Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Merit Review Survey-2021 and 2023 Assessment of Applicant and Reviewer Experiences, 8045-8047 [2021-02240]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 3, 2021 / Notices
2. Another important skill for
members of the CPMC is the ability to
work collaboratively with others,
including diverse stakeholders. Please
describe any relevant past experience
developing and maintaining
relationships with a variety of
individuals; communicating effectively
about topics involving interdependencies, competing priorities, and
diverse audiences/user groups; or
reaching a consensus among diverse
stakeholders with conflicting interests.
3. A key skill that the Library is
seeking in members of the CPMC is
knowledge of the technology relevant to
Copyright Office IT modernization and
the Office’s recent initiatives. Please
describe any relevant experience in the
following sectors: government
innovation and/or technology, copyright
law and Copyright Office services, rights
management, and the development and
use of IT systems in library, cultural
heritage, museum, creative industry or
other settings.
4. Please describe your knowledge of
user-centered strategies and design
methods, including any experience
applying iterative design principles to
solving complex problems.
5. If your application is endorsed by
other stakeholders or associations,
please identify them.
Dated: January 28, 2021.
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2021–02194 Filed 2–2–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION
ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
[Docket No. 1–2021–02]
National Security Commission on
Artificial Intelligence; Notice of Federal
Advisory Committee Meeting
National Security Commission
on Artificial Intelligence.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory
Committee virtual public meeting.
AGENCY:
The National Security
Commission on Artificial Intelligence
(the ‘‘Commission’’) is publishing this
notice to announce that the following
Federal Advisory Committee virtual
public meeting will take place.
DATES: Wednesday, February 17, 2021,
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time (EST).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Angela Ponmakha, 703–614–6379
(Voice), nscai-dfo@nscai.gov. Mailing
address: Designated Federal Officer,
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
National Security Commission on
Artificial Intelligence, 2530 Crystal
Drive, Box 45, Arlington, VA 22202.
website: https://www.nscai.gov. The
most up-to-date information about the
meeting and the Commission can be
found on the website.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
meeting is being held under the
provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C.,
Appendix), the Government in the
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41
CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150.
Purpose of the Meeting: The John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19 NDAA),
Sec. 1051, Public Law 115–232, 132
Stat. 1636, 1962–65 (2018), created the
Commission to ‘‘consider the methods
and means necessary to advance the
development of artificial intelligence,
machine learning, and associated
technologies by the United States to
comprehensively address the national
security and defense needs of the
United States.’’ In a two-day meeting on
January 25–26, 2021, the Commission
deliberated on the draft Final Report
and associated recommendations for
Congress and the Executive Branch. The
Commissioners then tasked the
Commission staff with drafting specific
implementation plans to accompany the
Commission’s Final Report. On
February 17, 2021, Commissioners will
meet and deliberate on these draft
implementation plans.
Agenda: The meeting will begin on
February 17, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. EST with
opening remarks by the Designated
Federal Officer, Ms. Angela Ponmakha;
the Executive Director, Mr. Yll
Bajraktari; the Commission Chair, Dr.
Eric Schmidt; and the Commission Vice
Chair, Mr. Robert Work. Commissioners
from each of the Commission’s lines of
effort (LOEs) will present specific
implementation plans associated with
chapters of the Final Report for
consideration by the entire Commission.
The Commission’s LOEs are: LOE 1—
Invest in AI Research & Development
and Software; LOE 2—Apply AI to
National Security Missions; LOE 3—
Train and Recruit AI Talent; LOE 4—
Protect and Build Upon U.S.
Technological Advantages & Hardware;
LOE 5—Marshal Global AI Cooperation;
and LOE 6—Ethics and Responsible AI.
The Commission will deliberate on
the draft implementation plans and
consider them for inclusion in the
Commission’s final report to Congress
and the Administration. The meeting
will adjourn at 4:00 p.m. EST.
Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to
Federal statutes and regulations (the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8045
FACA, the Sunshine Act, and 41 CFR
102–3.140 through 102–3.165) and the
availability of space, the virtual meeting
is open to the public February 17, 2021
from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
Members of the public wishing to
receive a link to the live stream webcast
for viewing and audio access to the
virtual meeting should register on the
Commission’s website, https://
www.nscai.gov. Registration will be
available from February 8, 2021 through
February 16, 2021. Members of the
media should RSVP to the
Commission’s press office at press@
nscai.gov.
Special Accommodations: Individuals
requiring special accommodations to
access the public meeting should
contact the DFO, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for contact
information, no later than February 12,
2021, so that appropriate arrangements
can be made.
Access to Records of the Meeting:
Pursuant to FACA requirements, the
meeting materials for the virtual
meetings will be available for public
inspection on the Commission’s website
at https://www.nscai.gov on February
12, 2021.
Written Statements: Written
comments may be submitted to the DFO
via email to: nscai-dfo@nscai.gov in
either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word
format. The DFO will compile all
written submissions and provide them
to the Commissioners for consideration.
