[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32693-32695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12929]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 
following information collection requirement to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published 
in the Federal Register at 78 FR 56876, and three comments were 
received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with 
the publication of this second notice. The full submission (including 
comments) may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 
Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the 
accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of 
the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (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 should be addressed to: Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for 
National Science Foundation, 725--17th Street NW., Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 
Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 
1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 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).
    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured 
of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 
703-292-7556.
    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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), comments on the information 
collection activities as part of this study were solicited through 
publication of a 60 Day Notice in the Federal Register on September 14, 
2012, at 77 FR 56876. We received three comments, to which we here 
respond.

Commenter 1

    We agreed with one commenter's conclusion that (a) the information 
is necessary and will have practical use; and (b) our estimated burden 
on respondents appears appropriate. In (c), the commenter raised two 
points, and one more in (d) which we address here.
    The first point of (c) is about our non-inclusion of the actual 
course instructor in our survey. We did not specifically include 
interviews with instructors for two reasons. The first is that NSF does 
not require grantees to provide RCR instruction through a live person--
NSF concluded it was acceptable for grantees to direct participants to 
a Web site for online RCR education. Thus, there may not be an RCR 
instructor with whom we could speak. The second reason is that, based 
on our limited experience with grantees in which live RCR instruction 
is offered, the RCR administrator is also involved in that instruction, 
so the administrator will also have that perspective in those 
instances. Finally, we want to limit the burden this survey imposes on 
awardee institutions.
    The second point in (c) is that our minimum number of participants 
of the RCR training (three--one undergraduate, one graduate, one post-
doc) seems too low to provide a representative sample. We will ask 
grantees to make available as many students as practical, but since NSF 
requires grantees to provide RCR training only to students directly 
supported (paid) from NSF grants, we recognize that for many grantees, 
this may mean that few NSF participants exist. Of course, if a grantee 
provides RCR education to a broader range of students/post-docs/faculty 
than the minimal requirements of NSF, we expect to be able to draw from 
a larger pool of participants. Indeed, this is one of our questions for 
the RCR Administrator.
    The comment in (d) about the most significant way to reduce the 
burden on respondents would be to give clear and timely guidance on 
what does and does not constitute `adequate' training goes to one of 
the points of doing this survey. NSF has not specified what constitutes 
`adequate' RCR training. We are assessing how grantees have implemented 
NSF's requirement, how many of them would welcome further specificity 
in NSF's requirement, and how many would not--and why or why not. As we 
note, one likely outcome of our effort would be recommendations back to 
NSF for improving its RCR program, and, depending on the response data, 
this could be one of those recommendations.

[[Page 32694]]

Commenter 2

    Commenter 2 expressed concern that our RCR program data collection 
strategy ``exceeds what is necessary to evaluate recipient's compliance 
with NSF's policy'' and ``creates an unnecessary and excessive burden 
on the respondents'' and that the interviews ``are not necessary nor 
useful.'' We prepared our approach after interviewing experts in RCR 
training and then conducted a trial run of the oversight program at a 
university with multiple, decentralized RCR programs. Using a draft 
questionnaire, respondents provided answers and promptly offered both 
positive and negative feedback about their own RCR training 
experiences. Indeed, they expressed to us a desire to have additional 
discussions beyond the interviews, which we accommodated. Our 
interviews and questions were necessary and essential to determine 
compliance with NSF's RCR policy, to allow us to address the impact of 
NSF's requirement on the university, and to determine whether a 
recommendation to adjust the policy might be warranted. Thus, your 
phrase ``unnecessary and excessive burden'' is quite opposite of our 
actual experiences while interacting with upper-level administrators, 
RCR administrators, and RCR course participants.
    Another point raised was that the RCR policy ``does not require 
institutions to demonstrate a commitment particularly through 
separately allocated resources--financial and/or personnel--to the 
program''. However, there is a requirement to allocate personnel. As 
indicated in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, 
``An institution must designate one or more persons to oversee 
compliance with the RCR training requirement''.\1\ As indicated in our 
Federal Register Notice for this review, for evaluation purposes we are 
interested how the institution's financial and staff resources are both 
utilized to maintain the RCR training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Part II-Award and Administration Guide, Chapter IV, Part 
B.2.c, nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_4.jsp#IVB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was also an overall concern that the length of time estimated 
for interviews is not enough. As indicated above, our interview times 
are based from our previous experiences and are used as an estimate, 
not as an absolute fixed factor. We expect that interview duration 
would vary for some institutions based on the size of their RCR program 
and total number of participants. Individual institutions can have a 
wide variety in the number of trainees who are supported by NSF. Our 
estimated interview times are in line with the actual length of the 
interviews conducted in our trial run.
    Commenter 2's statement that the ``NSF OIG lacks the breadth of 
expertise needed to reasonably assess the effectiveness of individual 
institutional programs'' misses the mark of our intent. Our goal is not 
to evaluate the effectiveness of individual institutional RCR programs, 
but rather to evaluate an institution's methods for implementing its 
RCR program in response to NSF's requirement. As Commenter 2 stated, 
``There is not a required course content or structure nor a requirement 
that faculty participate in the training activities''. Institutions can 
freely develop their RCR training plans, and, as stated in our Notice, 
we seek to collect such information for evaluation purposes. Our staff 
has several scientists who have the requisite experience to complete 
such an evaluation.
    We agree with Commenter 2 that receipt of an institution's plan for 
RCR training would be a valuable endeavor, and we will obtain such 
institutional plans as part of our assessment.

