Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information Collection, 65436-65438 [2020-22755]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
65436
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 200 / Thursday, October 15, 2020 / Notices
Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C.
1762, specifically requires federal credit
unions to report the identity of credit
union officials. Section 741.6(a) requires
federally-insured credit unions to
submit a Report of Officials annually to
NCUA containing the annual
certification of compliance with security
requirements. The branch information is
requested under the authority of § 741.6
of the NCUA Rules and Regulations.
NCUA utilizes the information to
monitor financial conditions in
corporate credit unions, §§§ and to
allocate supervision and examination
resources.
Affected Public: Private Sector: Notfor-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
11.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 13.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
143.
Estimated Burden Hours per
Response: 3.77.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 539.
Reason for Change: The changes to
the NCUA Form 5310, Corporate Credit
Union Call Report, are being made to
align the form with recently approved
Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) related to ASC 326
Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL).
These changes will allow corporate
credit unions to early adopt CECL. A
corporate credit union would continue
to complete the form as is or they can
voluntarily elect to early adopt ASC 326
and report under the CECL standard.
Additional changes will also be made to
better defined investments, consolidate
duplicative questions, and clarify other
data collection elements. These
revisions will not alter the estimated
burden hours necessary to review the
instrument and complete the form.
OMB Number: 3133–0186.
Title: Higher-Risk Mortgage
Appraisals.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Abstract: Section 1471 of the DoddFrank Act established Truth in Lending
section 129H, which contains appraisal
requirements applicable to higher-risk
mortgages and prohibits a creditor from
extending credit in the form of a higherrisk mortgage loan to any consumer
without meeting those requirements. A
higher-risk mortgage is defined as a
residential mortgage loan secured by a
principal dwelling with an annual
percentage rate that exceeds the average
prime offer rate for a comparable
transaction as of the date the interest
rate is set by certain enumerated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
percentage point spreads. To implement
this statutory requirement, a final rule
was promulgated to amend 12 CFR part
1026, Regulation Z, by the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection, the
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, the Federal Housing
Finance Authority, the NCUA, and the
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.
The information collections under
§ 1026.35(c) include (1) providing a
disclosure within three days of
application that informs the consumer
regarding the purpose of the appraisal,
that the creditor will provide the
consumer a copy of any appraisal, and
that the consumer may choose to have
a separate appraisal conducted at the
expense of the consumer (Initial
Appraisal Disclosure); (2) requiring
creditors to obtain a written appraisal
meeting certain standards for HPMLs
and provide a free copy of the appraisal
to consumers (Written Appraisal); and
(3) requiring an additional written
appraisal for properties resold within
the 180 days (at a higher price meeting
certain thresholds) and providing free
copies of these appraisals to consumers
(Additional Written Appraisal).
The information collections are
required by statute, are necessary to
protect consumers, and promote the
safety and soundness of creditors
making higher-risk mortgage loans.
Affected Public: Private Sector: Notfor-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
2,400.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 0.46.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
1,104.
Estimated Burden Hours per
Response: 0.25.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 276.
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 execution 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
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
burden of the collection of the
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
By Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board, the National
Credit Union Administration, on
October 8, 2020.
Dated: October 9, 2020.
Dawn D. Wolfgang,
NCUA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–22770 Filed 10–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To
Establish an Information Collection
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans
to request approval for the collection of
research and development data through
the 2021 Merit Review Survey. In
accordance with the requirement of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
are providing opportunity for public
comment on this action. After obtaining
and considering public comment, NSF
will prepare the submission requesting
that OMB approve clearance of this
collection for no longer than 3 years.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be received by December 14, 2020
to be assured of consideration.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent practicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation,
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria,
VA 22314; 703–292–7556, 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).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Merit Review
Survey—2021 Assessment of Applicant
and Reviewer Experiences.
OMB Approval Number: 3145–NEW.
Expiration Date of Current Approval:
Not applicable.
Type of Request: Intent to establish an
information collection.
Abstract: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) receives close to
50,000 proposals for funding annually,
each of which undergoes a rigorous
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15OCN1.SGM
15OCN1
65437
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 200 / Thursday, October 15, 2020 / Notices
merit review process that is designed to
ensure all proposals are fairly and
thoroughly reviewed. The merit review
process comprises three phases:
1. NSF announces funding
opportunities on the NSF website and
Grants.gov. Applicants prepare
proposals in response to these
opportunities and submit their
proposals via FastLane (NSF’s webbased system for proposal submission
and review) or Grants.gov.