Comments must be received by
February 15 to be reviewed by
Commissioners in advance of the
meeting. Please note that all submitted
comments will be treated as public
documents and will be made available
for public inspection, including, but not
limited to, being posted on the
Commission’s website.
Dated: January 28, 2021.
Michael Gable,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021–02196 Filed 2–2–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3610–Y8–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request; Merit
Review Survey—2021 and 2023
Assessment of Applicant and Reviewer
Experiences
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
8046
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 3, 2021 / Notices
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. This is the
second notice for public comment; the
first was published in the Federal
Register, and no comments were
received. NSF is forwarding the
proposed submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
clearance simultaneously with the
publication of this second notice.
DATES: Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAmain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation,
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria,
VA 22314, 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).
Copies of the submission may be
obtained by calling 703–292–7556.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
Title of Collection: Merit Review
Survey—2021 & 2023 Assessment of
Applicant and Reviewer Experiences.
OMB Number: 3145–NEW.
Type of Request: Request for approval
to establish an information collection.
Proposed Project: The National
Science Foundation (NSF) receives
close to 50,000 proposals for funding
annually, each of which undergoes a
rigorous 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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The goal of this data collection is to
assess the experiences of applicants and
reviewers and their satisfaction with
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 (2021 survey) and between FY
2020 and FY 2022 (2023 survey).
The specific research objectives are
to—
1. Assess applicant and reviewer
perceptions of, and satisfaction with,
various aspects of the merit review
process.
2. Document the time burden the
merit review process places on
reviewers and applicants.
3. Examine applicant and reviewer
perceptions of the quality of reviews
and of proposals.
4. Assess the changes in applicant and
reviewer perceptions of burden,
satisfaction, and quality between the
2019 and 2021 surveys and the 2021
and 2023 surveys.
5. Examine the variation of applicant
and reviewer perception of satisfaction,
burden, and quality by key population
subgroups, including race/ethnicity,
gender, and disability.
6. Describe the extent to which NSF’s
reviewer orientation video is correlated
with awareness of different types of
cognitive biases and the use of strategies
to reduce cognitive bias and to provide
constructive feedback.
7. Describe the extent to which the
elimination of annual proposal
deadlines affected reviewer and
applicant burden, perceptions of
proposal and review quality, and
satisfaction with the merit review
process.
8. Describe applicants and reviewers
experiences with student support
programs as well as what NSF
application and funding support is
associated with the receipt of financial
support from NSF as an undergraduate
or graduate 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.
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
8047
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 3, 2021 / Notices
Expected 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 2021
survey and comparable individuals who
participated between FY 2020 and FY
2022 will be invited to participate in the
2023 survey. This is estimated to be
approximately 87,000 individuals per
survey round.
Average time per reporting: The
online survey is comprised primarily of
close-ended questions and is designed
to be completed by respondents in
approximately 20 minutes.
Frequency: Eligible applicants and
reviewers will be asked to the complete
the 2021 Merit Review survey one time
in fall 2021. For the 2023 survey,
eligible applicants and reviewers will be
asked to complete the survey one time
in fall 2023.
Estimate of burden: It is estimated the
survey will require approximately 20
minutes (on average) to complete. The
anticipated universe size for each
survey cycle is 87,000 individuals,
which includes all applicants who
submitted proposals and all reviewers
between FY 2018 and FY 2020 (for the
2021 survey) and between FY 2020 and
FY 2022 (for the 2023 survey). The
estimated survey response rate for each
the 2021 and 2023 survey rounds is 40
percent. Therefore, the total burden is
23,200 hours; this is a respondent
burden of 11,600 hours per survey year
(2021 and 2023).
Based on 2019 merit review survey
data, it is anticipated that most survey
respondents will be working at an
academic institution, likely in a
teaching and/or research capacity.
Therefore, for the purpose of burden
estimates, we have used the annual
mean wage for postsecondary teachers
from Bureau of Labor Statistics, which
is $79,540.1 Assuming a 40-hour
workweek over the course of 52 weeks
annually, the hourly wage for this
occupation is approximately $38.00.
Therefore, the overall cost to survey
respondents for each survey year (2021
and 2023) would be approximately
$440,800 (11,600 burden hours × $38.00
per hour), as shown in table A.12.1
below.
TABLE A.12.1—ESTIMATE OF RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST BY YEAR
Number of
respondents
Year
Average burden
per response
(hours)
Total burden
hours
Average
hourly wage
Total cost
2021 ...........................................................
2022 ...........................................................
2023 ...........................................................
34,800
0
34,800
1
0
1
0.33333
0
0.33333
11,600
0
11,600
$38
0
38
$440,800
0
440,800
Total ....................................................
