact that NSF funds education programs and
other activities that do not involve a systematic
study of a subject or the use of research results
in the production of materials, etc. is included
throughout the PAPPG. For example, the definition of Assistance Award states that for NSF, they
‘‘involve the support or stimulation of scientific
and engineering research, science and engineering education or other related activities.’’ While
‘‘NSF recognizes that some awards may have another classification for purposes of indirect costs,’’
the inconsistency in classification for various purposes creates problems in determining the appropriate indirect cost rate to charge (which can be
particularly burdensome to faculty), in appropriately categorizing expenditures and space in
indirect cost rate proposals and in other areas of
administration and management of funds. The
OMB Circular A–133 Compliance Supplement
contains in Part 5, Clusters of Programs, specific
instructions for auditing Research and Development Programs. The Compliance Requirements
and Suggested Audit Procedures are not always
the most appropriate for educational, service or
other non-research programs/activities.
The CFDA number of NSF awards is provided to
the Grantee at the time of award on the Award
Notice. The CFDA number provided by NSF is a
CFDA that falls into a cluster category as outlined
in the compliance supplement. If a CFDA number
isn’t defined in a category the guidance is to report the CFDA by function. At a macro level, institutions plan and review their portfolios by mission
(function); teaching, training, research, public
service, etc. Institutionally, function is defined by
how the activity (transaction) accomplishes the
mission of the university. For example, awards
with the primary function of training would not fall
under the mission of research at our institution.
Our financial statements summarize all our mission activity by function. Our SEFA is reconciled
to the Financial Statements as required. Requiring the institution to arbitrarily report activity as
part of the R&D Cluster when institutionally we
have defined the activity as another function will
cause additional reconciliation steps and ongoing
‘‘reporting discrepancies.’’.
This issue was raised during the last comment period for the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide and is considered resolved.
NSF does not intend to make further changes to
the language provided.
AAG, Chapter II.E. Record
Retention & Audit.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AAG Section and topic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This issue was raised during the last comment period for the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide and is considered resolved.
NSF does not intend to make further changes to
the language provided.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
51373
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
AAG, Chapter III.D.4.b. Program Income.
Stanford University ..........
University of Wisconsin ...
AAG, Chapter IV.E. Procurement.
Council on Governmental
Relations.
AAG, Chapter IV.E. Procurement.
University of California ....
AAG, Chapter IV.E. Procurement.
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
We respectfully ask that NSF request a deviation
from OMB that income from license fees and royalties be excluded from the definition of program
income (Part II, Chapter III.D.4.b). Statutory requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C.
202(c)(7)) supersede any described treatments of
license fees and royalties per sections 200.80
and 200.307(f) in the Uniform Guidance. We believe OMB has confirmed the precedence of U.S.
law or statute over the OMB Uniform Guidance.
Therefore reporting to Federal agencies on Program Income should not include such license fees
and royalties.
Thank you for providing verification that NSF has
the authority under the Federal Technology
Transfer Act to vest title in an institution of higher
education. This should allow institutions of higher
education to continue handling title in a manner to
which they are accustomed.
COGR respectfully asks NSF to request a deviation
from OMB that Institutions of Higher Education
(IHEs),
Nonprofit
Research
Organizations
(NROs), and all research performers be exempted from Procurement Standards Sections 200.317
through 200.326. Procurement Standards under
Circular A–110 should be reinstated for research
performers.
The PAPPG states that NSF grantees shall adhere
to the requirements of 2 CFR 200.317–326, which
prescribes standards for use by recipients in establishing procedures for procurement. COGR
has documented that implementation of 2 CFR
§ 200.317–326 will: (1) Create increased cost and
administrative burden via expensive processworkflow and IT system changes, (2) require a
long lead time to implement, which cannot effectively be accomplished by December 26th, and
(3) result in risk to program performance—for example, critical research tools and supplies that
normally would be acquired in one day could take
at least one week to acquire. By securing the deviation requested above, NSF can help ensure
the continuity of current and effective procurement practices in place at IHEs and NROs, without any sacrifice to institutional accountability and
stewardship of federal funds.
We strongly request that NSF request a deviation
from OMB exempting Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) from the procurement requirements
outlined in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR
200.317–326). These new procurement documentation and sourcing standards will require UC
to restructure longstanding procurement practices,
redesign internal controls for procurement processes, reconfigure supporting E-procurement systems, and execute a wholesale change management strategy to re-educate faculty, staff, and students across 10 campuses and five medical centers. It will be costly and difficult, if not impossible,
to implement such changes by the required date
of December 26, 2014.
MIT also supports COGR’s request that NSF apply
for a deviation allowing Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), Nonprofit Research Organizations
(NROs), and all research performers to be subject
to the prior procurement standards of Circular A–
110. We absolutely recognize and agree with the
need to make the best use of our scarce resources, but for IHEs, NROs, and research performers of all types, this change would be too
sudden to implement by the end of the year.
The requirements of the Procurement standards in
200.317 through 200.326 call for system solutions. Without a system for capturing the required
documentation, the additional administrative effort
on each transaction would significantly outweigh
any cost savings. It is simply not feasible for IHEs
and NROs to put new procurement documentation systems in place by the December 26th
deadline. Additionally, the additional time this
would require for each transaction would seriously
impact the flexibility needed to effectively respond
to the unpredictability of fundamental research.
Language has been modified in AAG, Chapter
III.D.4.c.(1) to address the issue as follows: ‘‘The
grantee also shall have no obligation to NSF with
respect to program income earned from license
fees and royalties for copyrighted material, patents, patent applications, trademarks, and inventions produced under an award. However, Patent
and Trademark Amendments (35 U.S.C. 18) shall
apply to inventions made under an award.’’
AAG, Chapter IV.D. Property Management Standards.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AAG Section and topic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thank-you. No NSF response required.
The issue of procurement standards contained in
the new Uniform Guidance has been brought to
the attention of the Office of Management and
Budget. Any decisions regarding implementation
rest with OMB, and, cannot be addressed independently by NSF.
The issue of procurement standards contained in
the new Uniform Guidance has been brought to
the attention of the Office of Management and
Budget. Any decisions regarding implementation
rest with OMB, and, cannot be addressed independently by NSF.
The issue of procurement standards contained in
the new Uniform Guidance has been brought to
the attention of the Office of Management and
Budget. Any decisions regarding implementation
rest with OMB, and, cannot be addressed independently by NSF.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
51374
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
AAG, Chapter V.A.2.c. Publication and Printing
Costs.
University of Florida .........
University of Wisconsin ...
AAG, Chapter V.B.1.b.;
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(ii)
Fringe Benefits.
University of Wisconsin ...
AAG, Chapter V.D.1.(ii)(a)
Fixed Rates for Life of
the Award.