2. Proposals are assigned to the
appropriate program(s) for review. Each
proposal is assigned a Program Officer
(PO) who selects external reviewers to
evaluate the proposal according to the
two NSF merit review criteria,
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.
The Intellectual Merit criterion
encompasses the potential to advance
knowledge. The Broader Impacts
criterion encompasses the potential to
benefit society and contribute to the
achievement of specific, desired societal
outcomes. Programs may have
additional review criteria particular to
the goals and objectives of the program.
The NSF guidelines for the selection of
reviewers are designed to ensure
selection of experts who can give
program officers the proper information
needed to make a recommendation in
accordance with the merit review
criteria. POs utilize the proposal’s
reference list, the investigator’s
suggested reviewers, and personal
knowledge of individual reviewers to
identify a pool of diverse experts with
respect to type of organization
represented, demographics, experience,
and geographic balance, selecting
appropriate reviewers with no apparent
potential conflicts. Most proposals are
reviewed by three to ten content expert
reviewers who provide written feedback
on the proposal through FastLane. POs
synthesize reviewer comments and
issue a recommendation to either
decline or award funding based on
reviewer feedback, panel discussions,
the amount of available funding, and
portfolio balances (i.e., the diversity of
a portfolio, including factors such as
award type, career stage, demographic
characteristics, geographic location,
institution type, research topic,
laboratory funding status, and
intellectual risk). The proposal and PO
recommendation is then forwarded to
the appropriate Division Director or
other NSF official for additional review
and action to either decline or award.
3. Each proposal recommended for
award undergoes an administrative
review conducted by NSF’s Office of
Budget, Finance, and Award
Management. If it passes this review, the
proposal is awarded.
Through this review process, NSF
aims to identify the highest quality
proposals to receive funding. The
success of this process hinges on the
assumptions that applicants will
continue to submit to NSF their ideas
for cutting-edge research and that
experts in their respective fields will
continue to provide high-quality
reviews of those proposals.
The goal of this data collection is to
assess the experiences of applicants and
reviewers and their satisfaction with the
NSF’s merit review process. The data
collection for which this OMB approval
is requested includes a Web-based
survey that will be administered to all
applicants and reviewers who
participated in the merit review process
between fiscal years (FY) 2018 and FY
2020. The specific research objectives
are to—
1. Examine applicant and reviewer
perceptions of, and satisfaction with,
the merit review process, including how
it may vary by respondent gender or
race.
2. Document the time burden the
proposal submission and merit review
process places on applicants and
reviewers.
3. Examine applicant and reviewer
perceptions of the quality of reviews
and of proposals, including how it may
vary by respondent demographics such
as gender or race.
4. Describe the extent to which
respondent familiarity with NSF’s
reviewer orientation pilot is associated
with reported use of review strategies to
mitigate bias.
5. Describe the extent to which the
experience with proposal deadlines has
affected applicants and reviewer burden
and satisfaction.
6. Examine applicants’ and reviewers’
experiences receiving financial support
as a student.
Data from the survey will be used to
improve NSF’s implementation of the
merit review process.
Use of the information: The primary
purpose of collecting this information is
program evaluation. The data collected
will enable NSF to assess the
satisfaction, including perceptions of
burden and quality, of applicants and
reviewers who participate in the merit
review process in order to monitor and
improve the program and assess its
implementation. Findings will inform
continual improvement activities
related to the merit review process.
Respondents: All applicants who have
submitted proposals and reviewers who
have reviewed NSF proposals between
FY 2018 and 2020 will be invited to
participate in the survey. This is
estimated to be approximately 87,000
individuals.
Estimated number of respondents: It
is estimated that there will be 26,000
respondents (representing an
approximate 30 percent response rate).
Average time per reporting: The
online survey is comprised primarily of
close-ended questions and is designed
to be completed by respondents in
under 30 minutes.
Frequency: Eligible applicants and
reviewers will be asked to the complete
the 2021 Merit Review survey one time
in fall 2021.
Estimate burden on the public: The
collection occurs once for each
respondent. The total estimate for this
collection is 8,667 burden hours. The
calculation is shown in table 1.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BURDEN TO SURVEY MERIT REVIEW APPLICANTS AND REVIEWERS
Number of
respondents
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Category of respondent
Participation
time
(minutes)
Burden
(hours)
NSF applicants and reviewers .....................................................................................................
26,000
20
8,667
Totals ....................................................................................................................................
