Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, 50329-50339 [2015-20365]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Dated: August 14, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015–20471 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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 80 FR 26099, and no
comments were received. NSF is
forwarding the proposed renewal
submission to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for clearance
simultaneously with the publication of
this second notice. The full submission
may be found at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
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).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
Comments regarding these
information collections are best assured
of having their full effect if received
within 30 days of this notification.
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title Of
Collection: Grantee Reporting
Requirements for Science and
Technology Centers (STC): Integrative
Partnerships
OMB Number: 3145–0194
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to extend an information
collection.
Abstract:
Proposed Project:
The Science and Technology Centers
(STC): Integrative Partnerships Program
supports innovation in the integrative
conduct of research, education and
knowledge transfer. Science and
Technology Centers build intellectual
and physical infrastructure within and
between disciplines, weaving together
knowledge creation, knowledge
integration, and knowledge transfer.
STCs conduct world-class research
through partnerships of academic
institutions, national laboratories,
industrial organizations, and/or other
public/private entities. New knowledge
thus created is meaningfully linked to
society.
STCs enable and foster excellent
education, integrate research and
education, and create bonds between
learning and inquiry so that discovery
and creativity more fully support the
learning process. STCs capitalize on
diversity through participation in center
activities and demonstrate leadership in
the involvement of groups
underrepresented in science and
engineering.
Centers selected will be required to
submit annual reports on progress and
plans, which will be used as a basis for
performance review and determining
the level of continued funding. To
support this review and the
management of a Center, STCs will be
required to develop a set of management
and performance indicators for
submission annually to NSF via an NSF
evaluation technical assistance
contractor. These indicators are both
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50329
quantitative and descriptive and may
include, for example, the characteristics
of center personnel and students;
sources of financial support and in-kind
support; expenditures by operational
component; characteristics of industrial
and/or other sector participation;
research activities; education activities;
knowledge transfer activities; patents,
licenses; publications; degrees granted
to students involved in Center activities;
descriptions of significant advances and
other outcomes of the STC effort. Part of
this reporting will take the form of a
database which will be owned by the
institution and eventually made
available to an evaluation contractor.
This database will capture specific
information to demonstrate progress
towards achieving the goals of the
program. Such reporting requirements
will be included in the cooperative
agreement which is binding between the
academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center’s annual report will
address the following categories of
activities: (1) Research, (2) education,
(3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships,
(5) diversity, (6) management and (7)
budget issues.
For each of the categories the report
will describe overall objectives for the
year, problems the Center has
encountered in making progress towards
goals, anticipated problems in the
following year, and specific outputs and
outcomes.
Use of the Information: NSF will use
the information to continue funding of
the Centers, and to evaluate the progress
of the program.
Estimate of Burden: 100 hours per
center for 14 centers for a total of 1400
hours.
Respondents: Non-profit institutions;
federal government.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Report: One from each of the seventeen
centers.
Dated: August 13, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015–20431 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
50330
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
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 80 FR 28713, and 56
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 changes described in the
Supplementary Information section of
this notice. Comments regarding (a)
whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725—17th Street NW.,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 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 19, 2015,
at 80 FR 28713, NSF received 56
comments from 12 different
institutions/individuals; 33 comments
were in response to the Grant Proposal
Guide, and 23 were in response to the
Award and Administration Guide.
Following is the table showing the
summaries of the comments received on
the PAPPG sections, with NSF’s
response.
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
NSF Response
1 ................
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Separate Sections
for Intellectual
Merit & Broader
Impacts Chapter
II.C.2d(i) and Exhibit II–1.
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Collaborators &
Other Affiliations
Chapter II.C.1e.
3 ................
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Miscellaneous Comment.
4 ................
CHORUS ................
Public Access Plan
Miscellaneous
Comment.
5 ................
CHORUS ................
Public Access Plan
Miscellaneous
Comment.
Clarify the discrepancy between the wording of the requirements for the project description’s contents (II.C.2d(i)), and
the Proposal Preparation Checklist (Exhibit II–1). The policy section does not address having ‘‘Intellectual Merit’’ as
a required separate section within the narrative. Whereas
the Checklist says ‘‘Project Description contains, as a separate section within the narrative, sections labeled ‘‘Intellectual Merit’’ and ‘‘Broader Impacts.’’
Remove ambiguity from Chapter II.C.1e. Collaborators &
Other Affiliations Information (third bullet): ‘‘A list of all persons (including their organizational affiliations, if known),
with whom the individual has had an association as thesis
advisor, or with whom the individual has had an association within the last five years as a postgraduate-scholar
sponsor.’’ [emphasis added]. Does the requirement, ‘‘within
the last five years’’, apply only to postdocs, or to both
postdocs and graduate student advisees? The ambiguity
could be avoided by separating the single item into two
separate ones—one for former graduate students and one
for postdocs.
Increase the font size of NSF solicitations, preferably matching the NSF requirements for proposal documents. Currently, NSF solicitations are published in very small font
that is difficult to read.
In moving ahead, we urge NSF to continue to maintain and
develop public-private partnerships. Such efforts will help
the NSF contain costs, reduce the burden on researchers
and their institutions, and ensure sustainable, broad public
access to scholarly communication.
We are pleased to note that the Plan voices a strong commitment to ongoing consultation and collaboration with the diverse array of stakeholders in the scholarly communications community. That commitment has been evident in
CHORUS’ discussions with NSF over the past two years
and we look forward to continuing to work with the NSF
and other stakeholders to achieve our shared goal.
The checklist has been corrected to clarify NSF requirements.
2 ................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
NSF has revised this language to address the concern identified.
A user can adjust these settings manually on their computer. As such it is
not necessary for the Foundation to
take further action.
NSF thanks you for your comment.
NSF thanks you for your comment.
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
6 ................
CHORUS ................
Public Access Plan
Miscellaneous
Comment.
7 ................
CHORUS ................
Public Access Plan
Miscellaneous
Comment.
8 ................
COGR .....................
Preliminary Proposals Chapter
I.D.2.
9 ................
COGR .....................
Submission Instructions Chapter
I.G.2.
10 ..............
COGR .....................
Proposal Certifications Chapter
II.C.1d.
CHORUS is involved with a number of initiatives (the
CrossRef–DataCite Pilot, SHARE, and the RDA–WDS Publishing Data Services Working Group, and potentially, the
RMap Project, Dataverse, Figshare, and Dryad) to investigate tools and services that support researchers with their
data management plans and help funding bodies with compliance tracking. We believe the need to develop and
evolve data standards is critical. We therefore strongly encourage NSF to actively partner with some or all of these
organizations, which are already overseeing the development of standards that deploy existing tools (e.g., DOIs,
CrossRef’s FundRef, and ORCID).
CHORUS is very interested in working with NSF and other
funding agencies, publishers, data archive managers, and
other stakeholders on developing mechanisms to connect
articles and related datasets, for example, via developing
publishers’ systems to enable authors to submit their data
to an appropriate archive and simultaneously link this to an
article.
The PI then forwards the proposal to the appropriate office at
his/her organization, and the Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR) signs and submits the preliminary
proposal via use of NSF’s electronic systems. The existing
requirements do not limit personnel to that of only the AOR
in providing proposal certifications. Given the volume of
proposals reviewed, we request that the current language
remain.
In submission of a proposal for funding by the AOR, the AOR
is required to provide certain proposal certifications. This
certification process will concur concurrently with the submission of the proposal. The revision of this section removes the ability to designate separate authorities to
SRO’s in FastLane for personnel other than the AOR to
submit certain certifications. Additionally, it removes the
current requirement to provide the required AOR certifications within five (5) working days following e-submission
of the proposal. We request that the current language remain as is which allows more flexibility to meet required
deadlines and reduces the burden of the AOR and the ability to make mistakes during peak deadline times.
The AOR must use the ‘‘Authorized Organizational Representative function’’ in FastLane to sign and submit the
proposal, including the proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization’s responsibility to assure that only
properly authorized individuals sign in this capacity. We request that the current language remain which makes clear
that SRO’s can be authorized to electronically submit the
proposal after review by the AOR.
11 ..............
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No.
COGR .....................
Biographical
Sketches Chapter
II.C.2f(ii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
NSF Response
A biographical sketch (limited to two pages) is required for
each individual identified as senior personnel. ‘‘Other Personnel’’ biographical information can be uploaded along
with the Biosketches for Senior Personnel in the Biosketches section of the proposal. It is not clear that whether biosketches for non-senior personnel should be
uploaded with the biosketches of the PI or with other senior/key personnel? Do the instructions to upload or insert
individual biosketches only apply to senior/key personnel?
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50331
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
NSF thanks you for your comment.
NSF thanks you for your comment.
NSF has always required certifications to
be submitted by the AOR. As such,
there is no change to this policy.
For consistency with government-wide
requirements already established in
Grants.gov, NSF is making a policy
change to require certifications to be
submitted at the time of proposal submission. This also is consistent with
the policies established by the other
25 grant making agencies of the Federal government.
For consistency with government-wide
requirements already established in
Grants.gov, NSF is making a policy
change to require certifications to be
submitted at the time of proposal submission. This also is consistent with
the policies established by the other
25 grant making agencies of the Federal government.
Language has been revised to clarify
that biosketches for all personnel must
be uploaded in a single file as an
other supplementary document.
19AUN1
50332
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
12 ..............
COGR .....................
Current and Pending Support Chapter II.C.2h.
13 ..............
COGR .....................
Dual Use Research
of Concern Chapter II.D.14b.
14 ..............
COGR .....................
Life Sciences Dual
Use Research of
Concern AAG,
Chapter VI.B.5b.
15 ..............
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No.
COGR .....................
Reporting Requirements AAG,
Chapter II.D.
. . . All project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal,
State, local or foreign government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial organization, or internal institutional resources) must be listed. The
proposed project and all other projects or activities requiring a portion of time of the PI and other senior personnel
must be included, even if they receive no salary support
from the project(s). The total award amount for the entire
award period covered (including indirect costs) must be
shown as well as the number of person-months per year to
be devoted to the project, regardless of source of support.