Council on Governmental
Relations.
AAG, Chapter V.D.1.(ii)(a)
Fixed Rates for Life of
the Award.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Regarding the third paragraph ‘‘However, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.461, Publication and Printing costs, awardees may charge the NSF award
before closeout for the costs of publication or
sharing of research results, if the costs are not incurred during the period of performance of the
award’’.
Would the cost of travel (of course the purpose of
which is to disseminate and share the results of
the research) where the airfare, registration and
other costs are paid for prior to the end of the
project period but the travel does not occur until
after the end of the project period be an allowable
cost?
We appreciate that NSF has clarified that ‘‘items
identified in the approved budget constitutes
NSF’s authorization . . . to incur these costs’’
provided they are consistent with applicable
terms, conditions, and regulations. This language
will help eliminate confusion when items are included in the approved budget, and costs are
later presumed as needing prior approval.
Both of these sections describe the ability of the
grantee to charge fringe benefits as direct costs,
given that charges are made in accordance with
usual accounting practices and/or with approval of
the cognizant federal agency. Reference also is
made to 2 CFR 200.431, within which part
(b)(3)(i) states that, ‘‘Payments for unused leave
when an employee retires or terminates employment are allowable as indirect costs in the year of
payment.’’ We want to confirm our understanding
that NSF policy does not preclude costs of unused leave at retirement and termination from
being directly charged to NSF awards. We recognize that NSF policy indicates that such payments
may be subject to reasonableness determination.
Additionally, we seek affirmation that 2 CFR
200.431 is incorporated into NSF policy to acknowledge that such unused leave also may be
allowable as indirect costs and is not a directive
to institutions to charge such costs as indirect
costs.
This section states: ‘‘Federal Awards may not be
adjusted in future years as a result of changes in
negotiated rates.’’ We understand that this text is
included in the Uniform Guidance, but urge the
NSF to work with OMB and other federal agencies to provide clarification that would allow nonprofit research organizations the opportunity to
continue to have their total-cost for existing award
commitments reconsidered where circumstances
warrant. This option has been in place with agencies, such as the NIH, since 1997. It is important
that this remain a viable option for non-profit organizations that would be affected by the language in this section of the PAPPG.
We understand that this text is included in the OMB
Omnibus Guidance, but strongly urge the NSF
and all other Federal research funding organizations to work with OMB to provide clarification,
such as in the NSF Policy document, that would
continue to allow non-profit research organizations the opportunity to have their total-cost for
existing award commitments reconsidered where
circumstances warrant. This option has been in
place with organizations such as the NIH since
1997 (see attached correspondence with AIRI),
and must continue to be a viable option for nonprofit organizations that may be harmed by this
newly mandated restriction.
NSF believes that the coverage in the Uniform
Guidance on this topic is clear and no further
clarification on the part of NSF is necessary.
AAG, Chapter V.A.3.a. Prior
Written Approvals.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AAG Section and topic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thank-you. No action needed.
This issue will be addressed in the latest version of
the Frequently Asked Questions that are being
developed by the Office of Management and
Budget. As such, it would not be appropriate for
the issue to be resolved by NSF.
NSF will forward this comment to the Office of Management and Budget for further discussion with
the Council on Financial Assistance Reform.
NSF will forward this comment to the Office of Management and Budget for further discussion with
the Council on Financial Assistance Reform.
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 2014 / Notices
51375
Other Comments:
Topic and PAPPG
section
Commenter
Comment
NSF response
NSF guidance for expiring/canceling award
funds will not differ from the standard guidance applicable to all award funds as outlined in the NSF AAG Chapter V: Allowability of Costs. NSF will work toward further improving the awareness of awards
with canceling funds held by our awardees.
This will include additional communications
with awardee institutions as well as other
efforts to further highlight awards with canceling funds.
A new NSF E58 Grants.gov Application
Guide will be issued concurrently with the
PAPPG.
Expiring Funds ............
University of Minnesota.
Not addressed in the Guide. The process
around expiring funds is not addressed in
the guide. While we are now notified that
certain funds are expiring there isn’t guidance provided on options that a university
can employ to manage the funds. Federal
agencies differ in the amount of individual
guidance provided and at times we are unsure if a methodology described for one
agency should be used for another agency.
Grants.gov Application
Guide.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
There are items added by GPG 14–1 and
15–1 which are not addressed in the
Grants.gov guide, and we’re not sure
whether this means they are not required
when submitting via Grants.gov. For example, the Collaboration type and Proposal
type checkboxes on the FastLane cover
page don’t appear to correspond to any information on the Grants.gov SF424.
Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science
Foundation Proposal/Award
Information-Grant Proposal 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: The National
Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Pub. L.
81–507) set forth NSF’s mission and
purpose:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
‘‘To promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; to secure the national defense.
* * *’’
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.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:14 Aug 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
fulfill this responsibility by initiating
and supporting merit-selected research
and education projects in all the
scientific and engineering disciplines.
NSF receives more than 51,000
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.
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)/
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
project director(s) or the co-principal
investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
Burden on the Public: The Foundation
estimates that an average of 120 hours
is expended for each proposal
submitted. An estimated 51,600
proposals are expected during the
course of one year for a total of
6,192,000 public burden hours
annually.
Dated: August 25, 2014.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2014–20521 Filed 8–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. NRC–2014–0075]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Review; Comment Request
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of
information collection and solicitation
of public comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has recently
submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby
informs potential respondents that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
that a person is not required to respond
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51363-51375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20521]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Public Law 104-13.
This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published
in the Federal Register at 79 FR 26778, and 54 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. The full submission may be found at:
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to
request renewed clearance of this collection. The primary purpose of
this revision is to implement 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
(Uniform Guidance). NSF has requested and received from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to implement the Uniform Guidance
through NSF's longstanding practice of implementing these requirements
via use of a policy rather than regulation. In conjunction with the
terms and conditions of the award, the Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide (PAPPG), and its predecessors, have served as NSF's
implementation vehicle for OMB Circular A-110 since its initial
issuance in 1976.
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
1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339,
which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year
(including federal holidays).
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:
Summary of Comments on the National Science Foundation Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide and NSF's Responses
The draft NSF PAPPG was made available for review by the public on
the NSF Web site at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/. In response to
the Federal Register notice published May 9, 2014, at 79 FR 26778, NSF
received 54 comments from 18 different institutions/individuals.
Following are three tables showing the summaries of the comments
received on the PAPPG sections, with NSF's response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG section and topic Commenter Comment NSF response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG, Chapter I.F.2. Inclement Council on We encourage NSF to add The section has been
Weather Policy. Governmental additional clarification revised to delete
Relations. and modification to this ``prior'' from the
section that reflect more approval requirement,
accurately the challenges given the unanticipated
faced in natural and/or nature of natural or
anthropogenic events. The anthropogenic events.
ability of a potential
applicant to request
prior approval for
natural or anthropogenic
events can be severely
affected by the very
event that prevents
timely submission.