26,000
20
8,667
Comments: Comments are invited on
(a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
NSF, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the NSF’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection
E:\FR\FM\15OCN1.SGM
15OCN1
65438
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 200 / Thursday, October 15, 2020 / Notices
techniques or other forms of information
technology; and (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.
Dated: October 8, 2020.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2020–22755 Filed 10–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC–
2020–0201]
Virginia Electric and Power Company;
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and
2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Subsequent license renewal
application; opportunity to request a
hearing and to petition for leave to
intervene.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering an
application for the subsequent license
renewal of Renewed Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7, which
authorize Virigina Electric and Power
Company (Dominion or the applicant) to
operate North Anna Power Station,
Units 1 and 2 (North Anna). The
subsequent renewed licenses would
authorize the applicant to operate North
Anna for an additional 20 years beyond
the period specified in each of the
current renewed licenses. The current
renewed operating licenses for North
Anna expire as follows: Unit 1 on April
1, 2038, and Unit 2 on August 21, 2040.
DATES: A request for a hearing or
petition for leave to intervene must be
filed by December 14, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2020–0201 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2020–0201. Address
questions about Docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301–287–9127; email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced (if it is
available in ADAMS) is provided the
first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
• Public Library: A copy of the
subsequent license renewal application
for North Anna can be accessed at the
following public library (library access
and hours are determined by local
policy): Louisa County Library, 881
Davis Hwy., Mineral, VA 23117.
• NRC’s PDR: The PDR where you
may examine and order copies of public
documents, is currently closed. You
may submit your request to the PDR via
email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call
1–800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Drucker, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
6223, email: David.Drucker@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
By letter dated August 24, 2020
(ADAMS Package Accession No.
ML20246G703), Virginia Electric and
Power Company (Dominion or the
applicant) filed an application pursuant
to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and part
54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), to renew the
operating licenses for North Anna,
which authorize each unit to operate at
2,940 megawatts thermal. The North
Anna units are pressurized-water
reactors designed by Westinghouse
Electric Company and are located in
Louisa, Virginia. A notice of receipt of
the subsequent license renewal
application (SLRA) was published in
the Federal Register (FR) on September
21, 2020 (85 FR 59334).
The NRC staff has determined that
Dominion has submitted sufficient
information in accordance with 10 CFR
54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and
51.53(c), to enable the staff to undertake
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a review of the application, and that the
application is, therefore, acceptable for
docketing. The current Docket Nos. 50–
338 and 50–339 for Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–4 and
NPF–7, respectively, will be retained.
The determination to accept the SLRA
for docketing does not constitute a
determination that a subsequent
renewed license should be issued, and
does not preclude the NRC staff from
requesting additional information as the
review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested
subsequent renewed licenses, the NRC
will have made the findings required by
the Act, and the Commission’s rules and
regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR
54.29, the NRC may issue a subsequent
renewed license on the basis of its
review if it finds that actions have been
identified and have been or will be
taken with respect to: (1) Managing the
effects of aging during the period of
extended operation on the functionality
of structures and components that have
been identified as requiring aging
management review; and (2) timelimited aging analyses that have been
identified as requiring review, such that
there is reasonable assurance that the
activities authorized by the renewed
licenses will continue to be conducted
in accordance with the current licensing
basis and that any changes made to the
plant’s current licensing basis will
comply with the Act and the
Commission’s regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10
CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an
environmental impact statement as a
supplement to the Commission’s
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ NUREG 1437,
dated June 2013. In considering the
SLRA, the Commission must find that
the applicable requirements of subpart
A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied,
and that any matters raised under 10
CFR 2.335 have been addressed.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part
of the environmental scoping process,
the staff intends to hold public scoping
meetings. Detailed information
regarding the environmental scoping
meetings will be the subject of a
separate Federal Register notice.
II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person
(petitioner) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request
for a hearing and petition for leave to
intervene (petition) with respect to the
action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
E:\FR\FM\15OCN1.SGM
15OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 200 (Thursday, October 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65436-65438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22755]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information
Collection
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to
request approval for the collection of research and development data
through the 2021 Merit Review Survey. In accordance with the
requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing
opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and
considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting
that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than 3
years.
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by December 14,
2020 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue,
Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-7556, or send email to [email protected].
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).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Merit Review Survey--2021 Assessment of
Applicant and Reviewer Experiences.
OMB Approval Number: 3145-NEW.
Expiration Date of Current Approval: Not applicable.
Type of Request: Intent to establish an information collection.
Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) receives close to
50,000 proposals for funding annually, each of which undergoes a
rigorous
[[Page 65437]]
merit review process that is designed to ensure all proposals are
fairly and thoroughly reviewed. The merit review process comprises
three phases:
1. NSF announces funding opportunities on the NSF website and
Grants.gov. Applicants prepare proposals in response to these
opportunities and submit their proposals via FastLane (NSF's web-based
system for proposal submission and review) or Grants.gov.
2. Proposals are assigned to the appropriate program(s) for review.
Each proposal is assigned a Program Officer (PO) who selects external
reviewers to evaluate the proposal according to the two NSF merit
review criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. The
Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance
knowledge. The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to
benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired
societal outcomes. Programs may have additional review criteria
particular to the goals and objectives of the program. The NSF
guidelines for the selection of reviewers are designed to ensure
selection of experts who can give program officers the proper
information needed to make a recommendation in accordance with the
merit review criteria. POs utilize the proposal's reference list, the
investigator's suggested reviewers, and personal knowledge of
individual reviewers to identify a pool of diverse experts with respect
to type of organization represented, demographics, experience, and
geographic balance, selecting appropriate reviewers with no apparent
potential conflicts. Most proposals are reviewed by three to ten
content expert reviewers who provide written feedback on the proposal
through FastLane. POs synthesize reviewer comments and issue a
recommendation to either decline or award funding based on reviewer
feedback, panel discussions, the amount of available funding, and
portfolio balances (i.e., the diversity of a portfolio, including
factors such as award type, career stage, demographic characteristics,
geographic location, institution type, research topic, laboratory
funding status, and intellectual risk). The proposal and PO
recommendation is then forwarded to the appropriate Division Director
or other NSF official for additional review and action to either
decline or award.
3. Each proposal recommended for award undergoes an administrative
review conducted by NSF's Office of Budget, Finance, and Award
Management. If it passes this review, the proposal is awarded.
Through this review process, NSF aims to identify the highest
quality proposals to receive funding. The success of this process
hinges on the assumptions that applicants will continue to submit to
NSF their ideas for cutting-edge research and that experts in their
respective fields will continue to provide high-quality reviews of
those proposals.
The goal of this data collection is to assess the experiences of
applicants and reviewers and their satisfaction with the NSF's merit
review process. The data collection for which this OMB approval is
requested includes a Web-based survey that will be administered to all
applicants and reviewers who participated in the merit review process
between fiscal years (FY) 2018 and FY 2020. The specific research
objectives are to--
1. Examine applicant and reviewer perceptions of, and satisfaction
with, the merit review process, including how it may vary by respondent
gender or race.
2. Document the time burden the proposal submission and merit
review process places on applicants and reviewers.
3. Examine applicant and reviewer perceptions of the quality of
reviews and of proposals, including how it may vary by respondent
demographics such as gender or race.
4. Describe the extent to which respondent familiarity with NSF's
reviewer orientation pilot is associated with reported use of review
strategies to mitigate bias.
5. Describe the extent to which the experience with proposal
deadlines has affected applicants and reviewer burden and satisfaction.
6. Examine applicants' and reviewers' experiences receiving
financial support as a student.
Data from the survey will be used to improve NSF's implementation
of the merit review process.
Use of the information: The primary purpose of collecting this
information is program evaluation. The data collected will enable NSF
to assess the satisfaction, including perceptions of burden and
quality, of applicants and reviewers who participate in the merit
review process in order to monitor and improve the program and assess
its implementation. Findings will inform continual improvement
activities related to the merit review process.
Respondents: All applicants who have submitted proposals and
reviewers who have reviewed NSF proposals between FY 2018 and 2020 will
be invited to participate in the survey. This is estimated to be
approximately 87,000 individuals.
Estimated number of respondents: It is estimated that there will be
26,000 respondents (representing an approximate 30 percent response
rate).
Average time per reporting: The online survey is comprised
primarily of close-ended questions and is designed to be completed by
respondents in under 30 minutes.
Frequency: Eligible applicants and reviewers will be asked to the
complete the 2021 Merit Review survey one time in fall 2021.
Estimate burden on the public: The collection occurs once for each
respondent. The total estimate for this collection is 8,667 burden
hours. The calculation is shown in table 1.
Table 1--Estimated Burden To Survey Merit Review Applicants and Reviewers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Participation
Category of respondent respondents time (minutes) Burden (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF applicants and reviewers.................................... 26,000 20 8,667
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 26,000 20 8,667
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the NSF, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the NSF's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection
[[Page 65438]]
techniques or other forms of information technology; and (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.
Dated: October 8, 2020.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2020-22755 Filed 10-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