While we recognize that current and pending support documentation has long been a requirement of NSF and other
federal agencies, requiring this documentation at proposal
submission adds additional administrative burden when the
likelihood of being funded is unknown. We therefore ask
that only those with favorable scientific review outcomes
being considered for NSF funding be asked to submit current and pending support information. Providing this information post submission or at the time that the proposal has
been selected for funding also means that the information
will be more current, benefitting both NSF and the institution. In addition, we recommend that the request to have
internal institutional resources identified, be limited to internal funds allocated toward specific projects. This will eliminate the unnecessary burden of reporting routine new faculty start-up packages that may include general equipment
and space and/or voluntary time and effort dedicated toward another project or endeavor. We are further seeking
confirmation that an institution can include zero (0) person
months in appropriate situations who may commit to contribute to the scientific development or execution of the
project, but are not committing any specific measurable effort to the project.
Proposing organizations are responsible for identifying NSFfunded life sciences proposals that could potentially be
considered dual use research of concern as defined in the
US Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life
Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. If the proposing
organization identifies the proposal as dual use research of
concern, the associated box must be checked on the
Cover Sheet. (See also AAG Chapter VI.B.5 for additional
information.) We are requesting clarity on the use of identifying NSF-funded life sciences that could ‘‘potentially’’ be
considered dual use research of concern as described
above vs the ‘‘identification’’ of DURC as implied by the
second paragraph. We request that the DURC determination be consistent with the USG Policy that requires institutions to provide notification to the USG funding agency of
any research that involves one or more of the 15 listed
agents and one or more of the seven listed experimental
effects as defined in Section 6.2 of the USG Policy within
thirty (30) calendar days of the institutional review of the
research for DURC potential.
. . . NSF awards are not expected to result in research that
falls within the scope of this Policy. If, however, in conducting the activities supported under an award, the PI is
concerned that any of the research results could potentially
be considered Dual Use Research of Concern under this
Policy, the PI or the grantee organization should promptly
notify the cognizant NSF Program Officer. See comments
to Chapter II. D.14(b) above.
Our membership has noted the difference in reporting dates
between programmatic reporting (90 days) and financial reporting (120) days. We appreciate the change NSF has
made in the AAG to revise the financial reporting from 90
days to 120 days but further request your consideration to
reflect the same dates for programmatic reporting. This
would allow institutions to reconcile charges for publications of its subrecipients while giving more time to incorporate the programmatic results into the prime recipients
final programmatic report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NSF Response
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
Language incorporated.
NSF has removed the DURC checkbox
from the Cover Sheet. Certification
language regarding DURC has been
added to the listing of AOR certifications for compliance with government-wide requirements.
Language has been revised for compliance with government-wide requirements.
Language has been revised to change
the due date of final reports and
project outcomes reports to within 120
days following the end date the award.
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
16 ..............
COGR .....................
Public Access Plan
AAG, Chapter
VI.D.2.
17 ..............
Association of
American Publishers/Division of
Professional and
Scholarly Publishing.
Public Access Plan
We appreciate the significant efforts the NSF has made with
the release of its Public Access plan and its recognition
that managing investigator research data that result from
Federal investments is a major challenge. We are grateful
that the NSF’s plan will be carried out in an incremental
fashion allowing all stakeholder groups to collaborate on
this important initiative. While the challenges our members
will face to monitor and manage various agency plans will
be rough, we do appreciate NSF’s continued willingness to
engage stakeholder groups and coordinate with other Federal agencies to identify infrastructure capabilities, resolve
outstanding and shared concerns, and develop best practices and standards.
(1) Maintain commitment to proceed carefully, incrementally,
and in close consultation with stakeholders to avoid unintended consequences (2) Ensure flexible approach to managing unique discipline communities to sustain the quality,
integrity, and availability of high-quality peer-reviewed articles reporting on scientific research (3) Expand on opportunities to minimize administrative and researcher burdens
and costs by using flexible approaches and public-private
partnerships (4) Keep flexible data requirements that recognize the unique research practices of different fields, and
encourage collaborative private sector solutions that minimize costs and burdens (5) Ensure adequate resources
are available to support allowable costs for access to publications and data (6) Continue clear communication and engagement with scholarly community.
18 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
When to Submit
Proposals and
Format of the Proposal Chapter I.F
and Chapter II.B.
19 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
20 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
21 ..............
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No.
University of Wisconsin Madison.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
NSF Response
We are thankful for the consistency in the use of the 5 PM
submitter’s local time deadline and proposal formatting requirements. Regardless of the solicitation or the directorate
issuing the solicitation, institutions will know what to expect
and manage proposals accordingly. Such consistency reduces administrative burden on institutions and investigators, and we are grateful for that.
Collaborators &
We welcome the separation of the information on collaboOther Affiliations
rators and other affiliations. Doing so makes it easier to
Chapter II.C.1e.
comply with the biosketch page limit. This also allows us to
be more thorough with collaborator and other affiliation information, especially for those researchers who are very
active collaborators.
Project Description
That the Project Description must not contain URLs and must
Chapter II.C.2d(iii).
be self-contained helps create a level playing field in that
all proposers must adhere to the same page limits. We appreciate this clarification and emphasis.
Biographical
When biosketches for non-senior personnel will be included,
Sketches Chapter
should they be appended to the PI or another senior/key
II.C.2f(ii).
person’s biosketch? Does the instruction to upload or insert
individual biosketches only apply to senior/key personnel?
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50333
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
NSF thanks you for your comment.
1. NSF thanks you for your comment. 2.
NSF thanks you for your comment.
Comments have been requested on
NSF’s implementation of the Public
Access requirement in the PAPPG,
and not on the Plan itself. 3. NSF
thanks you for your comment. Comments have been requested on NSF’s
implementation of the Public Access
requirement in the PAPPG, and not on
the Plan itself. 4. NSF thanks you for
your comment. The NSF policy on
data sharing and data management
plans remains unchanged. 5. NSF
thanks you for your comment. The
NSF policy on data sharing and data
management plans remains unchanged. 6. NSF thanks you for your
comment.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Language has been revised to clarify
that biosketches for all Other Personnel and Equipment Users must be
uploaded in a single file as an other
supplementary document.
19AUN1
50334
No.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
NSF Response
(1) The proposed requirement is that Current and Pending
Support include project support from internal institutional
resources. We are seeking more clarity regarding this proposed requirement. A variety of internal institutional resources may be available to support an investigator. Internal institutional resources may be awarded for a specific
research project. In such cases, researchers have competed for resources to support a project with a specific
scope of work. Internal institutional resources may also be
used to support multiple projects. Resources may be made
available in a variety of ways, for example, start-up packages or fellowships that can be used to support a faculty
member’s research program as a whole. Such funding may
be used at the discretion of the researchers—to purchase
supplies or equipment, or to help pay for personnel. Another possible use of internal institutional resources would
be to support faculty salaries in addition to or in lieu of
using a grant to pay for a faculty member’s time and effort
on a project. Given the variety of ways in which internal institutional resources may be used, would NSF be able to
specify what types of situations warrant inclusion on a current and pending support document? (2) We are seeking
confirmation that a PI or other senior personnel can list
zero person months on a project. This may be appropriate,
depending on the source of funding and the purpose of the
project, e.g., an equipment grant. That certain awards
would not require effort is supported by OMB Memorandum
01-06, which states that ‘‘some types of research programs, such as programs for equipment and instrumentation, doctoral dissertations, and student augmentation, do
not require committed faculty effort, paid or unpaid by the
Federal Government . . .’’ (3) In lieu of requesting that the
Current and Pending support information be provided at
the time of proposal, NSF may wish to consider asking for
it to be submitted only if an award is being contemplated, a
JIT approach similar to NIH. This approach might decrease
administrative burden for the senior personnel and the proposing organization as well as for NSF and its reviewers.
The language in the second paragraph of GPG Chapter
II.D.14.b states that the proposing organization is responsible for identifying proposals that could ‘‘potentially be
considered dual use research of concern’’ [emphasis
added]. But, the final paragraph in this section indicates
that the proposing organization must check the appropriate
box if it ‘‘identifies the proposal as dual use research of
concern’’ [emphasis added]. There are two issues with
these paragraphs. First, the final paragraph implies (intentionally or not) that the proposing organization has already
made a judgment whether or not the proposal is DURC,
whereas the second paragraph does not. The two paragraphs convey different messages, but should convey the
same message. Second, the likelihood that a proposal
would be identified as DURC is small because the chance
that it would be put before the Institutional Review Entity
(IRE) prior to submission is small. Given the administrative
burden associated with the review for DURC and proposal
success rates, it is possible that an investigator may notify
the Institutional Review Entity of the potential of DURC
only after a proposal is awarded. If an IRE does not make
a determination prior to proposal submission, then the proposing organization will not be able to identify a proposal
as DURC or check the box on the Cover Sheet. We would
prefer that the language in the final paragraph convey the
same message as the language in the second paragraph.
Another alternative, consistent with USG policy, is that NSF
could simply be notified in the event that research has
been reviewed and the IRE has made a determination
whether or not the research meets the definition of DURC.
Consistency with the USG policy may relieve administrative
burden.
The language in the AAG states that the PI or grantee organization should promptly notify the NSF Program Officer if
‘‘any of the research results could potentially be considered
Dual Use Research of Concern’’ [emphasis added]. The
United States Government (USG) DURC policy requires us
to contact the USG funding agency only after the review of
the research has occurred and a determination has been
made. The language in the AAG suggests that NSF is imposing a requirement which may create an additional burden and is not part of the USG policy and procedures.
(1) COGR language incorporated from
comment #12. (2) NSF recognizes that
there may be confusion regarding a
PI’s or other senior personnel’s responsibilities as it relates to reporting
on projects where there is funding, but
no time commitment. NSF plans to address this issue in a future issuance of
the PAPPG. (3) Given the significance
of this request, NSF will consider it in
a future PAPPG.
University of Wisconsin Madison.
Current and Pending Support Chapter II.C.2h.