69,600
1
0.33333
23,200
38
881,600
Comments: Comments are invited on
(a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Agency’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 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: January 29, 2021.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2021–02240 Filed 2–2–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Number of
responses per
respondent
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 11006398; NRC–2020–0249]
U.S. Department of Energy National
Nuclear Security Administration
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Export license application;
opportunity to provide comments,
request a hearing, and petition for leave
to intervene.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received an
application for an export license
(XSNM3819) requested by U.S
Department of Energy National Nuclear
Security Administration (DOE/NNSA).
On September 10, 2020, DOE/NNSA
filed an application with the NRC
seeking approval for a license to export
high enriched uranium to France.
DATES: Submit comments by March 5,
2021. A request for a hearing or a
petition for leave to intervene must be
filed by March 5, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods;
however, the NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal Rulemaking
SUMMARY:
Website
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2020–0249. Address
questions about Docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann;
telephone: 301–415–0624; email:
Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
• Email comments to:
hearing.docket@nrc.gov. If you do not
receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janice Owens, Office of International
Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
1 Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/educationtraining-and-library/postsecondary-teachers.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 02, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8045-8047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02240]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Merit
Review Survey--2021 and 2023 Assessment of Applicant and Reviewer
Experiences
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Submission for OMB review; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
[[Page 8046]]
following information collection requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second
notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal
Register, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed
submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance
simultaneously with the publication of this second notice.
DATES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAmain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue,
Alexandria, VA 22314, 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).
Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
Title of Collection: Merit Review Survey--2021 & 2023 Assessment of
Applicant and Reviewer Experiences.
OMB Number: 3145-NEW.
Type of Request: Request for approval to establish an information
collection.
Proposed Project: The National Science Foundation (NSF) receives
close to 50,000 proposals for funding annually, each of which undergoes
a rigorous 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 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 (2021 survey) and between FY 2020
and FY 2022 (2023 survey).
The specific research objectives are to--
1. Assess applicant and reviewer perceptions of, and satisfaction
with, various aspects of the merit review process.
2. Document the time burden the merit review process places on
reviewers and applicants.
3. Examine applicant and reviewer perceptions of the quality of
reviews and of proposals.
4. Assess the changes in applicant and reviewer perceptions of
burden, satisfaction, and quality between the 2019 and 2021 surveys and
the 2021 and 2023 surveys.
5. Examine the variation of applicant and reviewer perception of
satisfaction, burden, and quality by key population subgroups,
including race/ethnicity, gender, and disability.
6. Describe the extent to which NSF's reviewer orientation video is
correlated with awareness of different types of cognitive biases and
the use of strategies to reduce cognitive bias and to provide
constructive feedback.
7. Describe the extent to which the elimination of annual proposal
deadlines affected reviewer and applicant burden, perceptions of
proposal and review quality, and satisfaction with the merit review
process.
8. Describe applicants and reviewers experiences with student
support programs as well as what NSF application and funding support is
associated with the receipt of financial support from NSF as an
undergraduate or graduate 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.
[[Page 8047]]
Expected 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 2021 survey and comparable
individuals who participated between FY 2020 and FY 2022 will be
invited to participate in the 2023 survey. This is estimated to be
approximately 87,000 individuals per survey round.
Average time per reporting: The online survey is comprised
primarily of close-ended questions and is designed to be completed by
respondents in approximately 20 minutes.
Frequency: Eligible applicants and reviewers will be asked to the
complete the 2021 Merit Review survey one time in fall 2021. For the
2023 survey, eligible applicants and reviewers will be asked to
complete the survey one time in fall 2023.
Estimate of burden: It is estimated the survey will require
approximately 20 minutes (on average) to complete. The anticipated
universe size for each survey cycle is 87,000 individuals, which
includes all applicants who submitted proposals and all reviewers
between FY 2018 and FY 2020 (for the 2021 survey) and between FY 2020
and FY 2022 (for the 2023 survey). The estimated survey response rate
for each the 2021 and 2023 survey rounds is 40 percent. Therefore, the
total burden is 23,200 hours; this is a respondent burden of 11,600
hours per survey year (2021 and 2023).
Based on 2019 merit review survey data, it is anticipated that most
survey respondents will be working at an academic institution, likely
in a teaching and/or research capacity. Therefore, for the purpose of
burden estimates, we have used the annual mean wage for postsecondary
teachers from Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is $79,540.\1\ Assuming
a 40-hour workweek over the course of 52 weeks annually, the hourly
wage for this occupation is approximately $38.00. Therefore, the
overall cost to survey respondents for each survey year (2021 and 2023)
would be approximately $440,800 (11,600 burden hours x $38.00 per
hour), as shown in table A.12.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/postsecondary-teachers.htm.
Table A.12.1--Estimate of Respondent Burden and Cost by Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average burden
Year Number of responses per per response Total burden Average Total cost
respondents respondent (hours) hours hourly wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021...................................................... 34,800 1 0.33333 11,600 $38 $440,800
2022...................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
2023...................................................... 34,800 1 0.33333 11,600 38 440,800
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 69,600 1 0.33333 23,200 38 881,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency'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
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: January 29, 2021.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2021-02240 Filed 2-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