[[Page 51364]]
GPG, Chapter I.F.2. Inclement Council on We request that NSF modify The section has been
Weather Policy. Governmental this section to include a updated to specifically
Relations. provision for: (1) address the closure of
Notification by the NSF. Additionally, the
potential applicant as revised language
soon as possible but no developed by NSF
later than five (5) days provides greater
after the event and, flexibility than the
based on that language proposed by the
notification; (2) a commenter. NSF believes
determination and that such flexibility is
authorization, as important given the
appropriate, by the nature of the deviation
program officer for a request.
late submission. NSF
could alleviate the
anxiety associated with
unanticipated
institutional closings by
providing a standard
exception for situations
of short duration.
Campuses can be closed
for a variety of reasons
including natural or
anthropogenic events,
which can require several
days to return to normal
operations. The
recommendation above can
help address that
situation. Recently,
however, campuses have
been closed for a day for
``man-made'' events
including sightings of
armed assailants and
other health and safety
issues. We ask NSF to
consider a standard
exception of one day
(next business day) for
applicants whose campus
is closed for an
unanticipated event. The
application could be
submitted with
documentation from the
authorized institutional
official or the
official's designee.
Similarly, we suggest that
NSF consider a standard
provision for late
submission in those cases
where NSF is unable to
operate because of
natural, anthropogenic,
and weather related or
other events. Such a
provision could set a
specific number of days
after the event for a new
submission deadline. For
example, in the case of
closures because of
inclement weather, the
deadline could be set as
the day following
reopening of federal
offices. Any deviations
from this standard could
be announced on the NSF
Web site.
GPG, Chapter I.F.2. Inclement Cold Spring Harbor Recommend that this policy Comment has been
Weather Policy. Laboratory. provide additional addressed by the
flexibility for ``after inclusion of a new
the fact approval'', for change which authorizes
circumstances such as an after the fact
unforeseen natural approval.
disasters that may not
have allowed an
investigator or
institution to seek and
obtain NSF approval prior
to the deadline.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.d.(ii) Use of Massachusetts Can the NSF policy on URLs NSF believes the existing
URLs outside the Project Institute of in other documents be language on inclusion of
Description. Technology. clarified? In the Project URLs is clearly
description, we articulated and further
understand that these are action is neither
discouraged per GPG necessary nor
II.C.2.d.ii. At MIT, we appropriate.
have had a couple of
funding divisions ask for
proposal file updates to
remove links from the
references biographical
sketches whereas other
divisions do not require
this. The GPG states that
appropriate citations for
references cited
(II.C.2.e) or Biosketch
``products'' (II.C.2.f)
may include URLs, so it's
unclear how to treat this
as many PDF generating
programs automatically
treat URLs as links.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.f.(i)(e) Massachusetts Biosketch section (e) adds This change will be
Biographical Sketches: Institute of ``the total number of highlighted in the
Collaborators & Other Technology. collaborators and co- Summary of Significant
Affiliations. editors also must be Changes.
identified''. Should this
change versus 14-1 be
highlighted?
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.f.(ii) Massachusetts This section suggests that New language has been
Biographical Sketches: Other Institute of information on the added to the
Personnel. Technology. qualifications other Biographical Sketch(es)
personnel may be instructions which
included, but it is states: ``Such
unclear where this should information should be
be included. FastLane clearly identified as
does not include a place `Other Personnel'
to upload biosketches for biographical information
non-senior personnel. Can and uploaded along with
the correct place to the Biosketches for
include non-senior bio Senior Personnel in the
information be specified? Biosketches section of
the proposal.''
[[Page 51365]]
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(ii); AAG, University of Both of these sections This issue will be
Chapter V.B.1.b. Fringe Benefits. Wisconsin. describe the ability of addressed in the latest
the grantee to charge version of the
fringe benefits as direct Frequently Asked
costs, given that charges Questions that are being
are made in accordance developed by the Office
with usual accounting of Management and
practices and/or with Budget. As such, it
approval of the cognizant would not be appropriate
federal agency. Reference for the issue to be
also is made to 2 CFR resolved by NSF.
Sec. 200.431, within
which part (b)(3)(i)
states that, ``Payments
for unused leave when an
employee retires or
terminates employment are
allowable as indirect
costs in the year of
payment.'' We want to
confirm our understanding
that NSF policy does not
preclude costs of unused
leave at retirement and
termination from being
directly charged to NSF
awards. We recognize that
NSF policy indicates that
such payments may be
subject to reasonableness
determination.
Additionally, we seek
affirmation that 2 CFR
Sec. 200.431 is
incorporated into NSF
policy to acknowledge
that such unused leave
also may be allowable as
indirect costs and is not
a directive to
institutions to charge
such costs as indirect
costs.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi) Other Trish Lowney......... ``Examples include . . . Language has now been
Direct Costs. And construction of modified to help
equipment or systems not eliminate confusion
available off-the regarding where
shelf.'' equipment should be
Confusing: Doesn't addressed in the budget.
fabricated equipment
(construction of
equipment or systems not
available off-the-shelf)
that meets the
institution's
capitalization threshold
(e.g., $5,000) ought to
be included in the
equipment budget line
(e.g., MRI development
options awards)?.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(a) University of Alabama The University appreciates Language has been
Materials & Supplies, including the clarification that a incorporated as
Costs of Computing Devices. computing device is a requested.
supply as long as it does
not meet the lesser of
institution's
capitalization level or
$5,000. It would be
helpful if the PAPPG also
included in this section
the following statement
found at 200.453(c) in
the Uniform Guidance:
``In the specific case of
computing devices,
charging as direct costs
is allowable for devices
that are essential and
allocable, but not solely
dedicated, to the
performance of a Federal
Award.''.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(c) Trish Lowney......... ``. . . services rendered NSF has implemented
Consultant Services. by persons who are consultant services
members of a particular consistent with 2 CFR
profession. . . And who 200.459 which states:
are not officers or ``Costs of professional
employees of the and consultant services
proposing institution. . rendered by persons who
.'' are members of a
Clarify whether or not particular profession or
``persons'' include possess a special skill,
organizations/entities and who are not officers
that meet definition of or employees of the non-
contractor and should be Federal entity, are
managed by a contract for allowable, subject to
provision of consultant paragraphs (b) and (c)
services.. when reasonable in
Clarify whether that the relation to the services
contracting vehicle to be rendered and when not
used must comply with contingent upon recovery
Appendix II of the UG.. of the costs from the
Federal government. In
addition, legal and
related services are
limited under Sec.
