[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1816-1819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-469]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: National Science Foundation (NSF).

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request and Final Notice of 
a Uniform Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) format.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Effective with publication of this Notice in the Federal 
Register, agencies will be able to utilize a new uniform format for 
reporting performance progress on Federally-funded research projects. 
The Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) will directly benefit 
award recipients by making it easier for them to administer Federal 
grant and cooperative agreement programs through standardization of the 
types of information required in interim performance reports--thereby 
reducing their administrative effort and costs. The RPPR will also make 
it easier to compare the outputs, outcomes, etc. of research programs 
across the government.
    The RPPR resulted from an initiative of the Research Business 
Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a 
committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). One of 
the RBM Subcommittee's priority areas is to create greater consistency 
in the administration of Federal research awards. Given the increasing 
complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency research, it is 
important for Federal agencies to manage awards in a similar fashion. 
Upon implementation, the RPPR will be used by agencies that support 
research and research-related activities for use in submission of 
interim progress reports. It is intended to replace other interim 
performance reporting formats currently in use by agencies. The RPPR 
does not change the performance reporting requirements specified in 2 
CFR part 215 (OMB Circular A-110) and the Common Rule implementing OMB 
Circular A-102.
    Each category in the RPPR is a separate reporting component. 
Agencies will direct recipients to report on the one mandatory 
component (``Accomplishments''), and also may direct them to report on 
optional components, as appropriate. Within a particular component, 
agencies may direct recipients to complete only specific questions, as 
not all questions within a given component may be relevant to all 
agencies. Agencies may develop an agency- or program-specific 
component, if necessary, to meet programmatic requirements, although 
agencies should minimize the degree to which they supplement the 
standard components. Such agency- or program-specific requirements will 
require review and clearance by OMB.
    Agencies also may use other OMB-approved reporting formats, such as 
the Performance Progress Report (PPR), if those formats are better 
suited to the agency's reporting requirements, for example, for 
research centers/institutes, clinical trials, or fellowship/training 
awards or in connection to reporting on program performance, through 
mechanisms such as the Performance Assessment Rating Tool.
    On behalf of the RBM Subcommittee, the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has agreed to serve as sponsor of this new format. We anticipate 
this being the final notice before the format and instructions are 
finalized. The general public and Federal agencies, however, are 
invited to comment on the proposed final format during the 30 day 
public comment period. The Government-wide RPPR is posted on the NSF 
Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/index.jsp.
    Comments: In compliance with the requirement of section 
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National 
Science Foundation is publishing the following summary of a proposed 
collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send 
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 
collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) 
The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for 
the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of 
the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology to minimize the information collection burden.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports 
Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative Services, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230, e-mail 
[email protected]; telephone: (703) 292-7556; fax: (703) 292-9188. 
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.
    We encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to 
ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be 
received before the comment closing date. Please include ``Research 
Performance Progress Reporting'' in the subject line of the e-mail 
message; please also include the full body of your comments in the text 
of the message, and as an attachment. Include your name, title, 
organization, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address in 
your message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the RPPR, contact 
Jean Feldman; Head, Policy Office, Division of Institution & Support; 
National Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Blvd; Arlington, VA 22230; e-
mail: [email protected]; telephone: (703) 292-8243; fax: (703) 292-9171.
    For further information on the NSTC RBM Subcommittee, contact Diane 
DiEuliis, at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; e-mail: [email protected]; 
telephone: 202-

[[Page 1817]]

456-6059; fax: 202-456-6027. See also the RBM Subcommittee's Web site: 
http://rbm.nih.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice

    This project is an initiative of the Research Business Models (RBM) 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (COS), a committee of the 
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The RBM Subcommittee's 
objectives include:
     Facilitating a coordinated effort across Federal agencies 
to address policy implications arising from the changing nature of 
scientific research; and
     Examining the effects of these changes on business models 
for the conduct of scientific research sponsored by the Federal 
government.
    The Subcommittee used public comments, agency perspectives, and 
input from a series of regional public meetings to identify priority 
areas on which it would focus its initial efforts. In each priority 
area, the Subcommittee is pursuing initiatives to promote, as 
appropriate, common policy, streamlining of current procedures, or the 
identification of agencies' and institutions' ``best practices.'' As 
further information about initiatives becomes available, it will be 
posted at the Subcommittee's Web site at: http://rbm.nih.gov.
    One of the RBM Subcommittee's priority areas is greater uniformity 
in the form and content of performance reports that are required by 
Federal grants and cooperative agreements awarded under research 
programs. Many Federal agencies have their own forms or formats that 
recipients must use to report progress on activities supported by 
research awards. While agencies use different formats and different 
language to request information on progress, they generally collect 
similar information. These variations increase the administrative 
effort and costs for recipients of Federal awards, and make it 
difficult to compare the outputs, outcomes, etc., of research programs 
across the government. The RPPR format will increase uniformity of 
content across Federal research agencies.
    The RBM Subcommittee reviewed forms and formats currently in use by 
Federal agencies for reporting performance on research grants. The 
reporting categories used by the NSF were selected as a starting point 
for designing a standard format, as hundreds of NSF research programs 
have used these categories successfully. The RPPR does not change the 
performance reporting requirements specified in 2 CFR part 215 (OMB 
Circular A-110) and the Common Rule implementing OMB Circular A-102; it 
merely provides additional clarification, instructions, and a standard 
format for collecting the information.
    The RPPR is intended for use in submission of interim progress 
reports, not for use in submission of final reports, and it is intended 
to replace other formats currently in use by agencies supporting 
research and research-related activities. The RBM Subcommittee plans to 
undertake development of a final Research Performance Progress Report 
format upon completion of the interim RPPR exercise. The RPPR addresses 
progress for the most recently completed period, at the frequency 
required or designated by the sponsoring agency. Information, once 
reported, may not have to be provided again on subsequent reports, if 
an agency has implemented an electronic solution for submission of 
progress reports. However, upon implementation, agencies may use this 
format in either paper copy or in electronic form.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF), on behalf of the National 
Science and Technology Council's Research Business Models Subcommittee, 
proposed the draft RPPR for comment in the Federal Register [Volume 72, 
pages 63629-63631, November 9, 2007]. 347 public comments were received 
from a wide variety of respondents, including six institutions of 
higher education; three associations of academic and nonprofit 
institutions; components of six Federal agencies; and one individual. 
All comments were carefully considered in developing a final version of 
the RPPR. The majority of public comments strongly supported the 
overall proposal to create a government-wide standard RPPR, citing the 
advantages of increased consistency in Federal agencies' reporting 
requirements. A number of specific issues were raised, and those 
comments and responses are summarized in Section II.
    Each category in the RPPR is a separate reporting component. 
Agencies will direct recipients to report on the one mandatory 
component (``Accomplishments''), and may also direct them to report 
optional components, as appropriate. Recipients will not be required or 
expected to report on each of the questions or items listed under a 
particular category. They will be advised to state ``Nothing to 
Report'' if they have nothing significant to report during the 
reporting period. Within a particular component, agencies also may 
direct recipients to complete only specific questions, as not all 
questions within a given component may be relevant to all agencies.
    Agencies will utilize the standard instructions that have been 
developed for each category, but may provide additional program-
specific instructions necessary to clarify a requirement for a 
particular program. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) is required to collect information on environmental impacts; so 
EPA can direct recipients to report on the research's benefit to the 
environment or human health under the following reporting question: 
``How has the project contributed to society beyond science and 
technology?''
    Agencies may develop additional agency- or program-specific 
reporting components and instructions (e.g., the National Institutes of 
Health may need to collect information on clinical trials in certain 
types of awards); however, to maintain maximum uniformity, agencies 
will be instructed to minimize the degree to which they supplement the 
standard categories. Such agency- or program-specific requirements will 
require review and clearance by OMB.
    Agencies also may use other OMB-approved reporting formats, such as 
the Performance Progress Report (PPR), if those formats are better 
suited to the agency's reporting requirements, for example, for 
research centers/institutes, clinical trials, or fellowship/training 
awards or in connection to reporting on program performance, through 
mechanisms such as the Performance Assessment Rating Tool.

II. Comments, Responses, and Changes to the Research Performance 
Progress Report Format

    The following are the comments, and associated responses, resulting 
from the November 9, 2007 Federal Register Notice.
    Comment: Four Federal and six university commenters questioned the 
process for development and implementation of the RPPR.
    Response: When the RBM Working Group was initially formed in 2004, 
it examined existing research progress reports with the intent of 
standardizing the reporting requirements across agencies. Once a draft 
was developed, the RPPR Working Group requested comments and modified 
the format based on the comments. Once final, NSF (on behalf of the 
National Science and Technology Council's Research Business Models 
subcommittee) will send the RPPR to OMB for clearance as part of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act

[[Page 1818]]

