Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, 52467-52478 [2016-18758]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Estimated Burden Hours per
Response: 0.5.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1,890 burden hours.
Request for Comments: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record. The
public is invited to submit comments
concerning: (a) Whether the collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the function of
the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of the
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board,
the National Credit Union Administration, on
August 3, 2016.
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Troy S. Hillier,
NCUA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–18750 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535–01–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
SUMMARY:
No.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
1.
Comment
source
Penn State
University.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.
This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 81 FR 30348, and 50
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
Topic & PAPPG Section
Introduction, Section
A.
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
52467
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 16, 2016,
at 81 FR 30348, NSF received 50
comments from eight different
institutions/individuals; 36 comments
were in response to the Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide,
Part I, and 14 were in response to the
Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide, Part II. Following is
the table showing the summaries of the
comments received on the PAPPG
sections, with NSF’s response.
Comment
NSF Response
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for
special assistance or equipment to enable
persons with disabilities to work on NSFsupported projects. See Chapter II.E.7 for
instructions regarding preparation of these
types of proposals. We believe the above
should reference Chapter II. E. 6.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for
special assistance or equipment to enable
persons with disabilities to work on NSFsupported projects. See Chapter II.E.7 for
instructions regarding preparation of these
types of proposals. We believe the above
should reference Chapter II. E. 6.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52468
No.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
NSF Response
Part II of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies
& Procedures Guide sets forth NSF policies
regarding the award, and administration,
and monitoring of grants and cooperative
agreements. Coverage includes the NSF
award process, from issuance and administration of an NSF award through closeout.
Guidance regarding other grant requirements or considerations that either is not
universally applicable or which do not follow
the award cycle also is provided. Part II also
implements other Public Laws, Executive
Orders (E.O.) and other directives insofar as
they apply to grants, and is issued pursuant
to the authority of Section 11(a) of the NSF
Act (42 USC § 1870). When NSF Grant
General Conditions or an award notice reference a particular section of the PAPPG,
then that section becomes part of the award
requirements through incorporation by reference. If the intent of this edit is to incorporate NSF FAQ’s in the award terms and
conditions, we would recommend further
clarification to spell this out in greater detail.
We propose an overall change to the LOI
process (for the purpose/sake of consistency), to make all LOI submission’s mandatory from an AOR (not the PI).
Recommend an inclusion statement to address Universities and Colleges with multicampus locations and academic focus. ie.
Main campus as PhD awarding institution,
while branch campus as PUI. This clarification would be useful for program solicitations
with submission limitations.
It is not NSF’s intent to incorporate NSF FAQs
into the award terms and conditions. OMB
has stated that their FAQs on 2 CFR § 200
have the full force and effect of the Uniform
Guidance, but this has no impact on the
PAPPG.
Penn State
University.
Introduction, Section
B.
3.
Penn State
University.
Letter of Intent,
Chapter I.D.1.
4.
Penn State
University.
Who May Submit
Proposals, Chapter
I.E.1 (Universities
and Colleges).
5.
Penn State
University.
When to Submit Proposals, Chapter I.F
(Special Exceptions).
Include guidance that the name of the NSF
Program Officer that granted the special exception to the deadline date policy. Either
with a new fill in the blank box on the NSF
Cover Sheet or as a Single Copy Documents in FastLane.
6.
Penn State
University.
Format of the Proposal, Chapter II.B.
7.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
2.
Penn State
University.
Collaborators & Other
Affiliations Information, Chapter
II.C.1.e.
8.
Penn State
University.
9.
Penn State
University.
Sections of the Proposal, Chapter
II.C.2.
Cover Sheet, Chapter
II.C.2.a.
We believe references 6–10 need to be updated as follows: 9. Center Proposal (see
Chapter II.E.10 and relevant funding opportunity); 10. Major Research Equipment and
Facility Construction Proposal (see Chapter
II.E.11 and relevant funding opportunity).
Please add that this section must be alphabetical order by last name. In general, it should
be clarified if this list should be set up much
like the templates provided by NSF (columns), or if a running list like the biosketch
format is acceptable. Our hope is that one
day the file upload can be an excel sheet
template that lists this information and becomes sortable for NSF.
Please add ‘‘k. Single Copy Documents—Collaborators & Other Affiliations.’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Please add clarification that the title is limited
to 180 characters, per the FastLane system.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Given the variance in the types of proposals
that use the LOI mechanism, a change in
this process would not be appropriate.
While there is a standard definition of what
constitutes a college or university, the
PAPPG is indeed silent on how multi-campus locations should be addressed. Various
NSF program solicitations do address this
issue and vary according to programmatic
intent regarding how such satellite campuses should be treated. As such, a statement in the PAPPG would not be able to
capture these variances. The PAPPG however does address the vast majority of the
programs at NSF. For those programs that
limit such eligibility, there are definitions provided in the applicable Program Solicitation.
Thank you for your comment. The PAPPG
states that if written approval is available, it
should be uploaded. The email should contain the name of the cognizant Program Officer, so an additional space for this information on the Cover Sheet is not necessary.
Additional guidance, however, regarding this
process has been provided.
References were accurate, as stated.
Instructions to order the list alphabetically by
last name have been included. No format for
the list is specified in the PAPPG, although
some programs may specify a specific format in the applicable program solicitation.
Comment incorporated.
Part I of the PAPPG provides policy and procedural guidance for preparation of proposals. Issues such as field length should
be articulated in the relevant NSF system.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
No.
Comment
source
Penn State
University.
11.
Penn State
University.
12.
Penn State
University.
13.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
10.
Penn State
University.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
Project Summary,
Chapter II.C.2.b.
NSF Response
‘‘Each proposal must contain a summary of
the proposed project not more than one
page in length.’’ This requirement is not just
one page in length BUT 4,600 characters.
Please clarify that the on-line text boxes
only permit this count.
Cover Sheet, Chapter If the proposal includes use of vertebrate aniII.C.2.a (Footnotes).
mals, supplemental information is required.
See GPG Chapter II.D.7 for additional information. If the proposal includes use of
human subjects, supplemental information is
required. See GPG Chapter II.D.8 for additional information. We believe the above
should reference Chapter II. D. 4 and Chapter II.D.5.
References Cited,
We request clarification be added for refChapter II.C.2.e.
erences of large collaborative group, i.e.
CREAM and ICE CUBE. There are hundreds of authors and collaborators to list.
Should these be listed in their entirety or are
et. al’s acceptable? Should a full list be
loaded into supplemental documents or single documents?
Senior Personnel Sal- As a general policy, NSF limits the salary
aries and Wages,
compensation requested in the proposal
Chapter
budget for senior personnel to no more than
II.C.2.g.(i)(a).
two months of their regular salary in any
one year. This limit includes salary compensation received from all NSF-funded
grants. This effort must be documented in
accordance with 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E. If
anticipated, any compensation for such personnel in excess of two months must be disclosed in the proposal budget, justified in
the budget justification, and must be specifically approved by NSF in the award notice
budget.12 Under normal rebudgeting authority, as described in Chapters VII and X, a
recipient can internally approve an increase
or decrease in person months devoted to
the project after an award is made, even if
doing so results in salary support for senior
personnel exceeding the two month salary
policy. No prior approval from NSF is necessary as long as that change would not
cause the objectives or scope of the project
to change. NSF prior approval is necessary
if the objectives or scope of the project
change. We ask that the 2 month rule described above be removed from the proposal budget requirements. Given that rebudgeting authority can allow for internal approvals of increased or decreases, we do
not understand why this requirement is still
part of the NSF PAPPG.
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52469
This was a known defect in FastLane that has
now been addressed. The Project Summary
is limited to 1 page as stated in the PAPPG.
References were accurate, as stated.
Thank you for your comment. The norms of
the discipline should be followed when preparing the References Cited. Given that
each discipline may have different practices,
it is not appropriate to include additional instructions in this section.
NSF concurs with the portion of the comment
regarding the ability to rebudget. However,
this policy relates to budgeting salary for
senior personnel in both the budget preparation and award phases of the process. NSF
plans to maintain its long-standing policy regarding senior personnel salaries and
wages in these phases of the process, reflecting the assistance relationship between
NSF and grantee institutions.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52470
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
NSF Response
14.
Penn State
University.
Participant Support
(Line F on the Proposal Budget),
Chapter II.C.2.g.(v).
Reference should be Chapter II.E.7. Comment
incorporated.
15.
Penn State
University.
Voluntary Committed
and Uncommitted
Cost Sharing,
Chapter
II.C.2.g.(xii).