200.435 Defense and
prosecution of criminal
and civil proceedings,
claims, appeals and
patent infringements.''
As such, it would not be
appropriate to deviate
from this language.
Additional language has
been added to the
consultant services
section to address
compliance with Appendix
II of the Uniform
Guidance.
[[Page 51366]]
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(d) Council on We appreciate that NSF has Additional language has
Computer Services. Governmental acknowledged that been added to point
Relations. computing devices below users to the appropriate
an institution's section of the budget
equipment threshold are preparation instructions
allowable. However, per for guidance on the
Chapter II.2C.g.(vi)(d), acquisition of computing
the reference to devices.
``computer equipment''
may create confusion in
the community by
suggesting that computing
devices are unallowable.
Per this section: ``As
noted in Chapter
II.C.2.g.(iii) above,
general purpose (such as
word processing,
spreadsheets,
communication) computer
equipment should not be
requested.'' We request
that you consider
deleting this reference,
since most such devices
do not rise to the level
of equipment. Or,
alternatively,
reinforcement that
computing devices below
an institution's
equipment threshold are
allowable would be a
helpful footnote to
include and would be an
important reminder to
auditors of the
differentiation between
supplies and equipment.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(e) Massachusetts In GPG II.C.2.g.vi.e, the Language in both the
Subawards, Foreign Subrecipients. Institute of old policy that foreign subaward and indirect
Technology. subawardees are not cost sections of the
eligible for indirect Grant Proposal Guide has
costs is mentioned. been revised to clarify
However, GPG application of a de
II.C.2.g.viii references minimus rate.
2 CFR 200.414, which
indicates a 10% de
minimus rate is allowable
for foreign grantees.
Should this also apply to
foreign subawardees?
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(e) University of The phrase is inconsistent Language in both the
Subawards, Foreign Subrecipients. Minnesota. with the Uniform subaward and indirect
Guidance's section cost sections of the
200.331, which allows for Grant Proposal Guide has
a 10% MTDC de minimus been revised to clarify
rate. The ability to application of a de
apply the 10% MTDC de minimus rate.
minimus rate is correctly
spelled out on the
following page (II-18) in
the indirect cost
section. It would be
helpful to have the first
reference corrected to
avoid confusion.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(e) University of NSF recently clarified This request has been
Subawards, Budgets. Wisconsin. that each proposal's incorporated and
budget justification is language has now been
limited to three pages, revised to read as
including a collaborative follows: ``Each proposal
proposal from a single must contain a budget
organization that for each year of support
contains a subaward(s). requested, unless a
However, if a subaward is particular program
requested post-award, a solicitation stipulates
proposer may submit up to otherwise. The budget
a three-page budget justification must be no
justification for each more than three pages
subaward. This creates an per proposal. . . For
inconsistency regarding proposals that contain a
what is submitted to subaward(s), each
obtain a subaward subaward must include a
approval. A subaward separate budget
budget justification may justification of no more
contain critical than three pages.''
information regarding
proposed costs, and we
recommend that all
subawards be allowed to
include a budget
justification of up to
three pages, regardless
of whether they are
submitted with a new
proposal or as a post-
award action.
[[Page 51367]]
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(viii) Council on The first two sections Language in both the
Indirect Cost. Governmental referenced above state: subaward and indirect
Relations. ``Foreign grantees that cost sections of the
have never had a Grant Proposal Guide has
negotiated indirect cost been revised to clarify
rate are limited to an application of a de
indirect cost rate minimus rate.
recovery of 10% of
modified total direct
costs. Foreign grantees
that have a negotiated
rate agreement with a
U.S. federal agency may
recover indirect costs at
the current negotiated
rate.'' This seems to
suggest that this rule
would not be applicable
to domestic grantees; we
request that this section
be clarified to state
these rules apply to all
grantees. The third
reference above states:
``Foreign subrecipients
are not eligible for
indirect cost recovery
unless the subrecipient
has a previously
negotiated rate agreement
with a U.S. Federal
agency that has a
practice of negotiating
rates with foreign
entities.'' This seems to
be inconsistent with the
previously referenced
sections and the Uniform
Guidance; we request that
this section be updated,
accordingly.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(viii) Trish Lowney......... Foreign Grantees that have Language in both the
Indirect Cost. never had negotiated IDC subaward and indirect
are limited to 10% MTDC. cost sections of the
Seems to conflicts with II- Grant Proposal Guide has
17/(e) Subawards: foreign been revised to clarify
subrecipients not application of a de
eligible for IDC.. minimus rate.
Consistency needed or
otherwise explain why
handled differently D14..
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(viii). University of We would like to take this Thank-you. No NSF
Indirect Cost. Minnesota. opportunity to thank NSF response required.
for its clear and
unambiguous statement in
its proposed
implementation plan about
the need for pass-through
entities to honor their
subrecipient's negotiated
F&A rate. NSF's well-
articulated position on
this supports full cost
recovery.
GPG, Chapter II.D.3.. Ideas Lab... Council on It is not clear what the Language has now been
Governmental nature and extent of added to specify the
Relations. support from NSF will be anticipated length of
for participants in Stage the Ideas Lab.
3 of the Ideas Lab. If a The funding opportunity
participant is expected will clearly instruct
to travel and/or the selected teams on
contribute substantial how the full proposal
portions of their time-- should be prepared, and
substantial enough to re- will address whether it
allocate their should be submitted
institutional either as a single
responsibilities--we proposal or as
believe the institution simultaneous proposals
should be a party to any from all participating
agreement to participate. organizations.
If, as indicated, the Unless otherwise
Stage 2 selection process specified in the funding
uses the preliminary opportunity, renewal
proposal format in proposals will be
Fastlane with the submitted as standard
required submission research proposals
through the Sponsored following the guidance
Program Office, our provided in the Grant
concerns about Proposal Guide.
notification are
alleviated. If there are
costs associated with
participation that will
be provided by NSF, we
assume that participant
support would be
allocated as a grant
through the institution
with the usual budgetary
considerations related to
participant support.
Because of the
collaborative nature of
the Ideas Lab, we assume
any Stage 4 invited full
proposals will be
submitted according to
the Special Guidelines
described at GPG Ch. II
d. 5. This approach
raises some questions
concerning the submission
process and we encourage
NSF to clarify the
submission process either
in the Funding
Opportunity Announcement
or in the PAPPG..
Will the participating
institutions have the
option to submit either a
single proposal or
simultaneous proposals
from all participating
organizations?.
Will renewal proposals
require a preliminary
proposal or submission of
a full proposal within a
regular funding cycle?.