Commenter 3

    1. We agree with Commenter 3 that receipt of an institution's plan 
for RCR training would be a valuable endeavor, and we will obtain such 
institutional plans as part of our assessment. We prepared our approach 
after interviewing experts in RCR training and then conducting a trial 
run of the oversight program at a university with multiple, 
decentralized RCR programs. Using a draft questionnaire, respondents 
provided answers and promptly offered both positive and negative 
feedback about their own RCR training experiences. Our interviews and 
questions were necessary and essential to determine compliance with 
NSF's RCR policy, to allow us to address the impact of NSF's 
requirement on the university, and to determine whether a 
recommendation to adjust the policy might be warranted.
    This commenter suggested we use an electronic survey rather than 
conducting interviews to gather information. During our trial run, we 
specifically asked the participants how their responses would differ if 
they received and answered the same questionnaire electronically vs. in 
an interview. While a couple of interviewees noted it would be more 
convenient logistically to complete an electronic questionnaire at 
their leisure, all interviewees preferred an interview format for a 
more fruitful discussion.
    2. Commenter 3 suggested our list of interviewees is incomplete 
because we exclude faculty. We do not specifically exclude faculty as 
we found that faculty members are often the RCR program administrators 
and/or RCR course instructors. Furthermore, we plan to ask RCR program 
administrators for information on faculty involvement. We realize 
faculty mentoring could be an integrated part of a RCR program, as we 
recognize that institutions have varying RCR training programs that are 
suited to their specific research disciplines or type of institution.
    Commenter 3 believed we underestimated the time burden on 
institutions due to systematic auditing and self-assessment. We are not 
conducting an audit, nor do we require a university to conduct an audit 
or self-assessment either prior, or subsequent, to our information 
gathering. Our interview times are based from our previous experiences 
and are used as an estimate, not as an absolute fixed factor. We expect 
that interview duration would vary for some institutions based on the 
size of their RCR program and total number of participants. Individual 
institutions can have a wide variety in the number of trainees who are 
supported by NSF. Our estimated interview times are in line with the 
actual length of the interviews conducted in our trial run.
    After consideration of all comments, we are moving forward with our 
submission to OMB.
    Title of Collection: Office of Inspector General Review of Awardee 
Implementation of NSF's Requirement for a Responsible Conduct of 
Research Program.
    OMB Approval Number: 3145--NEW.
    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish an 
information collection.
    Abstract: The National Science Foundation Office of Inspector 
General (NSF OIG) requests establishment of data collection to assess 
awardee institutions' plans to provide adequate training in the 
responsible conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate 
students, and postdoctoral researchers who are supported by NSF.
    Section 7009 of the America COMPETES Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 
862o-1) requires NSF to ensure that ``each institution that applies for 
financial assistance from the Foundation for science and engineering 
research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide 
appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical 
conduct of research. . . .'' NSF's implementation of this requirement 
is described in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures 
Guide, Part II--Award and

[[Page 32695]]

Administration Guide, Chapter IV, Part B and is available at nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_4.jsp#IVB.
    The Office of Inspector General provides independent oversight of 
NSF's programs and operations. NSF OIG is responsible for promoting 
efficiency and effectiveness in agency programs and for preventing and 
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. NSF OIG supports NSF in its mission 
by safeguarding the integrity of NSF programs and operations through 
audits, investigations, and other reviews.
    This information collection is necessary for review of 
institutional compliance with the responsible conduct of research 
requirements. NSF OIG will primarily use the data collected to inform 
the Foundation and Congress whether current responsible conduct of 
research programs comply with NSF's requirement and to make 
recommendations to strengthen these programs if necessary. The results 
of the information collection also will assist NSF OIG in developing a 
responsible conduct of research oversight plan.
    The scope of this information request will primarily address how 
awardees have implemented NSF's requirement by interviewing three 
groups of people: (1) upper-level administrators (e.g., Vice Presidents 
or Vice Provosts), (2) program administrators (e.g., Research Integrity 
Officers or Compliance Officers), and (3) trainees who have 
participated in the program (undergraduate students, graduate students 
and postdoctoral researchers). From the upper-level administrators, we 
will request information that will allow us to assess the institution's 
commitment to the program, including resources (both financial and 
staff), and how the expectations for the program are communicated to 
faculty and students. We will request from the program administrators 
specific information such as course structure and content, 
participation requirements and options, compliance tracking, faculty 
participation, resource allocation, and oversight. From the course 
participants, we will request information about their experiences in 
the courses with regard to format, duration, content, and the benefits 
and drawbacks of taking an RCR course. The information collection will 
be conducted through video-conferencing between NSF OIG and the 
institutions' participants.
    Use of the Information: This information is required for NSF OIG's 
effective oversight of NSF programs and operations by reviewing 
institutions' compliance with the responsible conduct of research 
requirements of the America COMPETES Act and NSF's Proposal and Award 
Policies and Procedures Guide.
    This collection primarily will be used for accountability and 
evaluation purposes, and to inform Congress and NSF on the outcome of 
the information collection.
    Respondents: Institutions that receive funding from NSF and are 
required to provide adequate training on the responsible conduct of 
research.
    Number of Respondents: NSF OIG anticipates collecting information 
from a minimum of 20 institutions per year and a maximum of 100 
institutions. Participants at each institution will include at least 
one senior level administrator, one representative from the responsible 
conduct of research program, and a group of students with at least one 
undergraduate student, one graduate student, and one postdoctoral 
researcher. The information collection will involve between 100 and 500 
respondents per year.
    Burden on the Public: NSF OIG estimates that the time required for 
information collection from each senior level administrator will be 
approximately 30 minutes, from each representative from the responsible 
conduct of research program approximately 1.5 hours, and from students 
and postdocs approximately 1 hour each.
    At a minimum, each institution will require 4 hours to complete the 
information collection. The minimum total time burden for 20 
institutions per year is 80 hours and 400 hours per year for 100 
universities.

    Dated: May 28, 2013.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2013-12929 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P