This budget category refers to direct costs for
items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration
fees paid to or on behalf of participants or
trainees (but not employees) in connection
with NSF-sponsored conferences or training
projects. Any additional categories of participant support costs other than those described in 2 CFR § 200.75 (such as incentives, gifts, souvenirs, t-shirts and memorabilia), must be justified in the budget justification, and such costs will be closely
scrutinized by NSF. (See also GPG Chapter
II.E.10D.9) For some educational projects
conducted at local school districts, however,
the participants being trained are employees. In such cases, the costs must be classified as participant support if payment is
made through a stipend or training allowance method. The school district must have
an accounting mechanism in place (i.e.,
sub-account code) to differentiate between
regular salary and stipend payments. We
believe the above should reference is pointing to the incorrect area but we’re not sure
what reference to suggest in its place.
While voluntary uncommitted costs share is
not auditable by NSF, if included in the Facilities and Other Resources section of a
proposal, will it be REVIEWABLE by NSF
and external reviews? Our concern is that
this sort of institutional contribution will still
impact reviewers and application that are
selected.
16.
Penn State
University.
Collaborative Proposals, Chapter
II.D.3.
17.
Penn State
University.
GOALI, Chapter
II.E.4.b.
18.
Penn State
University.
Conference Proposals, Chapter
II.E.7.
19.
Penn State
University.
Travel Proposals,
Chapter II.E.9.
20.
Penn State
University.
Proposal Preparation
Checklist, Exhibit
II–1 (Project Description).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Table of Documents for Lead and Non-Lead
Organization documents: Please add the
Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
under each Organizations column. This will
clarify where it belongs in a Collaborative
proposal.
We believe the sentence should read: ‘‘Supplemental funding to add GOALI elements to
a currently funded NSF research project
should be submitted by using the ‘‘Supplemental Funding Request’’ function in
FastLane.’’.
We believe the sentence should read: ‘‘A conference proposal will be supported only if
equivalent results cannot be obtained by attendance at regular meetings of professional
societies. Although requests for support of a
conference proposal ordinarily originates
with educational institutions or scientific and
engineering societies, they also may come
from other groups.’’.
We believe the sentence should read: ‘‘A proposal for travel, either domestic and/or international, support for participation in scientific
and engineering meetings are handled by
the NSF organization unit with program responsibility for the area of interest.’’.
We believe the sentence should read: ‘‘Results from Prior NSF Support have been
provided for PIs and co-PIs who have received NSF support within the last five
years. Results related to Intellectual Merit
and Broader Impacts are described under
two separate, distinct headings and are limited to five pages of the project description.’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A description of the resources provided in the
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
document are reviewable, however, per NSF
instructions, these resources should not be
quantified. A reviewer needs to be able to
assess all resources available to the project
in order to consider whether sufficient resources are available to carry out the project
as proposed. NSF’s cost sharing policy was
not directed at voluntary uncommitted cost
sharing.
Comment incorporated.
Comment incorporated.
Comment incorporated.
Comment incorporated.
Comment incorporated.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
52471
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
NSF Response
21.
Cal Tech .........
Senior Personnel Salaries and Wages,
Chapter
II.C.2.g.(i)(a).
Cal Tech .........
23.
Cal Tech .........
Voluntary Committed
and Uncommitted
Cost Sharing,
Chapter
II.C.2.g.(xii).
High Performance
Computing, Chapter II.D.7.
The PAPPG states that ‘‘NSF limits the salary
compensation requested in the proposal
budget for senior personnel to no more than
two months of their regular salary in any
one year.’’ (emphasis added). The policy is
very clear that the focus is on compensation
requested, and not on salary expenditures.
We agree with and are supportive of that
distinction. Our concern here is largely a
mechanical one. When we submit a proposal to NSF, how should we determine
whether the amount of salary support being
requested is ‘‘more than two months of their
regular salary in any one year?’’ The answer
is very simple if we are dealing with an investigator who has only one NSF grant. It
gets much more complicated for investigators with multiple NSF grants, with widely
overlapping performance periods. Should we
be looking at currently active NSF awards
and trying to determine that if the current
proposal is funded, will there be a one-year
period in which the amount of salary requested will exceed two months of salary?
Should we look at currently funded NSF proposals or also take into account pending
proposals, as well? We are seeking guidance in the PAPPG that provides some concrete steps to be followed to meet the policy
requirement. In the absence of this guidance, we are never quite sure if the approach we are taking is or is not consistent
with the policy.
The discussion of voluntary committed and uncommitted cost sharing is very clear. The revisions to this section of the PAPPG have
definitely improved the clarity.
Much like guidance contained in the Uniform
Guidance, NSF policies are written to allow
awardees maximum flexibility in the development of their internal controls to ensure
compliance with NSF and federal requirements. As a result the NSF policy on senior
personnel salaries and wages requires
awardees to determine for themselves the
best approach for ensuring compliance.
22.
Cal Tech .........
Indirect Costs, NSF
Policy, Chapter
X.D.1.
25.
University of
Louisiana at
Lafayette.
Definitions of Categories of Personnel, Exhibit II–7.
The information in this section is helpful for investigators who require high-performance
computing resources, etc. It is good that the
PAPPG has identified specific facilities that
can provide advanced computational and
data resources.
The statement that continuing increments and
supplements will be funded using the negotiated indirect cost rate in effect at the time
of the initial award is improved over the previous edition of the PAPPG. That clarity is
very helpful and should reduce any confusion or misunderstanding about the intentions of NSF in these situations.
Our office has reviewed the proposed changes
to the PAPPG and all seem to add clarity
and better organization to the document. We
do have a comment regarding Section II–61:
Definition of senior personnel Faculty Associate (Faculty member) (or equivalent): Defined as an individual other than the Principal Investigator considered by the performing institution to be a member of its
Faculty (or equivalent) or who holds an appointment as a Faculty member at another
institution and who will participate in the
project being supported. We recommend
adding ‘or equivalent’ to the definition (see
red text above) for clarity, since certain Center staff across our campus are not Faculty
members but are eligible to submit proposals.
Thank you for your comment.
24.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thank you for your comment.
Thank you for your comment.
Comment incorporated.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52472
No.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
University of
Arkansas at
Little Rock.
NSF–NIH/OLAW
MOU.
27.
Kansas State
University.
Project Summary,
Chapter II.C.2.b.
28.
Cornell University.
Cancelling Appropriations, Chapter
VIII.E.6.
29.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
26.
Boise State
University.
Collaborators & Other
Affiliations Information, Chapter
II.C.1.e.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comment
NSF Response
Relevant to the complications posed by the
NSF–NIH/OLAW MOU regarding animal
oversight, the latest revision of the Guidelines of the American Society of
Mammologists for the use of wild mammals
in research and education has just been
published and is available at https://
www.mammalsociety.org/uploads/committee_files/CurrentGuidelines.pdf. This document does a good job of explaining the
enormous gulf that exists between effective
and appropriate oversight of activities involving wild vertebrates and those using typical
laboratory animals. Additionally, the ASM
and Oxford University Press have collaborated on and are advertising a collection of
papers that address these same concerns.
That collection is available at https://
jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/page/Guidelines.
The GPG really needs to be updated with the
same information that is contained in
FastLane on the Project Summary instructions. Specifically, the GPG doesn’t tell the
faculty the 4600 character limit.
Thanks for making the draft FY17 PAPPG
available. I noted the additional clarity surrounding cancelled funds, and appreciate
things being made clearer. My understanding—but please correct me if I am
wrong—is that the period of performance
can never go beyond the life of the underlying appropriation. The question has been
raised as to how one knows what year’s
funds were used for an award, and whether
FASTLANE or other mechanisms will prevent a grantee-approved NCE that goes beyond the appropriation’s life.
NSF currently requires ‘‘Collaborators & Other
Affiliations’’ as a single-copy document. It is
not unusual for specific RFPs to require a
second collaborators document in various
formats. This is a time-consuming process
for what is essentially duplicate information.
My comment/request is that NSF have a
single ‘‘Collaborators & Other Affiliations’’
document that is in the same format for all
RFPs.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Updated link has been incorporated.
This was a known defect in FastLane that has
now been addressed. The Project Summary
is limited to 1 page as stated in the PAPPG.
Your understanding is accurate. FastLane or
other mechanisms will prevent an NCE that
goes beyond the appropriation’s life.
Additional scrutiny will be given in the review
of NSF Program Solicitations to ensure that:
(1) Any requirements that are supplemental
to the COI requirements specified in the
PAPPG receive an additional level of review; and (2) that the COI information is
provided only once in a given proposal.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment
source
30.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Introduction, Section
B.
31.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Introduction, Section
B.
32.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Special Exceptions to
NSF’s Deadline
Date Policy, Chapter I.F.2.
33.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Contingency and
Management Fees,
Chapter II.