[[Page 51368]]
GPG, Chapter II.D.6. Proposals for Trish Lowney......... Notes that equipment to be Language has been revised
Equipment. purchased, modified or in the Equipment
constructed must be Proposal preparation
described . . . instructions in GPG,
Seems to conflict with II- Chapter II.C.2.g.(iii)
16 other direct costs to address the issue.
presented above? That is,
constructed equipment--
equipment if >
capitalization threshold
and in equipment budget
line (with associated
alteration and
modification costs) and
*not* in other direct
costs?.
GPG, Chapter II.D.8. Dual Use Council on We appreciate that the Dual Use Research of
Research of Concern. Governmental provisions for meeting Concern will now not be
Relations. the US Government Policy implemented in this
for Oversight of Life version of the PAPPG and
Sciences Dual Use all DURC-related
Research of Concern and language has been
the proposed US removed.
Government Policy for
Institutional Oversight
of Life Sciences Dual Use
Research of Concern have
been described as
contingent on the
publication of the final
US Government Policy for
Institutional Oversight
of Life Sciences Dual Use
Research of Concern.
However, we understand
that these are two
separate but linked
policies and that the
agencies are expected to
meet the requirements of
the US Government Policy
for Oversight of Life
Sciences Dual Use
Research of Concern. We
agree with the
observation at AAG Ch. VI
B 5 b. that it is
unlikely that NSF
sponsored research will
fall under these policy
requirements.
Nonetheless, it may be
helpful to offer more
direction at GPG Ch. II
D. 9 to the grantee
concerning the
implementation of the
policy for agencies. An
indication of how NSF
will engage in the
development of plans with
grantee organizations to
mitigate the risks
associated with DURC may
be helpful. Such a
statement or provision
could outline the path
for communications with
NSF as in the AAG and the
process for reporting by
the PI/PD described in
the agency policy..
GPG, Chapter II.D.8. Dual Use Massachusetts Dual Use Research of Dual Use Research of
Research of Concern. Institute of concern is at II.D.9, not Concern will now not be
Technology. II.D.8. implemented in this
version of the PAPPG and
all DURC-related
language has been
removed.
GPG, Chapter II.D.10. Proposals Boise State.......... Requiring an estimated Language has been revised
for Conferences. total budget is to read as follows:
inconsistent with NSF's ``Proposal Budget: A
prohibition of voluntary budget for the
committed cost share. conference that is
The prohibition of prepared in accordance
voluntary committed cost with GPG Chapter
share is also referenced II.C.2g. The budget may
in the AAG, page II-5, include participant
NSF 151 draft.. support for
transportation (when
appropriate), per diem
costs, stipends,
publication and other
conference-related
costs. Note: Participant
support costs must be
excluded from the
indirect cost base; see
GPG Chapter II.C.2g(v).
For additional
information on Program
Income associated with
conferences, see AAG
Chapter III.D.4.''
GPG, Chapter II.D.10. Proposals Stanford University.. Chapter II.D.10 of NSF's Language has been revised
for Conferences. PAPPG be clarified to to read: ``NSF funds are
indicate that it only not to be spent for
applies to direct costs, meals and coffee breaks
if indeed that is the for intramural meetings
intent. It currently says of an organization or
``NSF funds are not to be any of its components,
spent for meals and including, but not
coffee breaks for limited to,
intramural meetings of an laboratories,
organization or any of departments and centers,
its components, but not as a direct cost.''
limited to laboratories,
departments and centers
either as direct or
indirect costs.''
[[Page 51369]]
GPG, Chapter III.F. Use of the Council on We encourage NSF to NSF does not concur with
Term Proposer. Governmental standardize the language this recommendation.
Relations. throughout this section There are significant
with the terms used differences in terms of
throughout the PAPPG. The process, including with
use of the term respect to requirements
``proposer'' has created imposed on proposers
some confusion in the versus awardees. The
community particularly at terms ``proposer'' and
grantee institutions with ``grantee'' are not
multiple investigators. interchangeable.
We request that
``proposer'' be replaced
with ``grantee'' because
we understand that all
new grantee institutions
may be evaluated under
the Risk Management
Framework.
GPG, Chapter III.F. NSF Risk Cold Spring Harbor It is unclear what defines The language regarding
Management Framework. Laboratory. ``all new proposers'' the conduct of pre-award
that will be subjected to financial and
additional pre-award administrative review
financial and has been modified to
administrative review. only include: ``. . .
Recommend that NSF all proposers
provide additional recommended for award
clarification whether that have not received
this additional scrutiny NSF funding in the last
will be limited to five years, with
institutions that have particular focus on
never received NSF proposers whose
funding. If this is the cumulative NSF funding
intent, then the text would amount to $200,000
should be modified to or more.''
reflect this.
GPG, Exhibit III-1 NSF Proposal & University of The NSF Proposal and Award The Proposal and Award
Award Process Timeline. Wisconsin. Process & Timeline does lifecycle graphic will
not capture the new be modified to
process in which DGA or incorporate declinations
DACS may decide to made by DGA or DACS.
decline an award after
financial or
administrative review.
The graphic seems to
indicate that declines
occur only at the
Division Director level,
which is no longer
accurate. Updating the
graphic may prevent
confusion regarding the
declination process.
GPG, Chapter IV.D.1.b. Trish Lowney......... If a proposal has been NSF does not believe that
Reconsideration. declined by the NSB, only further information on
an explanation will be NSB declinations, beyond
available. that provided, is
Unclear; the Board's role necessary.
or involvement in the
declination process seems
not well defined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award and Administration Guide (18 comments, including one
duplication):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAG Section and topic Commenter Comment NSF response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAG, Chapter I.C.2.a. Research Cal Tech............. The note on page I-2 of The future of the
Terms & Conditions. the GPG indicates that Research Terms and
the Research Terms and Conditions is currently
Conditions ``will be being considered by the
added to this list, if NSTC/RBM.
available, at the time of
issuance.'' From the
point of view of the
research community,
having the Research Terms
and Conditions
reintroduced is extremely
important and very
beneficial. We urge NSF
to use its influence to
strengthen the case for
the return of the
Research Terms and
Conditions and appreciate
your efforts along those
lines.
AAG, Chapter II.C.3.b. Cost University of We appreciate the NSF takes the imposition
Sharing. Wisconsin. confirmation that all of new administrative
awards subject to requirements very
statutory cost sharing seriously. Given the
have been closed out. We limited number of awards
also note that NSF has that have cost sharing
changed cost sharing requirements, and the
requirements. Where NSF importance of meeting
previously required the financial
reports only when a cost commitments made by the
sharing commitment of recipient, we believe it
$500,000 or more existed, is important that
grantees must now report organizations provide
on mandatory cost sharing this information to NSF,
on an annual and final irrespective of the
basis. Although we assume dollar value of the cost
that this change is being sharing.
made in conformance with
the Uniform Guidance, we
acknowledge that this new
level of reporting will
create an increased
administrative burden on
grantees.