23 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
Dual Use Research
of Concern Chapter II.D.14b.
24 ..............
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
Dual Use Research
of Concern AAG,
Chapter VI.B.5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
Language has been revised for compliance with government-wide requirements.
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
No.
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
NSF Response
We note that the lack of uniformity in deadlines between programmatic reports (90 day deadlines) and financial reporting (120 days) may cause confusion. We note that the lack
of uniformity in deadlines across Federal agencies may
cause confusion, as well. Our recommendation would be to
harmonize these deadlines as much as possible.
This chapter opens with a statement that ‘‘expenditures . . .
must conform with NSF policies where articulated in the
grant terms and conditions . . .’’ We appreciate the addition of this language and the comment that ‘‘NSF policies
that have a post award requirement are implemented in the
grant terms and conditions.’’
In the second paragraph of this section, ‘‘de minimus’’ [sic] is
misspelled.
We understand the importance of the public access policy.
However, the administrative burden to comply with this policy for two dozen separate agencies is daunting. The requirements across the agencies differ in terms of what
should be submitted, how compliance will be monitored,
and when the implementation will occur. Agencies also are
using a variety of repositories, which will require institutions
to learn new systems and procedures. All of these factors
accumulate and signify larger workloads. Our institution,
like others, has devoted significant time and resources to
learning how to use the PubMed Central system. We understand how it functions and have in-house expertise to
help faculty members with questions and submissions. We
encourage NSF to consider allowing use of an established,
familiar system such as PubMed Central.
See backup documentation for additional details: (1) Embargoes and Petitions (2) Implementation and Repositories (3)
Digital Data Sets.
Language has been revised to change
the due date of final reports and
project outcomes reports to within 120
days following the expiration of the
award.
25 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
Project Reporting
and Grant Closeout AAG, Chapter
II.D.2, 3.5 and
Chapter III.E.
26 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
Basic Considerations AAG Chapter V.A.
27 ..............
University of Wisconsin Madison.
University of Wisconsin Madison.
Indirect Costs AAG,
Chapter V.D.1b.
Public Access
Chapter VI.D.2c
and VI.E.
29 ..............
Wiley & Sons ..........
Public Access .........
30 ..............
CalTech ..................
NSF Grantee Relationships Introduction. D.
31 ..............
CalTech ..................
Preliminary Proposals Chapter
I.D.2.
32 ..............
CalTech ..................
Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing Chapter
II.C.2g(xi).
33 ..............
CalTech ..................
Conference Proposals Chapter
II.D.9.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
28 ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
50335
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
The discussion regarding Cooperative Agreements and the
circumstances in which they should be used is very well
written and quite helpful. There are many within the research community, on both the awarding and awardee
sides, who have not had a clear understanding of the purposes of the Cooperative Agreement and the ways in
which Cooperative Agreements differ from Grants and Contracts. This discussion will be very useful, particularly when
working with the Audit community.
We are very supportive of your decision to require that preliminary proposals be submitted through the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). It is extremely helpful
for the central research administration office to become
aware of the interest of a PI in submitting a proposal for a
specific NSF program at the earliest possible time. By requiring the preliminary proposal to go through the AOR, we
can become aware of potential issues that must be addressed internally before the full proposal is due.
We are very well aware of NSF’s position on Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing: It is not allowed unless it is an eligibility requirement that is clearly identified in the solicitation.
Nevertheless, we also realize that there may be instances
when investigators insist on the need to include voluntary
committed cost sharing in their proposals. You have now
provided a mechanism whereby that can be done, while
staying within the overall NSF policy on voluntary committed cost sharing. The requirement not to include voluntary committed cost sharing in the budget or budget justification is very clear and will be easy to follow. Declaring
that these resources will not be auditable by NSF will also
make things easier for the post-award financial administration of the resulting grant.
The additional information on allowable costs associated with
Conference Proposals is helpful because it removes the
ambiguity surrounding potentially allowable or not allowable
costs in connection with conference grants. Clarity on this
topic, particularly with regard to food and beverage costs
associated with intramural meetings, is appreciated. It will
make It easier for everyone, investigators, departmental research administrators, and post-award financial staff to understand when such costs are not allowed.
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Noted and corrected.
NSF thanks you for your comment.
NSF’s public access initiative is part of
a US government-wide activity initiated
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that is consistent with NSF’s primary mission of
promoting the progress of science and
helping to ensure the nation’s future
prosperity. Comments have been requested on NSF’s implementation of
the Public Access requirement in the
PAPPG, and not on the Plan itself.
NSF thanks you for your comment. Comments have been requested on NSF’s
implementation of the Public Access
requirement in the PAPPG, and not on
the Plan itself. NSF describes its approach to requesting a waiver to the
12-month embargo (or administrative
interval) in Section 7.5.1 of the Public
Access Plan (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key
=nsf15052).
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
19AUN1
50336
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
NSF Response
34 ..............
CalTech ..................
Long Term Disengagement of
the PIAAG, Chapter II.B.2a.
CalTech ..................
Project Reporting
AAG, Chapter
II.D.3.
36 ..............
CalTech ..................
Grant Closeout
AAG, Chapter
II.D.5.
37 ..............
CalTech ..................
38 ..............
Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.
Informal Resolution
of Grant Administrative Disputes
AAG, Chapter
VII.B.
Current and Pending Support Chapter II.C.2h.
NSF’s adoption of the language in the Uniform Guidance on
the long term disengagement of the PI will be of great assistance to investigators and research administrators, alike.
When Federal agencies adopt uniform practices with regard to situations such as the absence or disengagement
of Pies, it makes it easier for everyone involved to understand and follow the requirements. The notion of ‘‘disengagement is a reflection of the significant changes that
have occurred as a result of modern communications technology. It is a reality that we live with and the use of ‘‘disengagement as a criterion for having to notify and involve
the sponsor will reduce some of the administrative burdens
associated with post-award administration.
We would appreciate your consideration of making these reports due 120 days after the end of the award, rather than
the 90 day time period in the draft PAPPG. This would
bring the reporting and closeout requirements associated
with the technical aspects of the grant in line with the reporting and closeout requirements associated with the financial aspects of the grant: 120 days after the end date of
the award.
NSF’s adoption of the requirement for the closeout process to
be completed within 120 days after the end of the project is
greatly appreciated. Despite our best efforts, we have long
had difficulty with the 90 day requirement for financial
closeout, particularly when our award includes subawards.
Giving us an added 30 days to complete this task should
reduce the number of late closeouts and also reduce the
instances when revised closeout activities are required. We
hope that other Federal agencies will join NSF and NIH in
recognizing the benefits of providing a more reasonable
amount of time to complete the closeout process.
The revision of this section is appreciated. Although the use
of this procedure is extremely rare, it is helpful if everyone
can be clear on just how the process is supposed to work.
This should save time and aggravation when it is necessary to resolve administrative disputes.
We encourage the NSF to seize the opportunity to lessen the
administrative burden for investigators and institutions by
not having them submit current and pending support at the
time of proposal submission. Only those with favorable scientific review outcomes being considered for NSF funding
should be asked to submit current and pending support information. This information will be more up to date if acquired later in the application process. In addition, we recommend that the requirement to have internal institutional
resources identified, be eliminated. This will remove the unnecessary burden of reporting routine new faculty start-up
packages that may include general equipment, facilities
and/or voluntary time and effort not dedicated toward a
specific project or endeavor. The trend for Federal research funding agencies seems to be toward determining
how much unrestricted support investigators may have
available so that this information can potentially be used to
sway funding decisions and final award budgets. With stagnant and decreasing federal research funding, additional institutional support for investigators and postdoctoral fellows
is essential in order to help their research continue and
make ends meet. We strongly encourage the NSF to break
with this trend that puts investigators and institutions in a
vicious circle in which their efforts to help support and sustain research may negatively impact their ability to secure
Federal research funding. We urge the NSF to modify the
proposed PAPPG text accordingly to eliminate the requirement to report internal institutional resources.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
35 ..............
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
Language has been revised to change
the due date of final reports and
project outcomes reports to within 120
days following the expiration of the
award.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
Thank you for your comment. No action
required.
(1) Given the significance of this request,
NSF will consider it in a future
PAPPG. (2) COGR language incorporated from comment #12.
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
50337
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
Comment
NSF Response
39 ..............
American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Public Access .........
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Preliminary Proposals Chapter
I.D.2.
ASCE is primarily concerned that the plan calls for a 12month embargo, which would seriously impact the ability of
ASCE to recover our cost. Compared to many areas of
science and technology, civil engineering research moves
at a more sedate rate. As such, civil engineering journals
remain ‘‘fresh’’ for a longer period, selling over a longer period, and taking a correspondingly longer time for ASCE to
re-coop our cost. ASCE believes that a 12-month embargo
would impede ASCE’s ability to continue to produce the
high-quality journals that we currently do. The NSF plan includes conference proceedings, which many times are expanded and published as journal articles. Again, this leads
to duplicate versions of results. Once again, thank you for
the opportunity for ASCE to comment on the proposed
Policies and Guidelines. ASCE, like other engineering and
scientific societies, fulfills its role in the advancement of engineering by determining through the peer review process
what is worthy of publication. While supporting open access, we must be careful not to lose the ‘‘value-added’’ by
peer review is what sets apart top-flight research from mediocre work.
The change requiring submission of pre-proposals by the authorized representative adds some burden to the proposer,
and thus partially defeats the purpose of reducing unnecessary effort.
NSF thanks you for your comment. Comments have been requested on NSF’s
implementation of the Public Access
requirement in the PAPPG, and not on
the Plan itself. NSF describes its approach to requesting a waiver to the
12-month embargo (or administrative
interval) in Section 7.5.1 of the Public
Access Plan (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_
key=nsf15052).
40 ..............
41 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Format Chapter II.B.
42 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Format Chapter
II.B.1.
43 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Collaborators &
Other Affiliations
Chapter II.C.1e.
44 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Cover Sheet Chapter II.C.2a.
45 ..............
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No.
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Project Summary
Chapter II.C.2b.
