[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50329-50339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20365]


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

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

[[Page 50330]]

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 80 
FR 28713, and 56 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 may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to 
request renewed clearance of this collection. The primary purpose of 
this revision is to implement changes described in the Supplementary 
Information section of this notice. 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:

Summary of Comments on the National Science Foundation Proposal and 
Award Policies and Procedures Guide and NSF's Responses

    The draft NSF PAPPG was made available for review by the public on 
the NSF Web site at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/. In response to 
the Federal Register notice published May 19, 2015, at 80 FR 28713, NSF 
received 56 comments from 12 different institutions/individuals; 33 
comments were in response to the Grant Proposal Guide, and 23 were in 
response to the Award and Administration Guide. Following is the table 
showing the summaries of the comments received on the PAPPG sections, 
with NSF's response.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Topic & PAPPG
       No.            Comment source           section                   Comment                 NSF Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  University of         Separate Sections    Clarify the discrepancy        The checklist has
                    Illinois at Urbana-   for Intellectual     between the wording of the     been corrected to
                    Champaign.            Merit & Broader      requirements for the project   clarify NSF
                                          Impacts Chapter      description's contents         requirements.
                                          II.C.2d(i) and       (II.C.2d(i)), and the
                                          Exhibit II-1.        Proposal Preparation
                                                               Checklist (Exhibit II-1).
                                                               The policy section does not
                                                               address having
                                                               ``Intellectual Merit'' as a
                                                               required separate section
                                                               within the narrative.
                                                               Whereas the Checklist says
                                                               ``Project Description
                                                               contains, as a separate
                                                               section within the
                                                               narrative, sections labeled
                                                               ``Intellectual Merit'' and
                                                               ``Broader Impacts.''
2................  University of         Collaborators &      Remove ambiguity from Chapter  NSF has revised
                    Illinois at Urbana-   Other Affiliations   II.C.1e. Collaborators &       this language to
                    Champaign.            Chapter II.C.1e.     Other Affiliations             address the
                                                               Information (third bullet):    concern
                                                               ``A list of all persons        identified.
                                                               (including their
                                                               organizational affiliations,
                                                               if known), with whom the
                                                               individual has had an
                                                               association as thesis
                                                               advisor, or with whom the
                                                               individual has had an
                                                               association within the last
                                                               five years as a postgraduate-
                                                               scholar sponsor.'' [emphasis
                                                               added]. Does the
                                                               requirement, ``within the
                                                               last five years'', apply
                                                               only to postdocs, or to both
                                                               postdocs and graduate
                                                               student advisees? The
                                                               ambiguity could be avoided
                                                               by separating the single
                                                               item into two separate ones--
                                                               one for former graduate
                                                               students and one for
                                                               postdocs.
3................  University of         Miscellaneous        Increase the font size of NSF  A user can adjust
                    Illinois at Urbana-   Comment.             solicitations, preferably      these settings
                    Champaign.                                 matching the NSF               manually on their
                                                               requirements for proposal      computer. As such
                                                               documents. Currently, NSF      it is not
                                                               solicitations are published    necessary for the
                                                               in very small font that is     Foundation to take
                                                               difficult to read.             further action.
4................  CHORUS..............  Public Access Plan   In moving ahead, we urge NSF   NSF thanks you for
                                          Miscellaneous        to continue to maintain and    your comment.
                                          Comment.             develop public-private
                                                               partnerships. Such efforts
                                                               will help the NSF contain
                                                               costs, reduce the burden on
                                                               researchers and their
                                                               institutions, and ensure
                                                               sustainable, broad public
                                                               access to scholarly
                                                               communication.
5................  CHORUS..............  Public Access Plan   We are pleased to note that    NSF thanks you for
                                          Miscellaneous        the Plan voices a strong       your comment.
                                          Comment.             commitment to ongoing
                                                               consultation and
                                                               collaboration with the
                                                               diverse array of
                                                               stakeholders in the
                                                               scholarly communications
                                                               community. That commitment
                                                               has been evident in CHORUS'
                                                               discussions with NSF over
                                                               the past two years and we
                                                               look forward to continuing
                                                               to work with the NSF and
                                                               other stakeholders to
                                                               achieve our shared goal.