[[Page 51370]]
AAG, Chapter II.D.5.; AAG, Chapter Council on COGR respectfully asks NSF NSF implemented award
III.E. Grant Closeout. Governmental to request a deviation financial closeout
Relations. from OMB that the requirements as
submission date for all established by the
financial, performance, Uniform Guidance
and other reports and the paragraph 2 CFR Sec.
liquidation date be set 200.343(b) which states
to a new standard of 120- that ``a non-Federal
days after the end date entity must liquidate
of the period of all obligations incurred
performance. under the Federal award
Specifically, we request not later than 90
that the submission date calendar days after the
for all financial, end date of the period
performance, and other of performance as
reports and the specified in the terms
liquidation date be set and conditions of the
to a new standard of 120- Federal award.''
days after the end date Additionally, NSF
of the period of complies with the
performance. Per 2 CFR requirements established
Sec. 200.343 Closeouts, by the Uniform Guidance
(g), Federal awarding paragraph 200.343(e)
agencies should complete which states ``the
all closeout actions no Federal awarding agency
later than one year after or pass-through entity
the acceptance of all must make a settlement
required final reports. for any upward or
This effectively sets the downward adjustments to
final closeout clock at the Federal share of
15 months (i.e., 90 days costs after closeout
plus one year) after the reports are received.''
end date of the award. Adjustments to the
Within that time period, Federal share of costs
COGR believes that all can be completed by
parties can work in a bi- awardee institutions
lateral fashion to ensure through the Award Cash
an award is closed in the Management Service
most timely, efficient, (ACM$) and submitted on
and accurate manner line to NSF for 18
possible. Under this bi- months after the award
lateral closeout model, expiration date.
both the federal agency Downward adjustments can
and the grantee recognize be submitted until the
each other's system and appropriations funding
resource constraints and the award cancel. ACM$
will work together to enables awardee
provide sufficient institutions to submit
flexibility toward adjustments with
achieving the final essentially no increased
closeout objective. workload over that of a
standard payment
request. NSF believes
the capabilities offered
by ACM$ for adjustments
to financially closed
awards mitigate the
effects of the
implementation of the 90-
day financial closeout.
However, NSF is
committed to the long
standing partnership
with its awardee
institution population.
As such, NSF will
consider the feasibility
of requesting a
deviation from the
Uniform Guidance
requirements. However,
such a deviation would
be dependent upon the
concurrence of other
research oriented
Federal agencies in
order to establish a
consistent requirement
for the timing of award
financial closeout
actions. NSF believes a
120-day standard award
closeout would be
feasible, if agreement
can be reached within
the Federal agency
research community. NSF
believes a unilateral
deviation from the
Uniform Guidance for
award financial closeout
would not be consistent
with the intent of the
Uniform Guidance and
could introduce the type
of uncertainty within
the grant administration
community that the
Uniform Guidance was
intended to improve.
AAG, Chapter II.D.5.; AAG, Chapter University of We echo COGR's request See answer to the Council
III.E. Grant Closeout. California. that NSF request a on Governmental
deviation from OMB to Relations on the same
establish a new 120-day issue above.
standard to close out
awards. We are committed
to submitting timely and
accurate final reports.
However, additional
administrative and
compliance requirements,
as well as increasing
numbers of multi-
disciplinary/multi-site
projects make meeting the
90-day deadline in an
accurate and complete
fashion difficult. A new
120-day standard would,
as COGR points out, allow
both parties to finalize
the closeout process with
fewer corrections and
revisions, including
coordinating with lower
tier partners.
AAG, Chapter II.D.5.; AAG, Chapter Massachusetts MIT requests that the NSF See answer to the Council
III.E. Grant Closeout. Institute of apply for a deviation on Governmental
Technology. from OMB allowing the Relations on the same
closeout submission issue above.
deadline to be changed
from the current 90-
standard to a new 120-day
standard, as also
requested by the Council
on Governmental Relations
(COGR). MIT has
identified subawards as a
major factor contributing
to delays in award
closeout, and the
additional 30 days would
significantly improve our
compliance.
We recognize that
closeouts require more
work and attention to
detail than ever before,
on the part of both the
federal awarding agency
and the non-federal
awardee organization.
This additional work
impacts all of us, and
our primary goal with
this request is to
complete the closeout in
the most timely,
efficient, and accurate
way possible. Per 2 CFR
Sec. 200.343 Closeouts
(g), the Federal awarding
agency should complete
closeout within 15 months
after the expiration date
of an award (90 days + 1
year), and we believe
that allowing awardee
organizations an extra 30
days out of this window
should not negatively
impact NSF's workflow.
[[Page 51371]]
AAG, Chapter III.E. Financial University of We applaud NSF for the See answer to the Council
Requirements and Payments. Minnesota. great partnership created on Governmental
with Universities through Relations on the same
the implementation of the issue above.
ACMS system and the
replacement of the FFR
and Cash Request
Function. The single
system point of entry and
acknowledgement and new
understanding that the
amount drawn equated to
amount spent is a great
step in moving to a
streamlined and more
efficient financial
process. We encourage NSF
to critically consider
the closeout process as
described in the COGR
letter.
AAG, Chapter II.E. Record University of Alabama While this is not a change The record retention
Retention & Audit. in NSF policy, it is more language specified in
burdensome that the Award & Administration
requirements of the Guide Chapter II has
Uniform Guidance found in been revised to read as
200.333: ``Financial follows: ``1. Financial
records . . . and all records, supporting
other non-Federal entity documents, statistical
records pertinent to a records and all other
Federal award must be records pertinent to the
retained for a period of NSF grant must be
three years from the date retained by the grantee
of submission of the for a period of three
final expenditure report years from award
or, for Federal awards financial closeout
that are renewed described in AAG Chapter
quarterly or annually, III.E.3, except as noted
from the date of the in 2 CFR 200.333.''
submission of the
quarterly or annual
financial report,
respectively, as reported
to the Federal awarding
agency or pass-through
entity . . . Federal
awarding agencies and
pass-through entities
must not impose any other
record retention
requirements upon non-
Federal entities.''.
Although it is becoming
easier to track
submission of project
reports to NSF, and the
University appreciated
NSF's progress in this
area, it is still more
complicated for
recipients to identify
and record the project
report submission date
and to ensure it is used
for record retention
purposes when it occurs
after the date of the
award financial closeout
and is, in practice, an
additional record
retention requirement.