46 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Content Chapter
II.C.2d(i).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Removing guidance information from the GPG is a very bad
idea. Instead of streamlining the content, this would create
an incomplete set of instructions. We need all of the guidance in one place for two reasons: (1) Not everyone involved with the proposal necessarily will be working in
Fastlane, and (2) considerable work is done before upload,
and finding unexpected instructions in Fastlane could create emergencies. Please don’t let NSF become NIH, where
the answer to every question is six links and four obsolete
documents away. Put all of the instructions where we can
find them.
You should consider updating the formatting requirements.
The fonts you identify were selected years (decades?) ago,
and are optimized for print. All proposal submission and
most proposal review now takes place on the screen, so
you should consider allowing fonts that are optimized for
the screen. These might include Calibri and Cambria. The
standards regarding lines per inch and characters per line
should be deleted; specifying font size and single-spacing
should be sufficient. When a proposal is converted from,
say, Word to PDF, it shrinks slightly. Moreover, since
Fastlane distills Word documents and redistills PDFs, the
proposer has no actual control over the final PDF version.
This rule makes the proposer responsible for something
that is ultimately out of his/her control.
This will be an excellent change if implemented properly. I
would strongly recommend specifying an NSF-wide format
for this information. Our experience has been that even
within an individual directorate (CISE), the requirements for
this list vary. Today, a list produced for one proposal might
require significant reformatting for the next proposal. It
would be nice to eliminate the need for this extra work.
Even though Fastlane is being phased out, three changes to
the cover page would be nice: 1. Improve the Performance
Site page programming. Often, each line must be entered
and saved before the next line can be entered. Ideally, you
could pre-populate this with information on the institution.
2. Make it possible to go to the remainder of the cover
page before the first section is completed. 3. Add a legend
indicating that the Beginning Investigator box is for BIO
proposals only.
This is a good place to point out sloppy language throughout
the GPG. If you want the project description written in the
third person, instruct us to do that. The words ‘‘must’’ and
‘‘should’’ do not mean the same thing, and here you say
‘‘should.’’ The word ‘‘should’’ appears 265 times in this
document. How many of those times do you really mean
‘‘must’’ or ‘‘shall’’? Statements like the following are of no
value whatsoever: ‘‘Additional instructions for preparation of
the Project Summary are available in FastLane.’’ What instructions? Where? If I don’t track them down, will I be in
danger of submitting a non-compliant proposal?
What does ‘‘relation to longer-term goals of the PI’s project’’
mean? What is the PI’s project? It is not this proposed
project, because then you would be asking how this proposal relates to this proposal.
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
It is vital that an institution be aware of
commitments being made in a preliminary proposal. As such, AOR submission will be beneficial to the submitting
organization.
NSF has added.
Minor changes.
Thank you for your comment. NSF will
explore the viability of such a suggestion.
Thank you for your suggestion, however
upgrades to FastLane are not feasible
at this time. 3) Clarifying language has
been added.
Thank you for your comments.
Language has been revised.
19AUN1
50338
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
No.
Comment source
Topic & PAPPG
section
47 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Project Description
Chapter II.C.2d(ii).
48 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
49 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
50 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Biographical
Sketches Chapter
II.C.2f(ii).
51 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
Equipment Chapter
II.C.2g(iii).
52 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
This is a good change, but it belongs in the instructions for
the Cover Page, not the instructions for the supplementary
documents.
53 ..............
55 ..............
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
UC Riverside,
Bourns College of
Engineering.
University of Virginia
Special Information/
International Conferences Chapter
II.C.2j.
Collaborative Proposals Chapter
II.D.5.
Conference Grants
Chapter II.D.9.
Participant Support
Costs Chapter
II.C.2g.
56 ..............
Inside Public Access
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
54 ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Comment
NSF Response
The prohibition on URLs seems extreme, and it is a step in
the wrong direction. As you point out, the reviewers are
under no obligation to look at them, so no harm is done in
including them.
Results from Prior
This should be eliminated from NSF proposals. The program
NSF Support
officer (and, indeed, the public) already has access to all of
Chapter II.C.2d(iii).
this information via project reports. A more effective use of
space, time, and energy would be to invite the proposer to
describe how this proposed project relates to prior or concurrent work.
References Cited
Since URLs are prohibited in the project description, it is likeChapter II.C.2e.
ly that some URLs (to examples of outreach projects, for
example) will end up in the References Cited list. Now we
are at risk of disqualification since a URL does not contain
all of the items each citation must have.
Public Access .........
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
We would strongly recommend that NSF provide a template
for the entire biographical sketch. This will leave no question as to what can be included and what cannot. The instructions have a list of information that can’t be included,
but this is not exhaustive. What about honors and awards,
for example? If a bio sketch contains everything required,
in the order specified, plus a section on honors and
awards, is it compliant or not? Today, the answer varies
from program officer to program officer. As noted earlier,
the elimination of the conflict list from the bio sketch is an
excellent decision. The instructions on Other Personnel
and the notation that biographical sketches cannot be
uploaded as a group appear to be at odds. If someone is
an Other Person rather than an Other Senior Person, how
will it be possible to upload a biographical sketch?
The term information technology systems should be defined,
especially since NSF funds research on information technology systems.
Thank you for your comments.
Project reports are not publicly available
and therefore is essential information
for use by the reviewer in assessing
the proposal.
GPG Chapter II.C.2.d(iii)(d) already
specifies that a complete bibliographic
citation for each publication must be
provided in either the References
Cited section or the Results from Prior
NSF Support section of the proposal,
to avoid duplication.
(1) Upon review of this comment, NSF
cannot validate the reviewer comment,
as the instructions in that section do
not contain a list of information not to
include. (2) Language has been revised to clarify that biosketches for all
personnel must be uploaded separately.
2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance) does not
define information technology, and as
such NSF is consistent with government-wide requirements.
Instructions have been added to the
Cover Sheet section.
A definition of ‘‘within a reasonable timeframe’’ would be
helpful.
Noted.
The language ‘‘may be appropriate or not appropriate’’ is
wishy-washy. Why not just say allowable and unallowable?
Comment incorporated.
Are we to interpret the definition this way, removing the ‘‘such
as’’ so as to broaden the definition beyond the examples
mentioned?: ‘‘Participant support costs means direct costs
for items in connection with conferences, or training
projects.’’ Previous guidance from NSF included the ‘‘such
as’’ examples mentioned as well as ‘‘and other costs related to conferences and meetings’’ but the new guidance
removes that ‘‘and other costs’’ part and appears to limit
PSC to the items used as examples. I am asking because
conferences can include other costs such as venue rental,
poster supplies, etc. that aren’t part of what is listed after
‘‘such as’’ and we are trying to determine what part of a
conference should be considered PSC and which parts
should not. Any idea how we should interpret the new definition?
Statutory authority for the collection may also be an issue because there is no clear authority given by Congress for the
US Public Access program. It was created by an Executive
Branch memo. NSF needs to address this issue. (1) The
strangeness of the NSF request. What is strange is that
the collection of articles under Public Access has nothing
to do with the proposal and award process, which is the
subject of the PAPPG. (2) The burden of mandatory data
sharing. (3) The issue of burden estimating. (4) Vague requirements create complexity.
(1) Yes. (2) NSF deliberately revised the
definition of participant support for
consistency with the Uniform Guidance. Significant clarity has been
added in the conferences section to
highlight the types of costs that may
be appropriate for inclusion in a conference budget, of which participant
support is one.
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
NSF thanks you for your comment.
NSF’s public access initiative is part of
a US government-wide activity initiated
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that is consistent with NSF’s primary mission of
promoting the progress of science and
helping to ensure the nation’s future
prosperity. NSF has formally implemented its Public Access requirement
in the PAPPG. Comments have been
requested on NSF’s implementation of
the Public Access requirement in the
PAPPG and not on the plan itself. The
NSF policy on data sharing and data
management plans remains unchanged.
19AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Title of Collection: ‘‘National Science
Foundation Proposal & Award Policies
& Procedures Guide. ‘‘
OMB Approval Number: 3145–0058.
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to extend with revision an
information collection for three years.
Proposed Project: The National
Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81–507) sets 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.
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 six
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 50,000
proposals annually for new projects,
and makes approximately 11,000 new
awards.
Support is made primarily through
grants, contracts, and other agreements
awarded to approximately 2,000
colleges, universities, academic
consortia, nonprofit institutions, and
small businesses. The awards are based
mainly on merit evaluations of
proposals 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)/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
project director(s) or the co-principal
investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
Burden on the Public
It has been estimated that the public
expends an average of approximately
120 burden hours for each proposal
submitted. Since the Foundation
expects to receive approximately 51,700
proposals in FY 2016, an estimated
6,204,000 burden hours will be placed
on the public.
The Foundation has based its
reporting burden on the review of
approximately 51,700 new proposals
expected during FY 2016. It has been
estimated that anywhere from one hour
to 20 hours may be required to review
a proposal. We have estimated that
approximately 5 hours are required to
review an average proposal. Each
proposal receives an average of 3
reviews, resulting in approximately
775,500 burden hours each year.
The information collected on the
reviewer background questionnaire
(NSF 428A) is used by managers to
maintain an automated database of
reviewers for the many disciplines
represented by the proposals submitted
to the Foundation. Information collected
on gender, race, and ethnicity is used in
meeting NSF needs for data to permit
response to Congressional and other
queries into equity issues. These data
also are used in the design,
implementation, and monitoring of NSF
efforts to increase the participation of
various groups in science, engineering,
and education. The estimated burden
for the Reviewer Background
Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at
5 minutes per respondent with up to
10,000 potential new reviewers for a
total of 833 hours.
The aggregate number of burden
hours is estimated to be 6,980,333. The
actual burden on respondents has not
changed.