34.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Senior Personnel Salaries and Wages,
Chapter
II.C.2.g.(i)(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Topic & PAPPG Section
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
52473
Comment
NSF Response
‘‘When NSF Grant General Conditions or an
award notice reference a particular section
of the PAPPG, then that section becomes
part of the award requirements through incorporation by reference.’’ This sentence is
confusing in light of the preceding sentences, which state, ‘‘Part II of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide
sets forth NSF policies regarding the award,
administration, and monitoring of grants and
cooperative agreements. Coverage includes
the NSF award process, from issuance and
administration of an NSF award through
closeout. Guidance regarding other grant requirements or considerations that either is
not universally applicable or which do not
follow the award cycle also is provided.’’
NSF General Grant Conditions require recipients to comply with NSF policies (NSF
General Grant Conditions, Article 1.d.2),
which are set forth in this document. The
sentence in question could wrongly lead one
to believe that only sections of the PAPPG
specifically mentioned in award terms and
conditions need to be followed. We strongly
suggest that this sentence be removed.
‘‘The PAPPG does not apply to NSF contracts.’’ We suggest expanding this to include language that appeared in prior
versions of the AAG: ‘‘The PAPPG is applicable to NSF grants and cooperative agreements, unless noted otherwise in the award
instrument. This Guide does not apply to
NSF contracts.’’.
‘‘If available, written approval from the cognizant NSF Program Officer should be
uploaded with the proposal as a Single
Copy Document in FastLane. Proposers
should then follow the written or verbal guidance provided by the cognizant NSF Program Officer.’’ We suggest that approval for
exceptions to the deadline date policy only
be provided in writing rather than also allowing for the option of verbal approval.
General comment: We suggest that an explicit
reference be made to the appropriate NSF
guides and/or manuals that contain information related to the proper budgeting and expenditure of management fees and contingency funds.
‘‘This effort must be documented in accordance with 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E.’’ We
suggest that the third sentence of the second paragraph be modified to add references to specific sections of the Uniform
Guidance, as follows (new text in red): ‘‘This
effort must be documented in accordance
with 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E, including
§§ 200.430 and 200.431.’’ Adding a reference to specific sections of the Uniform
Guidance will allow users to more easily
identify and understand the regulations that
govern their awards.
In large part, the PAPPG provides guidance
and explanatory material to proposers and
awardees. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to impose on NSF awardee organizations the requirement to comply with all such
guidance and explanatory material as terms
and conditions of an NSF award. NSF
strongly believes that the articles specified
in the General Conditions clearly articulate
the parts of the PAPPG that are indeed requirements imposed on a recipient, and, for
which they will be held responsible.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Language has been revised to address issue.
The ability to receive verbal approval only is
absolutely vital in cases of natural or anthropogenic events. We have received numerous complaints from PIs who did not even
have access to a computer during the natural event, but wanted NSF to be aware that
their proposal would not be able to be submitted on time. We believe that it is vital to
retain such flexibility in cases of natural or
anthropogenic events.
A reference to the Large Facilities Manual has
been incorporated into the opening of the
budget section.
Section 2 CFR 200.430(i) is specifically relevant to documentation of personnel expenses. This reference has been incorporated.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52474
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
NSF Response
35.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Senior Personnel Salaries and Wages,
Chapter
II.C.2.g.(i)(a).
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Administrative and
Clerical Salaries
and Wages Policy,
Chapter
II.C.2.g.(i)(b).
37.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Equipment, Chapter
II.C.2.g.(iii)(d).
‘‘Under normal rebudgeting authority, as described in Chapters VII and X, a recipient
can internally approve an increase or decrease in person months devoted to the
project after an award is made, even if
doing so results in salary support for senior
personnel exceeding the two month salary
policy. No prior approval from NSF is necessary as long as that change would not
cause the objectives or scope of the project
to change.’’ We suggest that the indicated
sentences be removed. Allowing awardees
to exceed the general two month salary limit
without NSF approval contradicts the prior
paragraph in section II.C.2.g.(i)(a) that
states, ‘‘NSF regards research as one of the
normal functions of faculty members at institutions of higher education. Compensation
for time normally spent on research within
the term of appointment is deemed to be included within the faculty member’s regular
organizational salary.’’ By allowing awardees
to unilaterally rebudget salary above the
two-month limit, NSF runs the risk of reimbursing the very compensation costs that it
deems ‘‘to be included within the faculty
member’s regular organizational salary.’’.
‘‘Conditions (i) (ii) and (iv) above are particularly relevant for consideration at the budget
preparation stage.’’ As revised, the last sentence of this page highlights 3 of the 4 conditions as ‘‘particularly relevant.’’ The fourth
condition, which is not highlighted as ‘‘particularly relevant,’’ is the requirement that
such costs be included in the approved
budget or have prior written approval of the
cognizant NSF Grants Officer—a requirement that is explicitly stated in Chapter X,
§ A.3.b.2 of the proposed PAPPG. We suggest deleting the sentence, ‘‘Conditions (i)
(ii) and (iv) above are particularly relevant
for consideration at the budget preparation
stage.’’ If desired, an alternative sentence
such as the following could replace it:
‘‘These conditions are particularly relevant
for consideration at the budget preparation
stage.’’
‘‘Any request to support such items must be
clearly disclosed in the proposal budget, justified in the budget justification, and be included in the NSF award budget.’’ We suggest including the following sentence at the
end of the section on Equipment: ‘‘See 2
CFR §§ 200.310 and 200.313 for additional
information.’’ Adding a reference to specific
sections of the Uniform Guidance will allow
users to more easily identify and understand
the regulations that govern their awards.
In accordance with final decisions issued by
the NSF Audit Followup Official on this audit
matter, by the nature of assistance awards,
awardees have the responsibility to determine how best to achieve stated goals within project objective or scope. Research often
requires adjustments, and NSF permits
post-award re-budgeting of faculty compensation. NSF is aligned with federal
guidelines and regulations in allowing rebudgeting of such compensation without
prior Agency approval, unless it results in
changes to objectives or scope.
36.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NSF does not find this language confusing as
(i), (ii) and (iv) are the only conditions that
are relevant at the proposal preparation
stage. That is why a similar sentence is not
included in Chapter X.b.2. of the PAPPG.
2 CFR 200.313 will be incorporated.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
52475
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
NSF Response
38.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Entertainment, Chapter II.C.2.g.(xiii)(a).
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
NSF Award Conditions, Chapter VI.C.
40.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
NSF-Approved Extension, Chapter
VI.D.3.c(ii)(a).
41.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Changes in Objectives or Scope,
Chapter VII.B.1(a).
‘‘Costs of entertainment, amusement, diversion
and social activities, and any costs directly
associated with such activities (such as tickets to shows or sporting events, meals,
lodging, rentals, transportation and gratuities) are unallowable. Travel, meal and
hotel expenses of grantee employees who
are not on travel status are unallowable.
Costs of employees on travel status are limited to those specifically authorized by 2
CFR § 200.474.’’ We suggest keeping the
two sentences that are proposed to be
stricken at the end of this section (in addition to having this text also included in
Chapter II.C.2.g.(iv)), as it is useful and applicable guidance to grantees looking up the
rules in both sections. We also recommend
adding an explicit reference to 2 CFR
§ 200.438 at the end of the Entertainment
paragraph so the last three sentences read:
‘‘Travel, meal and hotel expenses of grantee
employees who are not on travel status are
unallowable. Costs of employees on travel
status are limited to those specifically authorized by 2 CFR § 200.474. See 2 CFR
§ 200.438 for additional information about
entertainment costs.’’ Adding a reference to
specific section of the Uniform Guidance will
allow users to more easily identify and understand the regulations that govern their
awards.
‘‘When these conditions reference a particular
PAPPG section, that section becomes part
of the award requirements through incorporation by reference.’’ Please see our suggestions outlined in comment number 1.
‘‘The request should be submitted to NSF at
least 45 days prior to the end date of the
grant.’’ We believe that this alteration fully
changes the guidance rather than simply updating it for clarity. We suggest returning the
sentence back to the way it was originally
written to state, ‘‘The request must be submitted to NSF at least 45 days prior to the
end date of the grant.’’ This will allow responsible NSF officials adequate time to
fully review the request.
‘‘The objectives or scope of the project may
not be changed without prior NSF approval.
Such change requests must be signed and
submitted by the AOR via use of NSF’s
electronic systems.’’ We suggest adopting
similar guidance to the National Institutes of
Health that defines change of scope and
provides potential indicators. This guidance
can be found in section 8.1.2.5 of the NIH
Grants Policy Statement. Alternatively, we
suggest adding a list of circumstances that
could be considered a change of scope. For
example, significant increase/decrease in a
PI’s effort allocated to the project, a significant decrease in research opportunities for
graduate and undergraduate students, and
significant (>25%) rebudgeting of costs
among budget categories, which indicates a
material change in the research methodology.
