[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