[[Page 51372]]
AAG, Chapter II.E. Record University of Alabama 2 CFR 200.87--``Research This issue was raised
Retention & Audit. and Development (R&D) R&D during the last comment
means all research period for the NSF
activities, both basic Proposal and Award
and applied, and all Policies and Procedures
development activities Guide and is considered
that are performed by non- resolved. NSF does not
Federal entities. The intend to make further
term research also changes to the language
includes activities provided.
involving the training of
individuals in research
techniques where such
activities utilize the
same facilities as other
research and development
activities and where such
activities are not
included in the
instruction function.
``Research'' is defined
as a systematic study
directed toward fuller
scientific knowledge or
understanding of the
subject studied.
``Development'' is the
systematic use of
knowledge and
understanding gained from
research directed toward
the production of useful
materials, devices,
systems, or methods,
including design and
development of prototypes
and processes. While
NSF's mission, ``to
promote the progress of
science; to advance the
national health,
prosperity, and welfare;
to secure the national
defense; and for other
purposes'' is advanced
primarily through the
support of science and
engineering research, not
all of the activities NSF
funds meet the definition
of Research and
Development, as other
types of activities, such
as education, also
promote the progress of
science. The fact that
NSF funds education
programs and other
activities that do not
involve a systematic
study of a subject or the
use of research results
in the production of
materials, etc. is
included throughout the
PAPPG. For example, the
definition of Assistance
Award states that for
NSF, they ``involve the
support or stimulation of
scientific and
engineering research,
science and engineering
education or other
related activities.''
While ``NSF recognizes
that some awards may have
another classification
for purposes of indirect
costs,'' the
inconsistency in
classification for
various purposes creates
problems in determining
the appropriate indirect
cost rate to charge
(which can be
particularly burdensome
to faculty), in
appropriately
categorizing expenditures
and space in indirect
cost rate proposals and
in other areas of
administration and
management of funds. The
OMB Circular A-133
Compliance Supplement
contains in Part 5,
Clusters of Programs,
specific instructions for
auditing Research and
Development Programs. The
Compliance Requirements
and Suggested Audit
Procedures are not always
the most appropriate for
educational, service or
other non-research
programs/activities.
AAG, Chapter II.E. Record University of The CFDA number of NSF This issue was raised
Retention & Audit. Minnesota. awards is provided to the during the last comment
Grantee at the time of period for the NSF
award on the Award Proposal and Award
Notice. The CFDA number Policies and Procedures
provided by NSF is a CFDA Guide and is considered
that falls into a cluster resolved. NSF does not
category as outlined in intend to make further
the compliance changes to the language
supplement. If a CFDA provided.
number isn't defined in a
category the guidance is
to report the CFDA by
function. At a macro
level, institutions plan
and review their
portfolios by mission
(function); teaching,
training, research,
public service, etc.
Institutionally, function
is defined by how the
activity (transaction)
accomplishes the mission
of the university. For
example, awards with the
primary function of
training would not fall
under the mission of
research at our
institution. Our
financial statements
summarize all our mission
activity by function. Our
SEFA is reconciled to the
Financial Statements as
required. Requiring the
institution to
arbitrarily report
activity as part of the
R&D Cluster when
institutionally we have
defined the activity as
another function will
cause additional
reconciliation steps and
ongoing ``reporting
discrepancies.''.
[[Page 51373]]
AAG, Chapter III.D.4.b. Program Stanford University.. We respectfully ask that Language has been
Income. NSF request a deviation modified in AAG, Chapter
from OMB that income from III.D.4.c.(1) to address
license fees and the issue as follows:
royalties be excluded ``The grantee also shall
from the definition of have no obligation to
program income (Part II, NSF with respect to
Chapter III.D.4.b). program income earned
Statutory requirements from license fees and
under the Bayh-Dole Act royalties for
(35 U.S.C. 202(c)(7)) copyrighted material,
supersede any described patents, patent
treatments of license applications,
fees and royalties per trademarks, and
sections 200.80 and inventions produced
200.307(f) in the Uniform under an award. However,
Guidance. We believe OMB Patent and Trademark
has confirmed the Amendments (35 U.S.C.
precedence of U.S. law or 18) shall apply to
statute over the OMB inventions made under an
Uniform Guidance. award.''
Therefore reporting to
Federal agencies on
Program Income should not
include such license fees
and royalties.
AAG, Chapter IV.D. Property University of Thank you for providing Thank-you. No NSF
Management Standards. Wisconsin. verification that NSF has response required.
the authority under the
Federal Technology
Transfer Act to vest
title in an institution
of higher education. This
should allow institutions
of higher education to
continue handling title
in a manner to which they
are accustomed.
AAG, Chapter IV.E. Procurement.... Council on COGR respectfully asks NSF The issue of procurement
Governmental to request a deviation standards contained in
Relations. from OMB that the new Uniform Guidance
Institutions of Higher has been brought to the
Education (IHEs), attention of the Office
Nonprofit Research of Management and
Organizations (NROs), and Budget. Any decisions
all research performers regarding implementation
be exempted from rest with OMB, and,
Procurement Standards cannot be addressed
Sections 200.317 through independently by NSF.
200.326. Procurement
Standards under Circular
A-110 should be
reinstated for research
performers.
The PAPPG states that NSF
grantees shall adhere to
the requirements of 2 CFR
200.317-326, which
prescribes standards for
use by recipients in
establishing procedures
for procurement. COGR has
documented that
implementation of 2 CFR
Sec. 200.317-326 will:
(1) Create increased cost
and administrative burden
via expensive process-
workflow and IT system
changes, (2) require a
long lead time to
implement, which cannot
effectively be
accomplished by December
26th, and (3) result in
risk to program
performance--for example,
critical research tools
and supplies that
normally would be
acquired in one day could
take at least one week to
acquire. By securing the
deviation requested
above, NSF can help
ensure the continuity of
current and effective
procurement practices in
place at IHEs and NROs,
without any sacrifice to
institutional
accountability and
stewardship of federal
funds.
AAG, Chapter IV.E. Procurement.... University of We strongly request that The issue of procurement
California. NSF request a deviation standards contained in
from OMB exempting the new Uniform Guidance
Institutions of Higher has been brought to the
Education (IHEs) from the attention of the Office
procurement requirements of Management and
outlined in the Uniform Budget. Any decisions
Guidance (2 CFR 200.317- regarding implementation
326). These new rest with OMB, and,
procurement documentation cannot be addressed
and sourcing standards independently by NSF.
will require UC to
restructure longstanding
procurement practices,
redesign internal
controls for procurement
processes, reconfigure
supporting E-procurement
systems, and execute a
wholesale change
management strategy to re-
educate faculty, staff,
and students across 10
campuses and five medical
centers. It will be
costly and difficult, if
not impossible, to
implement such changes by
the required date of
December 26, 2014.