A reference to the relevant Uniform Guidance
section will be added and the first stricken
sentence identified will be kept. However,
the second sentence will be removed to ensure clarity on the intended topic which is
‘‘Entertainment Costs‘‘. NSF believes that
the search tools/options available in the
PAPPG are sufficient to provide awardees
quick and direct access to specific topics on
items of costs, including travel and entertainment costs.
39.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
See NSF Response to Comment 30.
NSF believes that the revised language is appropriate. Requests must be submitted at
least 45 days prior to the end date of the
grant. If submitted late, the request must include a strong justification as to why it was
not submitted earlier. That provides the necessary ability for the Foundation to appropriately respond to situations where a compelling rationale is provided.
Rather than develop a listing of potential ‘‘indicators’’ of a change in scope, NSF prefers
to continue use of Article 2 to identify areas
that require NSF prior approval.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52476
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment
source
42.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Award Financial Reporting Requirements and Final
Disbursements,
Chapter VIII.E.6.
43.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Conflict of Interest
Policies, Chapter
IX.A.
44.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Conflict of Interest
Policies, Chapter
IX.A.
45.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Conflict of Interest
Policies, Chapter
IX.A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Topic & PAPPG Section
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comment
NSF Response
‘‘NSF will notify grantees of any canceling appropriations on open awards in order for
grantees to properly expend and draw down
funds before the end of the fiscal year.’’ We
suggest adding a sentence that reminds
awardees that funds must still be used on
allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs,
and that the drawdown must be related to
expenses that have already been incurred
or will be incurred within 3 days of the drawdown, per NSF policy. In the past, awardees
have misconstrued NSF’s guidance and
have drawn down funds for expenditures
that had not been incurred and were not anticipated to be incurred within 3 days.
‘‘Guidance for development of such polices
has been issued by university associations
and scientific societies. In addition to the
stated language, we suggest that NSF also
provide examples of key components of an
effective policy.
‘‘significant financial interest’’ does not include
‘‘any ownership in the organization, if the organization is an applicant under the [SBIR/
STTR programs]?’’ What is intended regarding IX.A.2.b, that the term ‘‘significant financial interest’’ does not include ‘‘any ownership in the organization, if the organization
is an applicant under the [SBIR/STTR programs]?’’ In the instance of a professor
being proposed as co-PI for a university for
a subcontract through an SBIR award,
where that professor is also an owner of an
SBIR applicant, this section may be interpreted to mean that professor does not have
to disclose her ownership interest in the
SBIR company. We suggest adding language to make this more clear and to remove any potential loop holes.
A reference to the section on grantee payments has been incorporated into the paragraph on cancelling appropriations.
‘‘an equity interest that, when aggregated for
the investigator and the investigator’s
spouse and dependent children, meets both
of the following tests: (i) Does not exceed
$10,000 in value as determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable
measures of fair market value; and (ii) does
not represent more than a 5% ownership interest in any single entity;’’ How were the
thresholds of $10,000 or a 5% ownership interest in IX.A.2.e determined? How is 5%
ownership interest defined and how is an individual supposed to determine if he/she
has a 5% ownership interest? It may require
knowledge outside of their control, for instance, knowledge of all owners and the
total assets of the company in order to calculate their share. We suggest erring on the
side of more disclosure as opposed to less,
and simply requiring individuals with ownership interests to make disclosures so that it
is more clear.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NSF defers to grantee organizations regarding
the provision of examples in their policies
that are most applicable to their organization.
NSF believes that there is value in having a
consistent SBIR exclusion between NSF
and NIH. Excluding SBIR awards from
NSF’s policy reflects the fact that limited
amounts of funding are provided for SBIR
Phase I awards and an ownership interest in
an SBIR institution at this phase is not likely
to create a bias in the outcome of the research. This exclusion takes into consideration the fact that potentially biasing financial interests will be assessed during submission of SBIR Phase II proposals. Moreover, in order for an institution to receive the
designation as being eligible for the SBIR
program, this information is collected
through the SBIR Company Registry by the
Small Business Administration and identified
in the supplemental SBIR document provided by SBA. Further, we note that the
OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (September 10, 2015), require a Federal awarding agency to have an
awardee conflict of interest policy and require the awardee to report conflicts of interest to the Federal awarding agency. (2 CFR
200.112) NSF’s policy complies with the uniform standards.
NSF’s thresholds reflect language agreed
upon in 1995, as a result of close coordination between NSF and NIH. At the time,
both agencies’ policies went through extensive public comment periods.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
52477
Comment
source
Topic & PAPPG Section
Comment
NSF Response
46.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Allowability of Costs,
Chapter X.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Pre-Award (Pre-Start
Date) Costs, Chapter X.A.2.b.
48.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Salaries and Wages,
Chapter X.B.1.a.
49.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Administrative and
Clerical Salaries
and Wages, Chapter X.B.2.
50.
NSF Office of
the Inspector
General.
Intra-University (IHE)
Consulting, Chapter X.B.3.
General comment: We suggest that any references to 2 CFR § 200 include a hyperlink
directly to the regulation to help facilitate
better understanding by the user.
We suggest language reinforcing the policy in
Chapter VI, § E.2. that costs incurred under
an ‘‘old grant cannot be transferred to the
new grant’’ in the case of a renewal grant.
The 90-day preaward cost allowability provision should not apply to renewal grants,
even if the ‘‘old’’ award has been fully expended. This would constitute a transfer of a
loss on the ‘‘old’’ grant to the ‘‘new’’ grant,
which is unallowable under 2 CFR § 200.451.
‘‘Compensation paid or accrued by the organization for employees working on the NSFsupported project during the grant period is
allowable, in accordance with 2 CFR
§ 200.430’’ We suggest including additional
narrative here summarizing the requirements that are specified in 2 CFR § 200.430
(similar to what is included at Chapter
II.C.2.g.(i)) as opposed to relying solely on
awardees pulling up the reference to the
Uniform Guidance. This will allow users to
better understand the guidance and regulations applicable to their awards.
‘‘Such costs are explicitly included in the approved budget or have the prior written approval of the cognizant NSF Grants Officer;’’
We suggest that for direct charging of administrative/clerical salaries and wages to be
allowable, they must be explicitly approved
in the award notice. This is consistent with
section X.A.3.b.2, which states that salaries
of administrative and clerical staff must receive written prior approval from the Grants
and Agreements Officer.
‘‘If anticipated, any compensation for such
consulting services should be disclosed in
the proposal budget, justified in the budget
justification, and included in the NSF award
budget.’’ We suggest including the following
sentence at the end of this section: ‘‘See 2
CFR § 200.430(h)(3) for additional information.’’ Adding a reference to specific section
of the Uniform Guidance will allow users to
more easily identify and understand the regulations that govern their awards.
A hypertext link to 2 CFR § 200 already appears in the html version of the PAPPG.
47.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No.
• 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
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment incorporated.
NSF believes that incorporation of the entire
Uniform Guidance into the PAPPG is not
prudent. The PAPPG would then become incredibly lengthy and unhelpful to users.
Rather, a hypertext link is provided to each
of the applicable references in the Uniform
Guidance.
This recommendation is inconsistent with the
approach established in 2 CFR § 200.
Throughout the document, regular reference
is made to ‘‘are explicitly included in the
budget.’’ Such inclusion in the budget
serves to explicitly document agency approval of specific cost categories at the time
of the award.
Comment incorporated.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
52478
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
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).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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 52,000
proposals in FY 2017, an estimated
6,240,000 burden hours will be placed
on the public.
The Foundation has based its
reporting burden on the review of
approximately 52,000 new proposals
expected during FY 2017. 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
780,000 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 7,020,000. The
actual burden on respondents has not
changed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:23 Aug 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2016–18758 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting
August 8, 15, 22, 29, September 5,
12, 2016.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
DATE:
Week of August 8, 2016
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 8, 2016.
Week of August 15, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 15, 2016.
Week of August 22, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 22, 2016.
Week of August 29, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 29, 2016.
Week of September 5, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of September 5, 2016.
Week of September 12, 2016—Tentative
Monday, September 12, 2016
1:30 p.m. NRC All Employees Meeting
(Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda
North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road,
Rockville, MD 20852.
Friday, September 16, 2016
9:00 a.m. Briefing on Fee Process
(Public Meeting), Contact: Michele
Kaplan: 301–415–5256.