Dated: August 13, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015–20365 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Pendency for Request for Approval of
Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: The
Service Employees International Union
Local 1 Cleveland Pension Plan
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of pendency of request.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50339
This notice advises interested
persons that the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) has
received a request from the Service
Employees International Union Local 1
Cleveland Pension Plan for approval of
a plan amendment providing for special
withdrawal liability rules. Under
section 4203(f) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and PBGC’s regulation on Extension of
Special Withdrawal Liability Rules, a
multiemployer pension plan may, with
PBGC approval, be amended to provide
for special withdrawal liability rules
similar to those that apply to the
construction and entertainment
industries. Such approval is granted
only if PBGC determines that the rules
apply to an industry with characteristics
that make use of the special rules
appropriate and that the rules will not
pose a significant risk to the pension
insurance system. Before granting an
approval, PBGC’s regulations require
PBGC to give interested persons an
opportunity to comment on the request.
The purpose of this notice is to advise
interested persons of the request and to
solicit their views for it.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web
site instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: reg.comments@pbgc.gov.
• Fax: 202–326–4224.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory
Affairs Group, Office of the General
Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Comments received, including
personal information provided, will be
posted to www.pbgc.gov. Copies of
comments may also be obtained by
writing to Disclosure Division, Office of
the General Counsel, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street
NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026 or
calling 202–326–4040 during normal
business hours. (TTY and TDD users
may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be
connected to 202–326–4040.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce Perlin (Perlin.Bruce@PBGC.gov),
202–326–4020, ext. 6818 or Jon
Chatalian (Chatalian.Jon@PBGC.gov),
ext. 6757, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Suite 340, 1200 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005–4026; (TTY/
TDD users may call the Federal relay
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50329-50339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20365]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 50330]]
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 80
FR 28713, and 56 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 changes described in the Supplementary
Information section of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology should
be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB,
Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725--17th
Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H.
Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 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 19, 2015, at 80 FR 28713, NSF
received 56 comments from 12 different institutions/individuals; 33
comments were in response to the Grant Proposal Guide, and 23 were in
response to the Award and Administration Guide. Following is the table
showing the summaries of the comments received on the PAPPG sections,
with NSF's response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic & PAPPG
No. Comment source section Comment NSF Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ University of Separate Sections Clarify the discrepancy The checklist has
Illinois at Urbana- for Intellectual between the wording of the been corrected to
Champaign. Merit & Broader requirements for the project clarify NSF
Impacts Chapter description's contents requirements.
II.C.2d(i) and (II.C.2d(i)), and the
Exhibit II-1. Proposal Preparation
Checklist (Exhibit II-1).
The policy section does not
address having
``Intellectual Merit'' as a
required separate section
within the narrative.
Whereas the Checklist says
``Project Description
contains, as a separate
section within the
narrative, sections labeled
``Intellectual Merit'' and
``Broader Impacts.''
2................ University of Collaborators & Remove ambiguity from Chapter NSF has revised
Illinois at Urbana- Other Affiliations II.C.1e. Collaborators & this language to
Champaign. Chapter II.C.1e. Other Affiliations address the
Information (third bullet): concern
``A list of all persons identified.
(including their
organizational affiliations,
if known), with whom the
individual has had an
association as thesis
advisor, or with whom the
individual has had an
association within the last
five years as a postgraduate-
scholar sponsor.'' [emphasis
added]. Does the
requirement, ``within the
last five years'', apply
only to postdocs, or to both
postdocs and graduate
student advisees? The
ambiguity could be avoided
by separating the single
item into two separate ones--
one for former graduate
students and one for
postdocs.
3................ University of Miscellaneous Increase the font size of NSF A user can adjust
Illinois at Urbana- Comment. solicitations, preferably these settings
Champaign. matching the NSF manually on their
requirements for proposal computer. As such
documents. Currently, NSF it is not
solicitations are published necessary for the
in very small font that is Foundation to take
difficult to read. further action.
4................ CHORUS.............. Public Access Plan In moving ahead, we urge NSF NSF thanks you for
Miscellaneous to continue to maintain and your comment.
Comment. develop public-private
partnerships. Such efforts
will help the NSF contain
costs, reduce the burden on
researchers and their
institutions, and ensure
sustainable, broad public
access to scholarly
communication.
5................ CHORUS.............. Public Access Plan We are pleased to note that NSF thanks you for
Miscellaneous the Plan voices a strong your comment.
Comment. commitment to ongoing
consultation and
collaboration with the
diverse array of
stakeholders in the
scholarly communications
community. That commitment
has been evident in CHORUS'
discussions with NSF over
the past two years and we
look forward to continuing
to work with the NSF and
other stakeholders to
achieve our shared goal.
[[Page 50331]]
6................ CHORUS.............. Public Access Plan CHORUS is involved with a NSF thanks you for
Miscellaneous number of initiatives (the your comment.
Comment. CrossRef-DataCite Pilot,
SHARE, and the RDA-WDS
Publishing Data Services
Working Group, and
potentially, the RMap
Project, Dataverse,
Figshare, and Dryad) to
investigate tools and
services that support
researchers with their data
management plans and help
funding bodies with
compliance tracking. We
believe the need to develop
and evolve data standards is
critical. We therefore
strongly encourage NSF to
actively partner with some
or all of these
organizations, which are
already overseeing the
development of standards
that deploy existing tools
(e.g., DOIs, CrossRef's
FundRef, and ORCID).
7................ CHORUS.............. Public Access Plan CHORUS is very interested in NSF thanks you for
Miscellaneous working with NSF and other your comment.
Comment. funding agencies,
publishers, data archive
managers, and other
stakeholders on developing
mechanisms to connect
articles and related
datasets, for example, via
developing publishers'
systems to enable authors to
submit their data to an
appropriate archive and
simultaneously link this to
an article.
8................ COGR................ Preliminary The PI then forwards the NSF has always
Proposals Chapter proposal to the appropriate required
I.D.2. office at his/her certifications to
organization, and the be submitted by
Authorized Organizational the AOR. As such,
Representative (AOR) signs there is no change
and submits the preliminary to this policy.
proposal via use of NSF's
electronic systems. The
existing requirements do not
limit personnel to that of
only the AOR in providing
proposal certifications.
Given the volume of
proposals reviewed, we
request that the current
language remain.
9................ COGR................ Submission In submission of a proposal For consistency
Instructions for funding by the AOR, the with government-
Chapter I.G.2. AOR is required to provide wide requirements
certain proposal already
certifications. This established in
certification process will Grants.gov, NSF is
concur concurrently with the making a policy
submission of the proposal. change to require
The revision of this section certifications to
removes the ability to be submitted at
designate separate the time of
authorities to SRO's in proposal
FastLane for personnel other submission. This
than the AOR to submit also is consistent
certain certifications. with the policies
Additionally, it removes the established by the
current requirement to other 25 grant
provide the required AOR making agencies of
certifications within five the Federal
(5) working days following e- government.
submission of the proposal.
We request that the current
language remain as is which
allows more flexibility to
meet required deadlines and
reduces the burden of the
AOR and the ability to make
mistakes during peak
deadline times.
10............... COGR................ Proposal The AOR must use the For consistency
Certifications ``Authorized Organizational with government-
Chapter II.C.1d. Representative function'' in wide requirements
FastLane to sign and submit already
the proposal, including the established in
proposal certifications. It Grants.gov, NSF is
is the proposing making a policy
organization's change to require
responsibility to assure certifications to
that only properly be submitted at
authorized individuals sign the time of
in this capacity. We request proposal
that the current language submission. This
remain which makes clear also is consistent
that SRO's can be authorized with the policies
to electronically submit the established by the
proposal after review by the other 25 grant
AOR. making agencies of
the Federal
government.
11............... COGR................ Biographical A biographical sketch Language has been
Sketches Chapter (limited to two pages) is revised to clarify
II.C.2f(ii). required for each individual that biosketches
identified as senior for all personnel
personnel. ``Other must be uploaded
Personnel'' biographical in a single file
information can be uploaded as an other
along with the Biosketches supplementary
for Senior Personnel in the document.
Biosketches section of the
proposal. It is not clear
that whether biosketches for
non-senior personnel should
be uploaded with the
biosketches of the PI or
with other senior/key
personnel? Do the
instructions to upload or
insert individual
biosketches only apply to
senior/key personnel?
[[Page 50332]]
12............... COGR................ Current and Pending . . . All project support Language
Support Chapter from whatever source (e.g., incorporated.
II.C.2h. Federal, State, local or
foreign government agencies,
public or private
foundations, industrial or
other commercial
organization, or internal
institutional resources)
must be listed. The proposed
project and all other
projects or activities
requiring a portion of time
of the PI and other senior
personnel must be included,
even if they receive no
salary support from the
project(s). The total award
amount for the entire award
period covered (including
indirect costs) must be
shown as well as the number
of person-months per year to
be devoted to the project,
regardless of source of
support. While we recognize
that current and pending
support documentation has
long been a requirement of
NSF and other federal
agencies, requiring this
documentation at proposal
submission adds additional
administrative burden when
the likelihood of being
funded is unknown. We
therefore ask that only
those with favorable
scientific review outcomes
being considered for NSF
funding be asked to submit
current and pending support
information. Providing this
information post submission
or at the time that the
proposal has been selected
for funding also means that
the information will be more
current, benefitting both
NSF and the institution. In
addition, we recommend that
the request to have internal
institutional resources
identified, be limited to
internal funds allocated
toward specific projects.
This will eliminate the
unnecessary burden of
reporting routine new
faculty start-up packages
that may include general
equipment and space and/or
voluntary time and effort
dedicated toward another
project or endeavor. We are
further seeking confirmation
that an institution can
include zero (0) person
months in appropriate
situations who may commit to
contribute to the scientific
development or execution of
the project, but are not
committing any specific
measurable effort to the
project.