AAG, Chapter IV.E. Procurement.... Massachusetts MIT also supports COGR's The issue of procurement
Institute of request that NSF apply standards contained in
Technology. for a deviation allowing the new Uniform Guidance
Institutions of Higher has been brought to the
Education (IHEs), attention of the Office
Nonprofit Research of Management and
Organizations (NROs), and Budget. Any decisions
all research performers regarding implementation
to be subject to the rest with OMB, and,
prior procurement cannot be addressed
standards of Circular A- independently by NSF.
110. We absolutely
recognize and agree with
the need to make the best
use of our scarce
resources, but for IHEs,
NROs, and research
performers of all types,
this change would be too
sudden to implement by
the end of the year.
The requirements of the
Procurement standards in
200.317 through 200.326
call for system
solutions. Without a
system for capturing the
required documentation,
the additional
administrative effort on
each transaction would
significantly outweigh
any cost savings. It is
simply not feasible for
IHEs and NROs to put new
procurement documentation
systems in place by the
December 26th deadline.
Additionally, the
additional time this
would require for each
transaction would
seriously impact the
flexibility needed to
effectively respond to
the unpredictability of
fundamental research.
[[Page 51374]]
AAG, Chapter V.A.2.c. Publication University of Florida Regarding the third NSF believes that the
and Printing Costs. paragraph ``However, in coverage in the Uniform
accordance with 2 CFR Guidance on this topic
200.461, Publication and is clear and no further
Printing costs, awardees clarification on the
may charge the NSF award part of NSF is
before closeout for the necessary.
costs of publication or
sharing of research
results, if the costs are
not incurred during the
period of performance of
the award''.
Would the cost of travel
(of course the purpose of
which is to disseminate
and share the results of
the research) where the
airfare, registration and
other costs are paid for
prior to the end of the
project period but the
travel does not occur
until after the end of
the project period be an
allowable cost?.
AAG, Chapter V.A.3.a. Prior University of We appreciate that NSF has Thank-you. No action
Written Approvals. Wisconsin. clarified that ``items needed.
identified in the
approved budget
constitutes NSF's
authorization . . . to
incur these costs''
provided they are
consistent with
applicable terms,
conditions, and
regulations. This
language will help
eliminate confusion when
items are included in the
approved budget, and
costs are later presumed
as needing prior approval.
AAG, Chapter V.B.1.b.; GPG, University of Both of these sections This issue will be
Chapter II.C.2.g.(ii) Fringe Wisconsin. describe the ability of addressed in the latest
Benefits. the grantee to charge version of the
fringe benefits as direct Frequently Asked
costs, given that charges Questions that are being
are made in accordance developed by the Office
with usual accounting of Management and
practices and/or with Budget. As such, it
approval of the cognizant would not be appropriate
federal agency. Reference for the issue to be
also is made to 2 CFR resolved by NSF.
200.431, within which
part (b)(3)(i) states
that, ``Payments for
unused leave when an
employee retires or
terminates employment are
allowable as indirect
costs in the year of
payment.'' We want to
confirm our understanding
that NSF policy does not
preclude costs of unused
leave at retirement and
termination from being
directly charged to NSF
awards. We recognize that
NSF policy indicates that
such payments may be
subject to reasonableness
determination.
Additionally, we seek
affirmation that 2 CFR
200.431 is incorporated
into NSF policy to
acknowledge that such
unused leave also may be
allowable as indirect
costs and is not a
directive to institutions
to charge such costs as
indirect costs.
AAG, Chapter V.D.1.(ii)(a) Fixed Council on This section states: NSF will forward this
Rates for Life of the Award. Governmental ``Federal Awards may not comment to the Office of
Relations. be adjusted in future Management and Budget
years as a result of for further discussion
changes in negotiated with the Council on
rates.'' We understand Financial Assistance
that this text is Reform.
included in the Uniform
Guidance, but urge the
NSF to work with OMB and
other federal agencies to
provide clarification
that would allow non-
profit research
organizations the
opportunity to continue
to have their total-cost
for existing award
commitments reconsidered
where circumstances
warrant. This option has
been in place with
agencies, such as the
NIH, since 1997. It is
important that this
remain a viable option
for non-profit
organizations that would
be affected by the
language in this section
of the PAPPG.
AAG, Chapter V.D.1.(ii)(a) Fixed Cold Spring Harbor We understand that this NSF will forward this
Rates for Life of the Award. Laboratory. text is included in the comment to the Office of
OMB Omnibus Guidance, but Management and Budget
strongly urge the NSF and for further discussion
all other Federal with the Council on
research funding Financial Assistance
organizations to work Reform.
with OMB to provide
clarification, such as in
the NSF Policy document,
that would continue to
allow non-profit research
organizations the
opportunity to have their
total-cost for existing
award commitments
reconsidered where
circumstances warrant.
This option has been in
place with organizations
such as the NIH since
1997 (see attached
correspondence with
AIRI), and must continue
to be a viable option for
non-profit organizations
that may be harmed by
this newly mandated
restriction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51375]]
Other Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic and PAPPG section Commenter Comment NSF response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiring Funds.................... University of Not addressed in the NSF guidance for expiring/
Minnesota. Guide. The process around canceling award funds
expiring funds is not will not differ from the
addressed in the guide. standard guidance
While we are now notified applicable to all award
that certain funds are funds as outlined in the
expiring there isn't NSF AAG Chapter V:
guidance provided on Allowability of Costs.
options that a university NSF will work toward
can employ to manage the further improving the
funds. Federal agencies awareness of awards with
differ in the amount of canceling funds held by
individual guidance our awardees. This will
provided and at times we include additional
are unsure if a communications with
methodology described for awardee institutions as
one agency should be used well as other efforts to
for another agency. further highlight awards
with canceling funds.
Grants.gov Application Guide...... Massachusetts There are items added by A new NSF E58 Grants.gov
Institute of GPG 14-1 and 15-1 which Application Guide will
Technology. are not addressed in the be issued concurrently
Grants.gov guide, and with the PAPPG.
we're not sure whether
this means they are not
required when submitting
via Grants.gov. For
example, the
Collaboration type and
Proposal type checkboxes
on the FastLane cover
page don't appear to
correspond to any
information on the
Grants.gov SF424.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of Collection: ``National Science Foundation Proposal/Award
Information-Grant Proposal 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: The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Pub.
L. 81-507) set forth NSF's mission and purpose:
``To promote the progress of science; to advance the national
health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. * *
*''
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.
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 fulfill this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-
selected research and education projects in all the scientific and
engineering disciplines. NSF receives more than 51,000 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.
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).
Burden on the Public: The Foundation estimates that an average of
120 hours is expended for each proposal submitted. An estimated 51,600
proposals are expected during the course of one year for a total of
6,192,000 public burden hours annually.
Dated: August 25, 2014.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2014-20521 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