*
*
*
*
*
The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. For more information or to verify
the status of meetings, contact Denise
McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email
at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by
videophone at 240–428–3217, or by
email at Kimberly.MeyerChambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
Members of the public may request to
receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–
415–1969), or email
Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or
Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Denise L. McGovern,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–18831 Filed 8–4–16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70–0938; NRC–2016–0152]
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; Renewal of Special
Nuclear Materials License
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License renewal application;
receipt; notice of opportunity to request
a hearing and to petition for leave to
intervene; order imposing procedures.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering an
application for the renewal of Special
Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No.
SNM–986, which currently authorizes
the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) to possess and use
SNM for education, research, and
training programs. The renewed license
would authorize MIT to continue to
possess and use SNM for an additional
10 years from the date of issuance. The
NRC proposes to determine that the
renewal involves no significant hazards
consideration. Because this application
contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI) an
order imposes procedures to obtain
access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
DATES: A request for a hearing or
petition for leave to intervene must be
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52467-52478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY: National Science Foundation
ACTION: Submission for OMB review; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13.
This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published
in the Federal Register at 81 FR 30348, and 50 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 16, 2016, at 81 FR 30348, NSF
received 50 comments from eight different institutions/individuals; 36
comments were in response to the Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide, Part I, and 14 were in response to the Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part II. 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. Penn State Introduction, Facilitation Awards for Scientists Facilitation Awards for Scientists
University. Section A. and Engineers with Disabilities and Engineers with Disabilities
provide funding for special provide funding for special
assistance or equipment to enable assistance or equipment to enable
persons with disabilities to work persons with disabilities to work
on NSF-supported projects. See on NSF-supported projects. See
Chapter II.E.7 for instructions Chapter II.E.7 for instructions
regarding preparation of these regarding preparation of these
types of proposals. We believe the types of proposals. We believe the
above should reference Chapter II. above should reference Chapter II.
E. 6. E. 6.
[[Page 52468]]
2. Penn State Introduction, Part II of the NSF Proposal & Award It is not NSF's intent to
University. Section B. Policies & Procedures Guide sets incorporate NSF FAQs into the
forth NSF policies regarding the award terms and conditions. OMB
award, and administration, and has stated that their FAQs on 2
monitoring of grants and CFR Sec. 200 have the full force
cooperative agreements. Coverage and effect of the Uniform
includes the NSF award process, Guidance, but this has no impact
from issuance and administration on the PAPPG.
of an NSF award through closeout.
Guidance regarding other grant
requirements or considerations
that either is not universally
applicable or which do not follow
the award cycle also is provided.
Part II also implements other
Public Laws, Executive Orders
(E.O.) and other directives
insofar as they apply to grants,
and is issued pursuant to the
authority of Section 11(a) of the
NSF Act (42 USC Sec. 1870). When
NSF Grant General Conditions or an
award notice reference a
particular section of the PAPPG,
then that section becomes part of
the award requirements through
incorporation by reference. If the
intent of this edit is to
incorporate NSF FAQ's in the award
terms and conditions, we would
recommend further clarification to
spell this out in greater detail.
3. Penn State Letter of Intent, We propose an overall change to the Given the variance in the types of
University. Chapter I.D.1. LOI process (for the purpose/sake proposals that use the LOI
of consistency), to make all LOI mechanism, a change in this
submission's mandatory from an AOR process would not be appropriate.
(not the PI).
4. Penn State Who May Submit Recommend an inclusion statement to While there is a standard
University. Proposals, Chapter address Universities and Colleges definition of what constitutes a
I.E.1 (Universities with multi-campus locations and college or university, the PAPPG
and Colleges). academic focus. ie. Main campus as is indeed silent on how multi-
PhD awarding institution, while campus locations should be
branch campus as PUI. This addressed. Various NSF program
clarification would be useful for solicitations do address this
program solicitations with issue and vary according to
submission limitations. programmatic intent regarding how
such satellite campuses should be
treated. As such, a statement in
the PAPPG would not be able to
capture these variances. The PAPPG
however does address the vast
majority of the programs at NSF.
For those programs that limit such
eligibility, there are definitions
provided in the applicable Program
Solicitation.
5. Penn State When to Submit Include guidance that the name of Thank you for your comment. The
University. Proposals, Chapter the NSF Program Officer that PAPPG states that if written
I.F (Special granted the special exception to approval is available, it should
Exceptions). the deadline date policy. Either be uploaded. The email should
with a new fill in the blank box contain the name of the cognizant
on the NSF Cover Sheet or as a Program Officer, so an additional
Single Copy Documents in FastLane. space for this information on the
Cover Sheet is not necessary.
Additional guidance, however,
regarding this process has been
provided.
6. Penn State Format of the We believe references 6-10 need to References were accurate, as
University. Proposal, Chapter be updated as follows: 9. Center stated.
II.B. Proposal (see Chapter II.E.10 and
relevant funding opportunity); 10.
Major Research Equipment and
Facility Construction Proposal
(see Chapter II.E.11 and relevant
funding opportunity).
7. Penn State Collaborators & Please add that this section must Instructions to order the list
University. Other Affiliations be alphabetical order by last alphabetically by last name have
Information, name. In general, it should be been included. No format for the
Chapter II.C.1.e. clarified if this list should be list is specified in the PAPPG,
set up much like the templates although some programs may specify
provided by NSF (columns), or if a a specific format in the
running list like the biosketch applicable program solicitation.
format is acceptable. Our hope is
that one day the file upload can
be an excel sheet template that
lists this information and becomes
sortable for NSF.
8. Penn State Sections of the Please add ``k. Single Copy Comment incorporated.
University. Proposal, Chapter Documents--Collaborators & Other
II.C.2. Affiliations.''.
9. Penn State Cover Sheet, Chapter Please add clarification that the Part I of the PAPPG provides policy
University. II.C.2.a. title is limited to 180 and procedural guidance for
characters, per the FastLane preparation of proposals. Issues
system. such as field length should be
articulated in the relevant NSF
system.
[[Page 52469]]
10. Penn State Project Summary, ``Each proposal must contain a This was a known defect in FastLane
University. Chapter II.C.2.b. summary of the proposed project that has now been addressed. The
not more than one page in Project Summary is limited to 1
length.'' This requirement is not page as stated in the PAPPG.
just one page in length BUT 4,600
characters. Please clarify that
the on-line text boxes only permit
this count.
11. Penn State Cover Sheet, Chapter If the proposal includes use of References were accurate, as
University. II.C.2.a vertebrate animals, supplemental stated.
(Footnotes). information is required. See GPG
Chapter II.D.7 for additional
information. If the proposal
includes use of human subjects,
supplemental information is
required. See GPG Chapter II.D.8
for additional information. We
believe the above should reference
Chapter II. D. 4 and Chapter
II.D.5.
12. Penn State References Cited, We request clarification be added Thank you for your comment. The
University. Chapter II.C.2.e. for references of large norms of the discipline should be
collaborative group, i.e. CREAM followed when preparing the
and ICE CUBE. There are hundreds References Cited. Given that each
of authors and collaborators to discipline may have different
list. Should these be listed in practices, it is not appropriate
their entirety or are et. al's to include additional instructions
acceptable? Should a full list be in this section.
loaded into supplemental documents
or single documents?
13. Penn State Senior Personnel As a general policy, NSF limits the NSF concurs with the portion of the
University. Salaries and Wages, salary compensation requested in comment regarding the ability to
Chapter the proposal budget for senior rebudget. However, this policy
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). personnel to no more than two relates to budgeting salary for
months of their regular salary in senior personnel in both the
any one year. This limit includes budget preparation and award
salary compensation received from phases of the process. NSF plans
all NSF-funded grants. This effort to maintain its long-standing
must be documented in accordance policy regarding senior personnel
with 2 CFR Sec. 200, Subpart E. salaries and wages in these phases
If anticipated, any compensation of the process, reflecting the
for such personnel in excess of assistance relationship between
two months must be disclosed in NSF and grantee institutions.
the proposal budget, justified in
the budget justification, and must
be specifically approved by NSF in
the award notice budget.12 Under
normal rebudgeting authority, as
described in Chapters VII and X, a
recipient can internally approve
an increase or decrease in person
months devoted to the project
after an award is made, even if
doing so results in salary support
for senior personnel exceeding the
two month salary policy. No prior
approval from NSF is necessary as
long as that change would not
cause the objectives or scope of
the project to change. NSF prior
approval is necessary if the
objectives or scope of the project
change. We ask that the 2 month
rule described above be removed
from the proposal budget
requirements. Given that
rebudgeting authority can allow
for internal approvals of
increased or decreases, we do not
understand why this requirement is
still part of the NSF PAPPG.
