[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 204 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 54685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26842]



[[Page 54685]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

    Title of Proposed Collection: National Science Foundation Proposal 
Evaluation Process.
    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on 
proposed data collection projects, the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. Such a 
notice was published at Federal Register 42371, dated August 14, 1996. 
No public comments were received.
    The materials are now being sent to OMB for review. Send any 
written comments to Desk Officer: OMB No. 3145-0060, OIRA, Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments should be 
received by November 18, 1996.
    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.
    Proposed project. Proposal Evaluation Process. The missions of the 
NSF are to: increase the Nation's base of scientific and engineering 
knowledge and strengthen its ability to support research in all areas 
of science and engineering; promote innovative science and engineering 
education programs that can better prepare the Nation to meet the 
challenges of the future; and promote international cooperation in 
science and engineering. The Foundation is also committed to ensuring 
the Nation's supply of scientists, engineers, and science educators. In 
its role as leading Federal supporter of science and engineering, NSF 
also has an important role in national policy planning.
    The Foundation fulfills this responsibility by initiating and 
supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the 
scientific and engineering disciplines. This support is made primarily 
through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to 
approximately 2,800 colleges, universities, academic consortia, 
nonprofit institutions, and small businesses.
    The Foundation relies heavily on the advice and assistance of 
external advisory committees, ad-hoc proposal reviewers, and to other 
experts to ensure that the Foundation is able to reach fair and 
knowledgeable judgments. These scientists and educators come from 
colleges and universities, nonprofit research and education 
organizations, industry, and other Government agencies.
    In making its decisions on proposals the counsel of these merit 
reviewers has proven invaluable to the Foundation both in the 
identification of meritorious projects and in providing sound basis for 
project restructuring.
    Review of proposals may involve large panel sessions, small groups, 
or use of a mail-review system. Proposals are reviewed carefully by 
scientists or engineers who are expert in the particular field 
represented by the proposal. About one-fourth are reviewed by mail 
reviewers alone. Another one-forth are reviewed exclusively by panels 
of reviewers who gather, usually in Washington, to discuss their advice 
as well as to deliver it. The remaining one-half are reviewed first by 
mail reviewers expert in the particular field, then by panels, usually 
of persons with more diverse expertise, who help the NSF decide among 
proposals from multiple fields or sub-fields.
    Use of the Information. The information collected is used to 
support grant programs of the Foundation.
    The information collected on the proposal evaluation forms is used 
by the Foundation to determine the following criteria when awarding or 
declining proposals submitted to the agency: (1) Research performance 
competence; (2) Intrinsic merit of the research; (3) Utility or 
relevance of the research; and (4) Effect of the research on the 
infrastructure of science and engineering.
    The information collected on reviewer background questionnaires is 
used by managers to maintain an automated data base of reviewers for 
the many disciplines represented by the proposals submitted to the 
Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, ethnicity is used in 
meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to congressional and 
other queries into equity issues. These data are also used in the 
design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the 
participation on various groups in science, engineering, and education.
    Confidentiality. Verbatim but anonymous copies of reviews are sent 
to the principal investigators/project directors. Subject to this NSF 
policy and applicable laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, 
reviewers' comments will be given maximum protection from disclosure.
    While listings of panelists' names are released, the names of 
individual reviewers, associated with individual proposals, are not 
released to anyone.
    Because the Foundation is committed to monitoring and identifying 
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), 
the Foundation also collects race, ethnicity, disability, and gender. 
This information is also protected by the Privacy Act.
    Burden on the Public. The Foundation estimates that anywhere from 
one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is 
estimated that approximately five hours are required to review an 
average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of seven reviews.

    Dated: October 15, 1996.
Herman G. Fleming,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-26842 Filed 10-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M