13............... COGR................ Dual Use Research Proposing organizations are NSF has removed the
of Concern Chapter responsible for identifying DURC checkbox from
II.D.14b. NSF-funded life sciences the Cover Sheet.
proposals that could Certification
potentially be considered language regarding
dual use research of concern DURC has been
as defined in the US added to the
Government Policy for listing of AOR
Institutional Oversight of certifications for
Life Sciences Dual Use compliance with
Research of Concern. If the government-wide
proposing organization requirements.
identifies the proposal as
dual use research of
concern, the associated box
must be checked on the Cover
Sheet. (See also AAG Chapter
VI.B.5 for additional
information.) We are
requesting clarity on the
use of identifying NSF-
funded life sciences that
could ``potentially'' be
considered dual use research
of concern as described
above vs the
``identification'' of DURC
as implied by the second
paragraph. We request that
the DURC determination be
consistent with the USG
Policy that requires
institutions to provide
notification to the USG
funding agency of any
research that involves one
or more of the 15 listed
agents and one or more of
the seven listed
experimental effects as
defined in Section 6.2 of
the USG Policy within thirty
(30) calendar days of the
institutional review of the
research for DURC potential.
14............... COGR................ Life Sciences Dual . . . NSF awards are not Language has been
Use Research of expected to result in revised for
Concern AAG, research that falls within compliance with
Chapter VI.B.5b. the scope of this Policy. government-wide
If, however, in conducting requirements.
the activities supported
under an award, the PI is
concerned that any of the
research results could
potentially be considered
Dual Use Research of Concern
under this Policy, the PI or
the grantee organization
should promptly notify the
cognizant NSF Program
Officer. See comments to
Chapter II. D.14(b) above.
15............... COGR................ Reporting Our membership has noted the Language has been
Requirements AAG, difference in reporting revised to change
Chapter II.D. dates between programmatic the due date of
reporting (90 days) and final reports and
financial reporting (120) project outcomes
days. We appreciate the reports to within
change NSF has made in the 120 days following
AAG to revise the financial the end date the
reporting from 90 days to award.
120 days but further request
your consideration to
reflect the same dates for
programmatic reporting. This
would allow institutions to
reconcile charges for
publications of its
subrecipients while giving
more time to incorporate the
programmatic results into
the prime recipients final
programmatic report.
[[Page 50333]]
16............... COGR................ Public Access Plan We appreciate the significant NSF thanks you for
AAG, Chapter efforts the NSF has made your comment.
VI.D.2. with the release of its
Public Access plan and its
recognition that managing
investigator research data
that result from Federal
investments is a major
challenge. We are grateful
that the NSF's plan will be
carried out in an
incremental fashion allowing
all stakeholder groups to
collaborate on this
important initiative. While
the challenges our members
will face to monitor and
manage various agency plans
will be rough, we do
appreciate NSF's continued
willingness to engage
stakeholder groups and
coordinate with other
Federal agencies to identify
infrastructure capabilities,
resolve outstanding and
shared concerns, and develop
best practices and
standards.
17............... Association of Public Access Plan. (1) Maintain commitment to 1. NSF thanks you
American Publishers/ proceed carefully, for your comment.
Division of incrementally, and in close 2. NSF thanks you
Professional and consultation with for your comment.
Scholarly stakeholders to avoid Comments have been
Publishing. unintended consequences (2) requested on NSF's
Ensure flexible approach to implementation of
managing unique discipline the Public Access
communities to sustain the requirement in the
quality, integrity, and PAPPG, and not on
availability of high-quality the Plan itself.
peer-reviewed articles 3. NSF thanks you
reporting on scientific for your comment.
research (3) Expand on Comments have been
opportunities to minimize requested on NSF's
administrative and implementation of
researcher burdens and costs the Public Access
by using flexible approaches requirement in the
and public-private PAPPG, and not on
partnerships (4) Keep the Plan itself.
flexible data requirements 4. NSF thanks you
that recognize the unique for your comment.
research practices of The NSF policy on
different fields, and data sharing and
encourage collaborative data management
private sector solutions plans remains
that minimize costs and unchanged. 5. NSF
burdens (5) Ensure adequate thanks you for
resources are available to your comment. The
support allowable costs for NSF policy on data
access to publications and sharing and data
data (6) Continue clear management plans
communication and engagement remains unchanged.
with scholarly community. 6. NSF thanks you
for your comment.
18............... University of When to Submit We are thankful for the Thank you for your
Wisconsin Madison. Proposals and consistency in the use of comment. No action
Format of the the 5 PM submitter's local required.
Proposal Chapter time deadline and proposal
I.F and Chapter formatting requirements.
II.B. Regardless of the
solicitation or the
directorate issuing the
solicitation, institutions
will know what to expect and
manage proposals
accordingly. Such
consistency reduces
administrative burden on
institutions and
investigators, and we are
grateful for that.
19............... University of Collaborators & We welcome the separation of Thank you for your
Wisconsin Madison. Other Affiliations the information on comment. No action
Chapter II.C.1e. collaborators and other required.
affiliations. Doing so makes
it easier to comply with the
biosketch page limit. This
also allows us to be more
thorough with collaborator
and other affiliation
information, especially for
those researchers who are
very active collaborators.
20............... University of Project Description That the Project Description Thank you for your
Wisconsin Madison. Chapter must not contain URLs and comment. No action
II.C.2d(iii). must be required.
self[hyphen]contained helps
create a level playing field
in that all proposers must
adhere to the same page
limits. We appreciate this
clarification and emphasis.
21............... University of Biographical When biosketches for Language has been
Wisconsin Madison. Sketches Chapter non[hyphen]senior personnel revised to clarify
II.C.2f(ii). will be included, should that biosketches
they be appended to the PI for all Other
or another senior/key Personnel and
person's biosketch? Does the Equipment Users
instruction to upload or must be uploaded
insert individual in a single file
biosketches only apply to as an other
senior/key personnel? supplementary
document.
[[Page 50334]]
22............... University of Current and Pending (1) The proposed requirement (1) COGR language
Wisconsin Madison. Support Chapter is that Current and Pending incorporated from
II.C.2h. Support include project comment #12. (2)
support from internal NSF recognizes
institutional resources. We that there may be
are seeking more clarity confusion
regarding this proposed regarding a PI's
requirement. A variety of or other senior
internal institutional personnel's
resources may be available responsibilities
to support an investigator. as it relates to
Internal institutional reporting on
resources may be awarded for projects where
a specific research project. there is funding,
In such cases, researchers but no time
have competed for resources commitment. NSF
to support a project with a plans to address
specific scope of work. this issue in a
Internal institutional future issuance of
resources may also be used the PAPPG. (3)
to support multiple Given the
projects. Resources may be significance of
made available in a variety this request, NSF
of ways, for example, will consider it
start[hyphen]up packages or in a future PAPPG.
fellowships that can be used
to support a faculty
member's research program as
a whole. Such funding may be
used at the discretion of
the researchers--to purchase
supplies or equipment, or to
help pay for personnel.
Another possible use of
internal institutional
resources would be to
support faculty salaries in
addition to or in lieu of
using a grant to pay for a
faculty member's time and
effort on a project. Given
the variety of ways in which
internal institutional
resources may be used, would
NSF be able to specify what
types of situations warrant
inclusion on a current and
pending support document?
(2) We are seeking
confirmation that a PI or
other senior personnel can
list zero person months on a
project. This may be
appropriate, depending on
the source of funding and
the purpose of the project,
e.g., an equipment grant.
That certain awards would
not require effort is
supported by OMB Memorandum
01[hyphen]06, which states
that ``some types of
research programs, such as
programs for equipment and
instrumentation, doctoral
dissertations, and student
augmentation, do not require
committed faculty effort,
paid or unpaid by the
Federal Government . . .''
(3) In lieu of requesting
that the Current and Pending
support information be
provided at the time of
proposal, NSF may wish to
consider asking for it to be
submitted only if an award
is being contemplated, a JIT
approach similar to NIH.
This approach might decrease
administrative burden for
the senior personnel and the
proposing organization as
well as for NSF and its
reviewers.
23............... University of Dual Use Research The language in the second ...................
Wisconsin Madison. of Concern Chapter paragraph of GPG Chapter
II.D.14b. II.D.14.b states that the
proposing organization is
responsible for identifying
proposals that could
``potentially be considered
dual use research of
concern'' [emphasis added].
But, the final paragraph in
this section indicates that
the proposing organization
must check the appropriate
box if it ``identifies the
proposal as dual use
research of concern''
[emphasis added]. There are
two issues with these
paragraphs. First, the final
paragraph implies
(intentionally or not) that
the proposing organization
has already made a judgment
whether or not the proposal
is DURC, whereas the second
paragraph does not. The two
paragraphs convey different
messages, but should convey
the same message. Second,
the likelihood that a
proposal would be identified
as DURC is small because the
chance that it would be put
before the Institutional
Review Entity (IRE) prior to
submission is small. Given
the administrative burden
associated with the review
for DURC and proposal
success rates, it is
possible that an
investigator may notify the
Institutional Review Entity
of the potential of DURC
only after a proposal is
awarded. If an IRE does not
make a determination prior
to proposal submission, then
the proposing organization
will not be able to identify
a proposal as DURC or check
the box on the Cover Sheet.
We would prefer that the
language in the final
paragraph convey the same
message as the language in
the second paragraph.
Another alternative,
consistent with USG policy,
is that NSF could simply be
notified in the event that
research has been reviewed
and the IRE has made a
determination whether or not
the research meets the
definition of DURC.
Consistency with the USG
policy may relieve
administrative burden.
24............... University of Dual Use Research The language in the AAG Language has been
Wisconsin Madison. of Concern AAG, states that the PI or revised for
Chapter VI.B.5. grantee organization should compliance with
promptly notify the NSF government-wide
Program Officer if ``any of requirements.
the research results could
potentially be considered
Dual Use Research of
Concern'' [emphasis added].
The United States Government
(USG) DURC policy requires
us to contact the USG
funding agency only after
the review of the research
has occurred and a
determination has been made.
The language in the AAG
suggests that NSF is
imposing a requirement which
may create an additional
burden and is not part of
the USG policy and
procedures.
[[Page 50335]]
25............... University of Project Reporting We note that the lack of Language has been
Wisconsin Madison. and Grant Closeout uniformity in deadlines revised to change
AAG, Chapter between programmatic reports the due date of
II.D.2, 3.5 and (90 day deadlines) and final reports and
Chapter III.E. financial reporting (120 project outcomes
days) may cause confusion. reports to within
We note that the lack of 120 days following
uniformity in deadlines the expiration of
across Federal agencies may the award.
cause confusion, as well.