[[Page 52470]]
14. Penn State Participant Support This budget category refers to Reference should be Chapter II.E.7.
University. (Line F on the direct costs for items such as Comment incorporated.
Proposal Budget), stipends or subsistence
Chapter allowances, travel allowances, and
II.C.2.g.(v). registration fees paid to or on
behalf of participants or trainees
(but not employees) in connection
with NSF-sponsored conferences or
training projects. Any additional
categories of participant support
costs other than those described
in 2 CFR Sec. 200.75 (such as
incentives, gifts, souvenirs, t-
shirts and memorabilia), must be
justified in the budget
justification, and such costs will
be closely scrutinized by NSF.
(See also GPG Chapter II.E.10D.9)
For some educational projects
conducted at local school
districts, however, the
participants being trained are
employees. In such cases, the
costs must be classified as
participant support if payment is
made through a stipend or training
allowance method. The school
district must have an accounting
mechanism in place (i.e., sub-
account code) to differentiate
between regular salary and stipend
payments. We believe the above
should reference is pointing to
the incorrect area but we're not
sure what reference to suggest in
its place.
15. Penn State Voluntary Committed While voluntary uncommitted costs A description of the resources
University. and Uncommitted share is not auditable by NSF, if provided in the Facilities,
Cost Sharing, included in the Facilities and Equipment and Other Resources
Chapter Other Resources section of a document are reviewable, however,
II.C.2.g.(xii). proposal, will it be REVIEWABLE by per NSF instructions, these
NSF and external reviews? Our resources should not be
concern is that this sort of quantified. A reviewer needs to be
institutional contribution will able to assess all resources
still impact reviewers and available to the project in order
application that are selected. to consider whether sufficient
resources are available to carry
out the project as proposed. NSF's
cost sharing policy was not
directed at voluntary uncommitted
cost sharing.
16. Penn State Collaborative Table of Documents for Lead and Non- Comment incorporated.
University. Proposals, Chapter Lead Organization documents:
II.D.3. Please add the Collaborators &
Other Affiliations Information
under each Organizations column.
This will clarify where it belongs
in a Collaborative proposal.
17. Penn State GOALI, Chapter We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. II.E.4.b. read: ``Supplemental funding to
add GOALI elements to a currently
funded NSF research project should
be submitted by using the
``Supplemental Funding Request''
function in FastLane.''.
18. Penn State Conference We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. Proposals, Chapter read: ``A conference proposal will
II.E.7. be supported only if equivalent
results cannot be obtained by
attendance at regular meetings of
professional societies. Although
requests for support of a
conference proposal ordinarily
originates with educational
institutions or scientific and
engineering societies, they also
may come from other groups.''.
19. Penn State Travel Proposals, We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. Chapter II.E.9. read: ``A proposal for travel,
either domestic and/or
international, support for
participation in scientific and
engineering meetings are handled
by the NSF organization unit with
program responsibility for the
area of interest.''.
20. Penn State Proposal Preparation We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. Checklist, Exhibit read: ``Results from Prior NSF
II-1 (Project Support have been provided for PIs
Description). and co-PIs who have received NSF
support within the last five
years. Results related to
Intellectual Merit and Broader
Impacts are described under two
separate, distinct headings and
are limited to five pages of the
project description.''.
[[Page 52471]]
21. Cal Tech............ Senior Personnel The PAPPG states that ``NSF limits Much like guidance contained in the
Salaries and Wages, the salary compensation requested Uniform Guidance, NSF policies are
Chapter in the proposal budget for senior written to allow awardees maximum
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). personnel to no more than two flexibility in the development of
months of their regular salary in their internal controls to ensure
any one year.'' (emphasis added). compliance with NSF and federal
The policy is very clear that the requirements. As a result the NSF
focus is on compensation policy on senior personnel
requested, and not on salary salaries and wages requires
expenditures. We agree with and awardees to determine for
are supportive of that themselves the best approach for
distinction. Our concern here is ensuring compliance.
largely a mechanical one. When we
submit a proposal to NSF, how
should we determine whether the
amount of salary support being
requested is ``more than two
months of their regular salary in
any one year?'' The answer is very
simple if we are dealing with an
investigator who has only one NSF
grant. It gets much more
complicated for investigators with
multiple NSF grants, with widely
overlapping performance periods.
Should we be looking at currently
active NSF awards and trying to
determine that if the current
proposal is funded, will there be
a one-year period in which the
amount of salary requested will
exceed two months of salary?
Should we look at currently funded
NSF proposals or also take into
account pending proposals, as
well? We are seeking guidance in
the PAPPG that provides some
concrete steps to be followed to
meet the policy requirement. In
the absence of this guidance, we
are never quite sure if the
approach we are taking is or is
not consistent with the policy.
22. Cal Tech............ Voluntary Committed The discussion of voluntary Thank you for your comment.
and Uncommitted committed and uncommitted cost
Cost Sharing, sharing is very clear. The
Chapter revisions to this section of the
II.C.2.g.(xii). PAPPG have definitely improved the
clarity.
23. Cal Tech............ High Performance The information in this section is Thank you for your comment.
Computing, Chapter helpful for investigators who
II.D.7. require high-performance computing
resources, etc. It is good that
the PAPPG has identified specific
facilities that can provide
advanced computational and data
resources.
24. Cal Tech............ Indirect Costs, NSF The statement that continuing Thank you for your comment.
Policy, Chapter increments and supplements will be
X.D.1. funded using the negotiated
indirect cost rate in effect at
the time of the initial award is
improved over the previous edition
of the PAPPG. That clarity is very
helpful and should reduce any
confusion or misunderstanding
about the intentions of NSF in
these situations.
25. University of Definitions of Our office has reviewed the Comment incorporated.
Louisiana at Categories of proposed changes to the PAPPG and
Lafayette. Personnel, Exhibit all seem to add clarity and better
II-7. organization to the document. We
do have a comment regarding
Section II-61: Definition of
senior personnel Faculty Associate
(Faculty member) (or equivalent):
Defined as an individual other
than the Principal Investigator
considered by the performing
institution to be a member of its
Faculty (or equivalent) or who
holds an appointment as a Faculty
member at another institution and
who will participate in the
project being supported. We
recommend adding `or equivalent'
to the definition (see red text
above) for clarity, since certain
Center staff across our campus are
not Faculty members but are
eligible to submit proposals.
[[Page 52472]]
26. University of NSF-NIH/OLAW MOU.... Relevant to the complications posed Updated link has been incorporated.
Arkansas at Little by the NSF-NIH/OLAW MOU regarding
Rock. animal oversight, the latest
revision of the Guidelines of the
American Society of Mammologists
for the use of wild mammals in
research and education has just
been published and is available at
https://www.mammalsociety.org/uploads/committee_files/CurrentGuidelines.pdf. This
document does a good job of
explaining the enormous gulf that
exists between effective and
appropriate oversight of
activities involving wild
vertebrates and those using
typical laboratory animals.
Additionally, the ASM and Oxford
University Press have collaborated
on and are advertising a
collection of papers that address
these same concerns. That
collection is available at https://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/page/Guidelines Guidelines.
27. Kansas State Project Summary, The GPG really needs to be updated This was a known defect in FastLane
University. Chapter II.C.2.b. with the same information that is that has now been addressed. The
contained in FastLane on the Project Summary is limited to 1
Project Summary instructions. page as stated in the PAPPG.
Specifically, the GPG doesn't tell
the faculty the 4600 character
limit.
28. Cornell University.. Cancelling Thanks for making the draft FY17 Your understanding is accurate.
Appropriations, PAPPG available. I noted the FastLane or other mechanisms will
Chapter VIII.E.6. additional clarity surrounding prevent an NCE that goes beyond
cancelled funds, and appreciate the appropriation's life.
things being made clearer. My
understanding--but please correct
me if I am wrong--is that the
period of performance can never go
beyond the life of the underlying
appropriation. The question has
been raised as to how one knows
what year's funds were used for an
award, and whether FASTLANE or
other mechanisms will prevent a
grantee-approved NCE that goes
beyond the appropriation's life.
29. Boise State Collaborators & NSF currently requires Additional scrutiny will be given
University. Other Affiliations ``Collaborators & Other in the review of NSF Program
Information, Affiliations'' as a single-copy Solicitations to ensure that: (1)
Chapter II.C.1.e. document. It is not unusual for Any requirements that are
specific RFPs to require a second supplemental to the COI
collaborators document in various requirements specified in the
formats. This is a time-consuming PAPPG receive an additional level
process for what is essentially of review; and (2) that the COI
duplicate information. My comment/ information is provided only once
request is that NSF have a single in a given proposal.