(PRA) process. The RPPR Working Group will develop guidance and 
training as part of the implementation.
    Comment: Nine Federal commenters requested additional data elements 
associated with project budgets.
    Response: Agree. A new, optional ``Budget'' section of the format 
was created.
    Comment: Six Federal commenters requested additional data elements 
to comply with agency special reporting requirements on things such as 
clinical trials.
    Response: Agree. An optional ``Special reporting requirements'' 
section of the format was added.
    Comment: One Federal commenter requested the addition of a data 
element capturing changes in project/performance site.
    Response: Agree. A ``Change of primary performance site location'' 
data element was added.
    Comment: Five Federal commenters requested the inclusion of contact 
information and signature for the authorized official submitting the 
report, as well as date of submission.
    Response: Agree. Data elements to capture the electronic or hard 
copy signature and contact information of the authorized official and 
date of submission were added and are expected to be captured as part 
of the electronic implementation solution.
    Comment: 60 Federal commenters requested additional data elements 
to meet agency-specific requirements.
    Response: No change. The information is either already captured in 
the report, or the proposed data element would go beyond the scope of 
the report, potentially increasing grantee burden and confusing users. 
Agencies may pursue developing agency-specific requirements through 
OMB. However, every attempt was made to minimize the need for agency-
specific requirements.
    Comment: Seven Federal commenters expressed concern that the format 
would not be adequate for an agency's reporting requirements, 
especially in regards to reporting on PART.
    Response: Agencies may consider using the Performance Progress 
Report (PPR) in lieu of the RPPR. The PPR has a specific section for 
reporting on the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Agencies also may 
pursue developing agency-specific requirements through OMB.
    Comment: 29 Federal, nine university, and four association 
commenters noted the use of current agency data collection systems and 
the need to develop a new, electronic, web-based solution for research 
performance progress reporting.
    Response: All electronic system implementation comments received in 
response to the Federal Register Notice will be forwarded to the Grants 
Executive Board and the Grants Management Line of Business for 
dissemination to appropriate agency contacts for further consideration 
However, upon implementation, agencies may use this format in either 
paper copy or in electronic form.
    Comment: One Federal and five university commenters suggested that 
agencies be able to pre-populate the report with data from the 
grants.gov application.
    Response: The information collected on Grants.gov and in grant 
applications would not be appropriate for the RPPR because the 
information often changes between application and award.
    Comment: One Federal commenter requested the development of a 
standard taxonomy for types of projects.
    Response: Keeping an updated list would be extremely time consuming 
and difficult. However, if an agency or group develops a standardized 
taxonomy, the RPPR Working Group will consider incorporating this 
taxonomy in a future update to the format.
    Comment: Four Federal commenters suggested page and word limits for 
report responses.
    Response: This is a format, not a form. Agencies can define page 
and word limits when appropriate.
    Comment: 48 Federal and six university commenters requested 
clarifications regarding the type of data requested and the purpose of 
each section in the instructions.
    Response: Agree. The instructions were amended to clarify the type 
of data requested and the purpose of each section, where necessary.
    Comment: Ten Federal commenters questioned the broad applicability 
and order of the proposed format.
    Response: The RPPR is intentionally broad to create maximum 
flexibility, allowing agencies to use it for all research and research-
related programs. The standardized instructions were developed to 
ensure consistency across agencies wherever possible. There is no 
prescribed order to the format because the order will depend on which 
sections an agency determines to be mandatory.
    Comment: Four Federal and five association commenters questioned 
the intent of and need for the demographic information in the 
``Participants'' section.
    Response: The demographics information being requested is based on 
government-wide standard categories currently in use on a variety of 
forms. The demographics being requested only pertain to the people who 
have directly worked on the award. This section is optional and if 
another institution has regulations preventing its reporting, the award 
recipient may choose not to provide such data. While demographic data 
will be used by agencies for data analysis and reporting, it will not 
be used by agencies as part of the progress report evaluation.
    Comment: Six Federal and one association commenters requested a 
clearer indication of which paid persons an award recipient should 
report on and clarification of `person months' in the ``Participants'' 
section.
    Response: Agree. Language was added to the instructions.
    Comment: Three Federal and one university commenters proposed the 
use of ``None'' or ``Nothing to report'' vs. allowing an award 
recipient to leave a box blank.
    Response: Agree. ``Nothing to report'' is more accurate and was 
added. A blank field could represent ``nothing to report'' or a spot 
that the awardee forgot to fill in.
    Comment: Eight Federal, four university, and two association 
commenters expressed concern about the potential burden the report 
might create.
    Response: The burden was carefully considered during the 
development of the RPPR. Depending on how it is implemented by each 
agency, the RPPR may request more extensive data than are currently 
collected; but both agencies and award recipients will receive better 
information. As with any standardization effort, there may be a short 
term burden increase in order to produce a long-term gain. Finally, 
while there may be additional burden on the first report for the 
project, assuming an electronic solution, the next form could 
potentially be pre-populated with information that carries over, 
leading to a burden reduction.
    Comment: Four Federal commenters noted apparent redundancy of data 
elements across different sections of the report.
    Response: Each section captures different types of data. Any 
apparent redundancy is intentional to ensure agencies using only a 
select few of the optional sections capture the necessary data.
    Comment: One Federal commenter questioned the need for invention, 
patent, and license information, since it is already captured elsewhere 
by many agencies.
    Response: The purpose of this section is to provide the agency 
program officer with a record of all that has occurred