Our recommendation would be
to harmonize these deadlines
as much as possible.
26............... University of Basic This chapter opens with a Thank you for your
Wisconsin Madison. Considerations AAG statement that comment. No action
Chapter V.A. ``expenditures . . . must required.
conform with NSF policies
where articulated in the
grant terms and conditions .
. .'' We appreciate the
addition of this language
and the comment that ``NSF
policies that have a post
award requirement are
implemented in the grant
terms and conditions.''
27............... University of Indirect Costs AAG, In the second paragraph of Noted and
Wisconsin Madison. Chapter V.D.1b. this section, ``de minimus'' corrected.
[sic] is misspelled.
28............... University of Public Access We understand the importance NSF thanks you for
Wisconsin Madison. Chapter VI.D.2c of the public access policy. your comment.
and VI.E. However, the administrative NSF's public
burden to comply with this access initiative
policy for two dozen is part of a US
separate agencies is government-wide
daunting. The requirements activity initiated
across the agencies differ by the Office of
in terms of what should be Science and
submitted, how compliance Technology Policy
will be monitored, and when (OSTP) that is
the implementation will consistent with
occur. Agencies also are NSF's primary
using a variety of mission of
repositories, which will promoting the
require institutions to progress of
learn new systems and science and
procedures. All of these helping to ensure
factors accumulate and the nation's
signify larger workloads. future prosperity.
Our institution, like Comments have been
others, has devoted requested on NSF's
significant time and implementation of
resources to learning how to the Public Access
use the PubMed Central requirement in the
system. We understand how it PAPPG, and not on
functions and have in-house the Plan itself.
expertise to help faculty
members with questions and
submissions. We encourage
NSF to consider allowing use
of an established, familiar
system such as PubMed
Central.
29............... Wiley & Sons........ Public Access...... See backup documentation for NSF thanks you for
additional details: (1) your comment.
Embargoes and Petitions (2) Comments have been
Implementation and requested on NSF's
Repositories (3) Digital implementation of
Data Sets. the Public Access
requirement in the
PAPPG, and not on
the Plan itself.
NSF describes its
approach to
requesting a
waiver to the 12-
month embargo (or
administrative
interval) in
Section 7.5.1 of
the Public Access
Plan (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15052 ey=nsf15052).
30............... CalTech............. NSF Grantee The discussion regarding Thank you for your
Relationships Cooperative Agreements and comment. No action
Introduction. D. the circumstances in which required.
they should be used is very
well written and quite
helpful. There are many
within the research
community, on both the
awarding and awardee sides,
who have not had a clear
understanding of the
purposes of the Cooperative
Agreement and the ways in
which Cooperative Agreements
differ from Grants and
Contracts. This discussion
will be very useful,
particularly when working
with the Audit community.
31............... CalTech............. Preliminary We are very supportive of Thank you for your
Proposals Chapter your decision to require comment. No action
I.D.2. that preliminary proposals required.
be submitted through the
Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR). It is
extremely helpful for the
central research
administration office to
become aware of the interest
of a PI in submitting a
proposal for a specific NSF
program at the earliest
possible time. By requiring
the preliminary proposal to
go through the AOR, we can
become aware of potential
issues that must be
addressed internally before
the full proposal is due.
32............... CalTech............. Voluntary Committed We are very well aware of Thank you for your
Cost Sharing NSF's position on Voluntary comment. No action
Chapter Committed Cost Sharing: It required.
II.C.2g(xi). is not allowed unless it is
an eligibility requirement
that is clearly identified
in the solicitation.
Nevertheless, we also
realize that there may be
instances when investigators
insist on the need to
include voluntary committed
cost sharing in their
proposals. You have now
provided a mechanism whereby
that can be done, while
staying within the overall
NSF policy on voluntary
committed cost sharing. The
requirement not to include
voluntary committed cost
sharing in the budget or
budget justification is very
clear and will be easy to
follow. Declaring that these
resources will not be
auditable by NSF will also
make things easier for the
post-award financial
administration of the
resulting grant.
33............... CalTech............. Conference The additional information on Thank you for your
Proposals Chapter allowable costs associated comment. No action
II.D.9. with Conference Proposals is required.
helpful because it removes
the ambiguity surrounding
potentially allowable or not
allowable costs in
connection with conference
grants. Clarity on this
topic, particularly with
regard to food and beverage
costs associated with
intramural meetings, is
appreciated. It will make It
easier for everyone,
investigators, departmental
research administrators, and
post-award financial staff
to understand when such
costs are not allowed.
[[Page 50336]]
34............... CalTech............. Long Term NSF's adoption of the Thank you for your
Disengagement of language in the Uniform comment. No action
the PIAAG, Chapter Guidance on the long term required.
II.B.2a. disengagement of the PI will
be of great assistance to
investigators and research
administrators, alike. When
Federal agencies adopt
uniform practices with
regard to situations such as
the absence or disengagement
of Pies, it makes it easier
for everyone involved to
understand and follow the
requirements. The notion of
``disengagement is a
reflection of the
significant changes that
have occurred as a result of
modern communications
technology. It is a reality
that we live with and the
use of ``disengagement as a
criterion for having to
notify and involve the
sponsor will reduce some of
the administrative burdens
associated with post-award
administration.
35............... CalTech............. Project Reporting We would appreciate your Language has been
AAG, Chapter consideration of making revised to change
II.D.3. these reports due 120 days the due date of
after the end of the award, final reports and
rather than the 90 day time project outcomes
period in the draft PAPPG. reports to within
This would bring the 120 days following
reporting and closeout the expiration of
requirements associated with the award.
the technical aspects of the
grant in line with the
reporting and closeout
requirements associated with
the financial aspects of the
grant: 120 days after the
end date of the award.
36............... CalTech............. Grant Closeout AAG, NSF's adoption of the Thank you for your
Chapter II.D.5. requirement for the closeout comment. No action
process to be completed required.
within 120 days after the
end of the project is
greatly appreciated. Despite
our best efforts, we have
long had difficulty with the
90 day requirement for
financial closeout,
particularly when our award
includes subawards. Giving
us an added 30 days to
complete this task should
reduce the number of late
closeouts and also reduce
the instances when revised
closeout activities are
required. We hope that other
Federal agencies will join
NSF and NIH in recognizing
the benefits of providing a
more reasonable amount of
time to complete the
closeout process.
37............... CalTech............. Informal Resolution The revision of this section Thank you for your
of Grant is appreciated. Although the comment. No action
Administrative use of this procedure is required.
Disputes AAG, extremely rare, it is
Chapter VII.B. helpful if everyone can be
clear on just how the
process is supposed to work.
This should save time and
aggravation when it is
necessary to resolve
administrative disputes.
38............... Cold Spring Harbor Current and Pending We encourage the NSF to seize (1) Given the
Laboratory. Support Chapter the opportunity to lessen significance of
II.C.2h. the administrative burden this request, NSF
for investigators and will consider it
institutions by not having in a future PAPPG.
them submit current and (2) COGR language
pending support at the time incorporated from
of proposal submission. Only comment #12.
those with favorable
scientific review outcomes
being considered for NSF
funding should be asked to
submit current and pending
support information. This
information will be more up
to date if acquired later in
the application process. In
addition, we recommend that
the requirement to have
internal institutional
resources identified, be
eliminated. This will remove
the unnecessary burden of
reporting routine new
faculty start-up packages
that may include general
equipment, facilities and/or
voluntary time and effort
not dedicated toward a
specific project or
endeavor. The trend for
Federal research funding
agencies seems to be toward
determining how much
unrestricted support
investigators may have
available so that this
information can potentially
be used to sway funding
decisions and final award
budgets. With stagnant and
decreasing federal research
funding, additional
institutional support for
investigators and
postdoctoral fellows is
essential in order to help
their research continue and
make ends meet. We strongly
encourage the NSF to break
with this trend that puts
investigators and
institutions in a vicious
circle in which their
efforts to help support and
sustain research may
negatively impact their
ability to secure Federal
research funding. We urge
the NSF to modify the
proposed PAPPG text
accordingly to eliminate the
requirement to report
internal institutional
resources.
[[Page 50337]]
39............... American Society of Public Access...... ASCE is primarily concerned NSF thanks you for
Civil Engineers. that the plan calls for a 12- your comment.
month embargo, which would Comments have been
seriously impact the ability requested on NSF's
of ASCE to recover our cost. implementation of
Compared to many areas of the Public Access
science and technology, requirement in the
civil engineering research PAPPG, and not on
moves at a more sedate rate. the Plan itself.
As such, civil engineering NSF describes its
journals remain ``fresh'' approach to
for a longer period, selling requesting a
over a longer period, and waiver to the 12-
taking a correspondingly month embargo (or
longer time for ASCE to re- administrative
coop our cost. ASCE believes interval) in
that a 12-month embargo Section 7.5.1 of
would impede ASCE's ability the Public Access
to continue to produce the Plan (https://
high-quality journals that www.nsf.gov/
we currently do. The NSF publications/
plan includes conference pub_summ.jsp?ods_k
proceedings, which many ey=nsf15052).
times are expanded and
published as journal
articles. Again, this leads
to duplicate versions of
results. Once again, thank
you for the opportunity for
ASCE to comment on the
proposed Policies and
Guidelines. ASCE, like other
engineering and scientific
societies, fulfills its role
in the advancement of
engineering by determining
through the peer review
process what is worthy of
publication. While
supporting open access, we
must be careful not to lose
the ``value-added'' by peer
review is what sets apart
top-flight research from
mediocre work.
40............... UC Riverside, Bourns Preliminary The change requiring It is vital that an
College of Proposals Chapter submission of pre-proposals institution be
Engineering. I.D.2. by the authorized aware of
representative adds some commitments being
burden to the proposer, and made in a
thus partially defeats the preliminary
purpose of reducing proposal. As such,
unnecessary effort. AOR submission
will be beneficial
to the submitting
organization.