``Collaborators & Other
Affiliations'' document that is in
the same format for all RFPs.
[[Page 52473]]
30. NSF Office of the Introduction, ``When NSF Grant General Conditions In large part, the PAPPG provides
Inspector General. Section B. or an award notice reference a guidance and explanatory material
particular section of the PAPPG, to proposers and awardees.
then that section becomes part of Therefore, it would be
the award requirements through inappropriate to impose on NSF
incorporation by reference.'' This awardee organizations the
sentence is confusing in light of requirement to comply with all
the preceding sentences, which such guidance and explanatory
state, ``Part II of the NSF material as terms and conditions
Proposal & Award Policies & of an NSF award. NSF strongly
Procedures Guide sets forth NSF believes that the articles
policies regarding the award, specified in the General
administration, and monitoring of Conditions clearly articulate the
grants and cooperative agreements. parts of the PAPPG that are indeed
Coverage includes the NSF award requirements imposed on a
process, from issuance and recipient, and, for which they
administration of an NSF award will be held responsible.
through closeout. Guidance
regarding other grant requirements
or considerations that either is
not universally applicable or
which do not follow the award
cycle also is provided.'' NSF
General Grant Conditions require
recipients to comply with NSF
policies (NSF General Grant
Conditions, Article 1.d.2), which
are set forth in this document.
The sentence in question could
wrongly lead one to believe that
only sections of the PAPPG
specifically mentioned in award
terms and conditions need to be
followed. We strongly suggest that
this sentence be removed.
31................................ NSF Office of the Introduction, ``The PAPPG does not apply to NSF Language has been revised to
Inspector General. Section B. contracts.'' We suggest expanding address issue.
this to include language that
appeared in prior versions of the
AAG: ``The PAPPG is applicable to
NSF grants and cooperative
agreements, unless noted otherwise
in the award instrument. This
Guide does not apply to NSF
contracts.''.
32................................ NSF Office of the Special Exceptions ``If available, written approval The ability to receive verbal
Inspector General. to NSF's Deadline from the cognizant NSF Program approval only is absolutely vital
Date Policy, Officer should be uploaded with in cases of natural or
Chapter I.F.2. the proposal as a Single Copy anthropogenic events. We have
Document in FastLane. Proposers received numerous complaints from
should then follow the written or PIs who did not even have access
verbal guidance provided by the to a computer during the natural
cognizant NSF Program Officer.'' event, but wanted NSF to be aware
We suggest that approval for that their proposal would not be
exceptions to the deadline date able to be submitted on time. We
policy only be provided in writing believe that it is vital to retain
rather than also allowing for the such flexibility in cases of
option of verbal approval. natural or anthropogenic events.
33................................ NSF Office of the Contingency and General comment: We suggest that an A reference to the Large Facilities
Inspector General. Management Fees, explicit reference be made to the Manual has been incorporated into
Chapter II. appropriate NSF guides and/or the opening of the budget section.
manuals that contain information
related to the proper budgeting
and expenditure of management fees
and contingency funds.
34................................ NSF Office of the Senior Personnel ``This effort must be documented in Section 2 CFR 200.430(i) is
Inspector General. Salaries and Wages, accordance with 2 CFR Sec. 200, specifically relevant to
Chapter Subpart E.'' We suggest that the documentation of personnel
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). third sentence of the second expenses. This reference has been
paragraph be modified to add incorporated.
references to specific sections of
the Uniform Guidance, as follows
(new text in red): ``This effort
must be documented in accordance
with 2 CFR Sec. 200, Subpart E,
including Sec. Sec. 200.430 and
200.431.'' Adding a reference to
specific sections of the Uniform
Guidance will allow users to more
easily identify and understand the
regulations that govern their
awards.
[[Page 52474]]
35................................ NSF Office of the Senior Personnel ``Under normal rebudgeting In accordance with final decisions
Inspector General. Salaries and Wages, authority, as described in issued by the NSF Audit Followup
Chapter Chapters VII and X, a recipient Official on this audit matter, by
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). can internally approve an increase the nature of assistance awards,
or decrease in person months awardees have the responsibility
devoted to the project after an to determine how best to achieve
award is made, even if doing so stated goals within project
results in salary support for objective or scope. Research often
senior personnel exceeding the two requires adjustments, and NSF
month salary policy. No prior permits post-award re-budgeting of
approval from NSF is necessary as faculty compensation. NSF is
long as that change would not aligned with federal guidelines
cause the objectives or scope of and regulations in allowing re-
the project to change.'' We budgeting of such compensation
suggest that the indicated without prior Agency approval,
sentences be removed. Allowing unless it results in changes to
awardees to exceed the general two objectives or scope.
month salary limit without NSF
approval contradicts the prior
paragraph in section
II.C.2.g.(i)(a) that states, ``NSF
regards research as one of the
normal functions of faculty
members at institutions of higher
education. Compensation for time
normally spent on research within
the term of appointment is deemed
to be included within the faculty
member's regular organizational
salary.'' By allowing awardees to
unilaterally rebudget salary above
the two-month limit, NSF runs the
risk of reimbursing the very
compensation costs that it deems
``to be included within the
faculty member's regular
organizational salary.''.
36................................ NSF Office of the Administrative and ``Conditions (i) (ii) and (iv) NSF does not find this language
Inspector General. Clerical Salaries above are particularly relevant confusing as (i), (ii) and (iv)
and Wages Policy, for consideration at the budget are the only conditions that are
Chapter preparation stage.'' As revised, relevant at the proposal
II.C.2.g.(i)(b). the last sentence of this page preparation stage. That is why a
highlights 3 of the 4 conditions similar sentence is not included
as ``particularly relevant.'' The in Chapter X.b.2. of the PAPPG.
fourth condition, which is not
highlighted as ``particularly
relevant,'' is the requirement
that such costs be included in the
approved budget or have prior
written approval of the cognizant
NSF Grants Officer--a requirement
that is explicitly stated in
Chapter X, Sec. A.3.b.2 of the
proposed PAPPG. We suggest
deleting the sentence,
``Conditions (i) (ii) and (iv)
above are particularly relevant
for consideration at the budget
preparation stage.'' If desired,
an alternative sentence such as
the following could replace it:
``These conditions are
particularly relevant for
consideration at the budget
preparation stage.''
37................................ NSF Office of the Equipment, Chapter ``Any request to support such items 2 CFR 200.313 will be incorporated.
Inspector General. II.C.2.g.(iii)(d). must be clearly disclosed in the
proposal budget, justified in the
budget justification, and be
included in the NSF award
budget.'' We suggest including the
following sentence at the end of
the section on Equipment: ``See 2
CFR Sec. Sec. 200.310 and
200.313 for additional
information.'' Adding a reference
to specific sections of the
Uniform Guidance will allow users
to more easily identify and
understand the regulations that
govern their awards.
[[Page 52475]]
38................................ NSF Office of the Entertainment, ``Costs of entertainment, A reference to the relevant Uniform
Inspector General. Chapter amusement, diversion and social Guidance section will be added and
II.C.2.g.(xiii)(a). activities, and any costs directly the first stricken sentence
associated with such activities identified will be kept. However,
(such as tickets to shows or the second sentence will be
sporting events, meals, lodging, removed to ensure clarity on the
rentals, transportation and intended topic which is
gratuities) are unallowable. ``Entertainment Costs``. NSF
Travel, meal and hotel expenses of believes that the search tools/
grantee employees who are not on options available in the PAPPG are
travel status are unallowable. sufficient to provide awardees
Costs of employees on travel quick and direct access to
status are limited to those specific topics on items of costs,
specifically authorized by 2 CFR including travel and entertainment
Sec. 200.474.'' We suggest costs.
keeping the two sentences that are
proposed to be stricken at the end
of this section (in addition to
having this text also included in
Chapter II.C.2.g.(iv)), as it is
useful and applicable guidance to
grantees looking up the rules in
both sections. We also recommend
adding an explicit reference to 2
CFR Sec. 200.438 at the end of
the Entertainment paragraph so the
last three sentences read:
``Travel, meal and hotel expenses
of grantee employees who are not
on travel status are unallowable.
Costs of employees on travel
status are limited to those
specifically authorized by 2 CFR
Sec. 200.474. See 2 CFR Sec.
200.438 for additional information
about entertainment costs.''
Adding a reference to specific
section of the Uniform Guidance
will allow users to more easily
identify and understand the
regulations that govern their
awards.
39................................ NSF Office of the NSF Award ``When these conditions reference a See NSF Response to Comment 30.
Inspector General. Conditions, Chapter particular PAPPG section, that
VI.C. section becomes part of the award
requirements through incorporation
by reference.'' Please see our
suggestions outlined in comment
number 1.