[[Page 1819]]

within the reporting period, including patents.
    Comment: 26 Federal, four university, and two association 
commenters questioned the distinction between the mandatory and 
optional sections of the form.
    Response: Only the ``Accomplishments'' component of the RPPR format 
is mandatory, while the other components are for optional use at the 
discretion of the agencies. The Federal awarding agency determines 
which categories are mandatory or optional for the award recipient to 
complete. This should be determined as early as possible, preferably at 
the time the funding opportunity is issued. As information required can 
vary between agencies and programs, the combination of mandatory and 
optional sections provides agencies the maximum flexibility to collect 
only the information they specifically require.
    Comment: One Federal commenter asked whether the RPPR would be 
required in addition to the PHS 2590.
    Response: The RPPR would replace the PHS 2590. Information not 
collected as part of the RPPR could be requested through the optional 
agency-specific categories.
    Comment: Three Federal commenters asked for a clear definition of 
research--which programs are considered research or research-related 
programs?
    Response: It is up to the agencies to determine which programs are 
research or research-related programs.
    Comment: Four Federal and one university commenters requested 
language stating that the RPPR should not be used as the vehicle for 
seeking prior approvals and/or fulfilling invention reporting 
requirements.
    Response: Agree. Appropriate language was added to the RPPR.
    Comment: 25 Federal, five university, and one association 
commenters offered suggestions regarding the development of a Final 
Report format.
    Response: These comments will be considered after the development 
and implementation of the RPPR has been completed.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In furtherance of the goals of the National Science and Technology 
Council's Research Business Models Subcommittee, this proposed format 
aims to reduce the burden on recipients currently expending time and 
effort on a variety of agency-specific forms. Under the PRA, OMB 
assigns a control number to each ``collection of information'' that it 
reviews and approves for use by an agency. An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB 
Control Number. The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the burden 
for each collection of information. It should be noted that burden 
estimates associated with forms currently in use range from a minimum 
of 2 hours to a maximum of 16 hours, depending on the type of research 
project being supported.
    The following table provides the estimated numbers of annual 
progress reports, hours per report, and total annual burden hours by 
agency:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                                                                      annual         Number of     Total annual
                     Department/agency name                          progress      annual burden   burden hours
                                                                      reports          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHHS (including NIH)............................................          37,900          14.862         563,275
DHS.............................................................             411          12               4,932
DoC/NIST........................................................             100           4                 400
DoC/NOAA........................................................           1,105           2               2,210
DoD.............................................................          11,000           6              66,000
DoE.............................................................          16,000           5              80,000
DoEd/IES........................................................             500          16               8,000
EPA.............................................................             150           4                 600
NASA............................................................           4,000           4              16,000
NEH.............................................................              55           2               1,100
NSF.............................................................          28,030           5             140,150
USDA/NIFA.......................................................          12,658           2.7            34,177
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................................         116,404           6.6           916,844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Administrative Requirements and Future Steps

    The final version of the uniform Research Performance Progress 
Report format that incorporates the changes discussed in the preceding 
Sections I and II of Supplementary Information, may be viewed at: 
http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/index.jsp.
    Each Federal research agency that supports research and research-
related activities must post their policy or an implementation plan on 
the NSF and RBM Web sites within nine months after issuance of OSTP/OMB 
policy direction. Each implementation plan will address whether the 
agency plans to implement the RPPR in paper or electronic format, and 
include an anticipated implementation date.

    Dated: January 8, 2010.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2010-469 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P