41............... UC Riverside, Bourns Format Chapter Removing guidance information NSF has added.
College of II.B.. from the GPG is a very bad
Engineering. idea. Instead of
streamlining the content,
this would create an
incomplete set of
instructions. We need all of
the guidance in one place
for two reasons: (1) Not
everyone involved with the
proposal necessarily will be
working in Fastlane, and (2)
considerable work is done
before upload, and finding
unexpected instructions in
Fastlane could create
emergencies. Please don't
let NSF become NIH, where
the answer to every question
is six links and four
obsolete documents away. Put
all of the instructions
where we can find them.
42............... UC Riverside, Bourns Format Chapter You should consider updating Minor changes.
College of II.B.1. the formatting requirements.
Engineering. The fonts you identify were
selected years (decades?)
ago, and are optimized for
print. All proposal
submission and most proposal
review now takes place on
the screen, so you should
consider allowing fonts that
are optimized for the
screen. These might include
Calibri and Cambria. The
standards regarding lines
per inch and characters per
line should be deleted;
specifying font size and
single-spacing should be
sufficient. When a proposal
is converted from, say, Word
to PDF, it shrinks slightly.
Moreover, since Fastlane
distills Word documents and
redistills PDFs, the
proposer has no actual
control over the final PDF
version. This rule makes the
proposer responsible for
something that is ultimately
out of his/her control.
43............... UC Riverside, Bourns Collaborators & This will be an excellent Thank you for your
College of Other Affiliations change if implemented comment. NSF will
Engineering. Chapter II.C.1e. properly. I would strongly explore the
recommend specifying an NSF- viability of such
wide format for this a suggestion.
information. Our experience
has been that even within an
individual directorate
(CISE), the requirements for
this list vary. Today, a
list produced for one
proposal might require
significant reformatting for
the next proposal. It would
be nice to eliminate the
need for this extra work.
44............... UC Riverside, Bourns Cover Sheet Chapter Even though Fastlane is being Thank you for your
College of II.C.2a. phased out, three changes to suggestion,
Engineering. the cover page would be however upgrades
nice: 1. Improve the to FastLane are
Performance Site page not feasible at
programming. Often, each this time. 3)
line must be entered and Clarifying
saved before the next line language has been
can be entered. Ideally, you added.
could pre-populate this with
information on the
institution. 2. Make it
possible to go to the
remainder of the cover page
before the first section is
completed. 3. Add a legend
indicating that the
Beginning Investigator box
is for BIO proposals only.
45............... UC Riverside, Bourns Project Summary This is a good place to point Thank you for your
College of Chapter II.C.2b. out sloppy language comments.
Engineering. throughout the GPG. If you
want the project description
written in the third person,
instruct us to do that. The
words ``must'' and
``should'' do not mean the
same thing, and here you say
``should.'' The word
``should'' appears 265 times
in this document. How many
of those times do you really
mean ``must'' or ``shall''?
Statements like the
following are of no value
whatsoever: ``Additional
instructions for preparation
of the Project Summary are
available in FastLane.''
What instructions? Where? If
I don't track them down,
will I be in danger of
submitting a non-compliant
proposal?
46............... UC Riverside, Bourns Content Chapter What does ``relation to Language has been
College of II.C.2d(i). longer-term goals of the revised.
Engineering. PI's project'' mean? What is
the PI's project? It is not
this proposed project,
because then you would be
asking how this proposal
relates to this proposal.
[[Page 50338]]
47............... UC Riverside, Bourns Project Description The prohibition on URLs seems Thank you for your
College of Chapter extreme, and it is a step in comments.
Engineering. II.C.2d(ii). the wrong direction. As you
point out, the reviewers are
under no obligation to look
at them, so no harm is done
in including them.
48............... UC Riverside, Bourns Results from Prior This should be eliminated Project reports are
College of NSF Support from NSF proposals. The not publicly
Engineering. Chapter program officer (and, available and
II.C.2d(iii). indeed, the public) already therefore is
has access to all of this essential
information via project information for
reports. A more effective use by the
use of space, time, and reviewer in
energy would be to invite assessing the
the proposer to describe how proposal.
this proposed project
relates to prior or
concurrent work.
49............... UC Riverside, Bourns References Cited Since URLs are prohibited in GPG Chapter
College of Chapter II.C.2e. the project description, it II.C.2.d(iii)(d)
Engineering. is likely that some URLs (to already specifies
examples of outreach that a complete
projects, for example) will bibliographic
end up in the References citation for each
Cited list. Now we are at publication must
risk of disqualification be provided in
since a URL does not contain either the
all of the items each References Cited
citation must have. section or the
Results from Prior
NSF Support
section of the
proposal, to avoid
duplication.
50............... UC Riverside, Bourns Biographical We would strongly recommend (1) Upon review of
College of Sketches Chapter that NSF provide a template this comment, NSF
Engineering. II.C.2f(ii). for the entire biographical cannot validate
sketch. This will leave no the reviewer
question as to what can be comment, as the
included and what cannot. instructions in
The instructions have a list that section do
of information that can't be not contain a list
included, but this is not of information not
exhaustive. What about to include. (2)
honors and awards, for Language has been
example? If a bio sketch revised to clarify
contains everything that biosketches
required, in the order for all personnel
specified, plus a section on must be uploaded
honors and awards, is it separately.
compliant or not? Today, the
answer varies from program
officer to program officer.
As noted earlier, the
elimination of the conflict
list from the bio sketch is
an excellent decision. The
instructions on Other
Personnel and the notation
that biographical sketches
cannot be uploaded as a
group appear to be at odds.
If someone is an Other
Person rather than an Other
Senior Person, how will it
be possible to upload a
biographical sketch?
51............... UC Riverside, Bourns Equipment Chapter The term information 2 CFR 200 (Uniform
College of II.C.2g(iii). technology systems should be Guidance) does not
Engineering. defined, especially since define information
NSF funds research on technology, and as
information technology such NSF is
systems. consistent with
government-wide
requirements.
52............... UC Riverside, Bourns Special Information/ This is a good change, but it Instructions have
College of International belongs in the instructions been added to the
Engineering. Conferences for the Cover Page, not the Cover Sheet
Chapter II.C.2j. instructions for the section.
supplementary documents.
53............... UC Riverside, Bourns Collaborative A definition of ``within a Noted.
College of Proposals Chapter reasonable timeframe'' would
Engineering. II.D.5. be helpful.
54............... UC Riverside, Bourns Conference Grants The language ``may be Comment
College of Chapter II.D.9. appropriate or not incorporated.
Engineering. appropriate'' is wishy-
washy. Why not just say
allowable and unallowable?
55............... University of Participant Support Are we to interpret the (1) Yes. (2) NSF
Virginia. Costs Chapter definition this way, deliberately
II.C.2g. removing the ``such as'' so revised the
as to broaden the definition definition of
beyond the examples participant
mentioned?: ``Participant support for
support costs means direct consistency with
costs for items in the Uniform
connection with conferences, Guidance.
or training projects.'' Significant
Previous guidance from NSF clarity has been
included the ``such as'' added in the
examples mentioned as well conferences
as ``and other costs related section to
to conferences and highlight the
meetings'' but the new types of costs
guidance removes that ``and that may be
other costs'' part and appropriate for
appears to limit PSC to the inclusion in a
items used as examples. I am conference budget,
asking because conferences of which
can include other costs such participant
as venue rental, poster support is one.
supplies, etc. that aren't
part of what is listed after
``such as'' and we are
trying to determine what
part of a conference should
be considered PSC and which
parts should not. Any idea
how we should interpret the
new definition?
56............... Inside Public Access Public Access...... Statutory authority for the NSF thanks you for
collection may also be an your comment.
issue because there is no NSF's public
clear authority given by access initiative
Congress for the US Public is part of a US
Access program. It was government-wide
created by an Executive activity initiated
Branch memo. NSF needs to by the Office of
address this issue. (1) The Science and
strangeness of the NSF Technology Policy
request. What is strange is (OSTP) that is
that the collection of consistent with
articles under Public Access NSF's primary
has nothing to do with the mission of
proposal and award process, promoting the
which is the subject of the progress of
PAPPG. (2) The burden of science and
mandatory data sharing. (3) helping to ensure
The issue of burden the nation's
estimating. (4) Vague future prosperity.
requirements create NSF has formally
complexity. implemented its
Public Access
requirement in the
PAPPG. Comments
have been
requested on NSF's
implementation of
the Public Access
requirement in the
PAPPG and not on
the plan itself.
The NSF policy on
data sharing and
data management
plans remains
unchanged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50339]]
Title of Collection: ``National Science Foundation Proposal & Award
Policies & Procedures Guide. ``
OMB Approval Number: 3145-0058.
Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an
information collection for three years.
Proposed Project: The National Science Foundation Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-507) sets 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.
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 six
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 50,000 proposals
annually for new projects, and makes approximately 11,000 new awards.
Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other
agreements awarded to approximately 2,000 colleges, universities,
academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The
awards are based mainly on merit evaluations of proposals 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
It has been estimated that the public expends an average of
approximately 120 burden hours for each proposal submitted. Since the
Foundation expects to receive approximately 51,700 proposals in FY
2016, an estimated 6,204,000 burden hours will be placed on the public.
The Foundation has based its reporting burden on the review of
approximately 51,700 new proposals expected during FY 2016. It has been
estimated that anywhere from one hour to 20 hours may be required to
review a proposal. We have estimated that approximately 5 hours are
required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an
average of 3 reviews, resulting in approximately 775,500 burden hours
each year.
The information collected on the reviewer background questionnaire
(NSF 428A) is used by managers to maintain an automated database of
reviewers for the many disciplines represented by the proposals
submitted to the Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, and
ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to
Congressional and other queries into equity issues. These data also are
used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to
increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering,
and education. The estimated burden for the Reviewer Background
Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at 5 minutes per respondent with up
to 10,000 potential new reviewers for a total of 833 hours.
The aggregate number of burden hours is estimated to be 6,980,333.
The actual burden on respondents has not changed.
Dated: August 13, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015-20365 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