40................................ NSF Office of the NSF-Approved ``The request should be submitted NSF believes that the revised
Inspector General. Extension, Chapter to NSF at least 45 days prior to language is appropriate. Requests
VI.D.3.c(ii)(a). the end date of the grant.'' We must be submitted at least 45 days
believe that this alteration fully prior to the end date of the
changes the guidance rather than grant. If submitted late, the
simply updating it for clarity. We request must include a strong
suggest returning the sentence justification as to why it was not
back to the way it was originally submitted earlier. That provides
written to state, ``The request the necessary ability for the
must be submitted to NSF at least Foundation to appropriately
45 days prior to the end date of respond to situations where a
the grant.'' This will allow compelling rationale is provided.
responsible NSF officials adequate
time to fully review the request.
41................................ NSF Office of the Changes in ``The objectives or scope of the Rather than develop a listing of
Inspector General. Objectives or project may not be changed without potential ``indicators'' of a
Scope, Chapter prior NSF approval. Such change change in scope, NSF prefers to
VII.B.1(a). requests must be signed and continue use of Article 2 to
submitted by the AOR via use of identify areas that require NSF
NSF's electronic systems.'' We prior approval.
suggest adopting similar guidance
to the National Institutes of
Health that defines change of
scope and provides potential
indicators. This guidance can be
found in section 8.1.2.5 of the
NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Alternatively, we suggest adding a
list of circumstances that could
be considered a change of scope.
For example, significant increase/
decrease in a PI's effort
allocated to the project, a
significant decrease in research
opportunities for graduate and
undergraduate students, and
significant (>25%) rebudgeting of
costs among budget categories,
which indicates a material change
in the research methodology.
[[Page 52476]]
42................................ NSF Office of the Award Financial ``NSF will notify grantees of any A reference to the section on
Inspector General. Reporting canceling appropriations on open grantee payments has been
Requirements and awards in order for grantees to incorporated into the paragraph on
Final properly expend and draw down cancelling appropriations.
Disbursements, funds before the end of the fiscal
Chapter VIII.E.6. year.'' We suggest adding a
sentence that reminds awardees
that funds must still be used on
allowable, allocable, and
reasonable costs, and that the
drawdown must be related to
expenses that have already been
incurred or will be incurred
within 3 days of the drawdown, per
NSF policy. In the past, awardees
have misconstrued NSF's guidance
and have drawn down funds for
expenditures that had not been
incurred and were not anticipated
to be incurred within 3 days.
43................................ NSF Office of the Conflict of Interest ``Guidance for development of such NSF defers to grantee organizations
Inspector General. Policies, Chapter polices has been issued by regarding the provision of
IX.A. university associations and examples in their policies that
scientific societies. In addition are most applicable to their
to the stated language, we suggest organization.
that NSF also provide examples of
key components of an effective
policy.
44................................ NSF Office of the Conflict of Interest ``significant financial interest'' NSF believes that there is value in
Inspector General. Policies, Chapter does not include ``any ownership having a consistent SBIR exclusion
IX.A. in the organization, if the between NSF and NIH. Excluding
organization is an applicant under SBIR awards from NSF's policy
the [SBIR/STTR programs]?'' What reflects the fact that limited
is intended regarding IX.A.2.b, amounts of funding are provided
that the term ``significant for SBIR Phase I awards and an
financial interest'' does not ownership interest in an SBIR
include ``any ownership in the institution at this phase is not
organization, if the organization likely to create a bias in the
is an applicant under the [SBIR/ outcome of the research. This
STTR programs]?'' In the instance exclusion takes into consideration
of a professor being proposed as the fact that potentially biasing
co-PI for a university for a financial interests will be
subcontract through an SBIR award, assessed during submission of SBIR
where that professor is also an Phase II proposals. Moreover, in
owner of an SBIR applicant, this order for an institution to
section may be interpreted to mean receive the designation as being
that professor does not have to eligible for the SBIR program,
disclose her ownership interest in this information is collected
the SBIR company. We suggest through the SBIR Company Registry
adding language to make this more by the Small Business
clear and to remove any potential Administration and identified in
loop holes. the supplemental SBIR document
provided by SBA. Further, we note
that the OMB Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards (September 10,
2015), require a Federal awarding
agency to have an awardee conflict
of interest policy and require the
awardee to report conflicts of
interest to the Federal awarding
agency. (2 CFR 200.112) NSF's
policy complies with the uniform
standards.
45................................ NSF Office of the Conflict of Interest ``an equity interest that, when NSF's thresholds reflect language
Inspector General. Policies, Chapter aggregated for the investigator agreed upon in 1995, as a result
IX.A. and the investigator's spouse and of close coordination between NSF
dependent children, meets both of and NIH. At the time, both
the following tests: (i) Does not agencies' policies went through
exceed $10,000 in value as extensive public comment periods.
determined through reference to
public prices or other reasonable
measures of fair market value; and
(ii) does not represent more than
a 5% ownership interest in any
single entity;'' How were the
thresholds of $10,000 or a 5%
ownership interest in IX.A.2.e
determined? How is 5% ownership
interest defined and how is an
individual supposed to determine
if he/she has a 5% ownership
interest? It may require knowledge
outside of their control, for
instance, knowledge of all owners
and the total assets of the
company in order to calculate
their share. We suggest erring on
the side of more disclosure as
opposed to less, and simply
requiring individuals with
ownership interests to make
disclosures so that it is more
clear.
[[Page 52477]]
46................................ NSF Office of the Allowability of General comment: We suggest that A hypertext link to 2 CFR Sec.
Inspector General. Costs, Chapter X. any references to 2 CFR Sec. 200 200 already appears in the html
include a hyperlink directly to version of the PAPPG.
the regulation to help facilitate
better understanding by the user.
47................................ NSF Office of the Pre-Award (Pre-Start We suggest language reinforcing the Comment incorporated.
Inspector General. Date) Costs, policy in Chapter VI, Sec. E.2.
Chapter X.A.2.b. that costs incurred under an ``old
grant cannot be transferred to the
new grant'' in the case of a
renewal grant. The 90-day preaward
cost allowability provision should
not apply to renewal grants, even
if the ``old'' award has been
fully expended. This would
constitute a transfer of a loss on
the ``old'' grant to the ``new''
grant, which is unallowable under
2 CFR Sec. 200.451.
48................................ NSF Office of the Salaries and Wages, ``Compensation paid or accrued by NSF believes that incorporation of
Inspector General. Chapter X.B.1.a. the organization for employees the entire Uniform Guidance into
working on the NSF-supported the PAPPG is not prudent. The
project during the grant period is PAPPG would then become incredibly
allowable, in accordance with 2 lengthy and unhelpful to users.
CFR Sec. 200.430'' We suggest Rather, a hypertext link is
including additional narrative provided to each of the applicable
here summarizing the requirements references in the Uniform
that are specified in 2 CFR Sec. Guidance.
200.430 (similar to what is
included at Chapter II.C.2.g.(i))
as opposed to relying solely on
awardees pulling up the reference
to the Uniform Guidance. This will
allow users to better understand
the guidance and regulations
applicable to their awards.
49................................ NSF Office of the Administrative and ``Such costs are explicitly This recommendation is inconsistent
Inspector General. Clerical Salaries included in the approved budget or with the approach established in 2
and Wages, Chapter have the prior written approval of CFR Sec. 200. Throughout the
X.B.2. the cognizant NSF Grants document, regular reference is
Officer;'' We suggest that for made to ``are explicitly included
direct charging of administrative/ in the budget.'' Such inclusion in
clerical salaries and wages to be the budget serves to explicitly
allowable, they must be explicitly document agency approval of
approved in the award notice. This specific cost categories at the
is consistent with section time of the award.
X.A.3.b.2, which states that
salaries of administrative and
clerical staff must receive
written prior approval from the
Grants and Agreements Officer.
50................................ NSF Office of the Intra-University ``If anticipated, any compensation Comment incorporated.
Inspector General. (IHE) Consulting, for such consulting services
Chapter X.B.3. should be disclosed in the
proposal budget, justified in the
budget justification, and included
in the NSF award budget.'' We
suggest including the following
sentence at the end of this
section: ``See 2 CFR Sec.
200.430(h)(3) for additional
information.'' Adding a reference
to specific section of the Uniform
Guidance will allow users to more
easily identify and understand the
regulations that govern their
awards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 52478]]
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 52,000 proposals in FY
2017, an estimated 6,240,000 burden hours will be placed on the public.
The Foundation has based its reporting burden on the review of
approximately 52,000 new proposals expected during FY 2017. 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 780,000 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 7,020,000.
The actual burden on respondents has not changed.
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2016-18758 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