[[Page 50331]]

 
6................  CHORUS..............  Public Access Plan   CHORUS is involved with a      NSF thanks you for
                                          Miscellaneous        number of initiatives (the     your comment.
                                          Comment.             CrossRef-DataCite Pilot,
                                                               SHARE, and the RDA-WDS
                                                               Publishing Data Services
                                                               Working Group, and
                                                               potentially, the RMap
                                                               Project, Dataverse,
                                                               Figshare, and Dryad) to
                                                               investigate tools and
                                                               services that support
                                                               researchers with their data
                                                               management plans and help
                                                               funding bodies with
                                                               compliance tracking. We
                                                               believe the need to develop
                                                               and evolve data standards is
                                                               critical. We therefore
                                                               strongly encourage NSF to
                                                               actively partner with some
                                                               or all of these
                                                               organizations, which are
                                                               already overseeing the
                                                               development of standards
                                                               that deploy existing tools
                                                               (e.g., DOIs, CrossRef's
                                                               FundRef, and ORCID).
7................  CHORUS..............  Public Access Plan   CHORUS is very interested in   NSF thanks you for
                                          Miscellaneous        working with NSF and other     your comment.
                                          Comment.             funding agencies,
                                                               publishers, data archive
                                                               managers, and other
                                                               stakeholders on developing
                                                               mechanisms to connect
                                                               articles and related
                                                               datasets, for example, via
                                                               developing publishers'
                                                               systems to enable authors to
                                                               submit their data to an
                                                               appropriate archive and
                                                               simultaneously link this to
                                                               an article.
8................  COGR................  Preliminary          The PI then forwards the       NSF has always
                                          Proposals Chapter    proposal to the appropriate    required
                                          I.D.2.               office at his/her              certifications to
                                                               organization, and the          be submitted by
                                                               Authorized Organizational      the AOR. As such,
                                                               Representative (AOR) signs     there is no change
                                                               and submits the preliminary    to this policy.
                                                               proposal via use of NSF's
                                                               electronic systems. The
                                                               existing requirements do not
                                                               limit personnel to that of
                                                               only the AOR in providing
                                                               proposal certifications.
                                                               Given the volume of
                                                               proposals reviewed, we
                                                               request that the current
                                                               language remain.
9................  COGR................  Submission           In submission of a proposal    For consistency
                                          Instructions         for funding by the AOR, the    with government-
                                          Chapter I.G.2.       AOR is required to provide     wide requirements
                                                               certain proposal               already
                                                               certifications. This           established in
                                                               certification process will     Grants.gov, NSF is
                                                               concur concurrently with the   making a policy
                                                               submission of the proposal.    change to require
                                                               The revision of this section   certifications to
                                                               removes the ability to         be submitted at
                                                               designate separate             the time of
                                                               authorities to SRO's in        proposal
                                                               FastLane for personnel other   submission. This
                                                               than the AOR to submit         also is consistent
                                                               certain certifications.        with the policies
                                                               Additionally, it removes the   established by the
                                                               current requirement to         other 25 grant
                                                               provide the required AOR       making agencies of
                                                               certifications within five     the Federal
                                                               (5) working days following e-  government.
                                                               submission of the proposal.
                                                               We request that the current
                                                               language remain as is which
                                                               allows more flexibility to
                                                               meet required deadlines and
                                                               reduces the burden of the
                                                               AOR and the ability to make
                                                               mistakes during peak
                                                               deadline times.
10...............  COGR................  Proposal             The AOR must use the           For consistency
                                          Certifications       ``Authorized Organizational    with government-
                                          Chapter II.C.1d.     Representative function'' in   wide requirements
                                                               FastLane to sign and submit    already
                                                               the proposal, including the    established in
                                                               proposal certifications. It    Grants.gov, NSF is
                                                               is the proposing               making a policy
                                                               organization's                 change to require
                                                               responsibility to assure       certifications to
                                                               that only properly             be submitted at
                                                               authorized individuals sign    the time of
                                                               in this capacity. We request   proposal
                                                               that the current language      submission. This
                                                               remain which makes clear       also is consistent
                                                               that SRO's can be authorized   with the policies
                                                               to electronically submit the   established by the
                                                               proposal after review by the   other 25 grant
                                                               AOR.                           making agencies of
                                                                                              the Federal
                                                                                              government.
11...............  COGR................  Biographical         A biographical sketch          Language has been
                                          Sketches Chapter     (limited to two pages) is      revised to clarify
                                          II.C.2f(ii).         required for each individual   that biosketches
                                                               identified as senior           for all personnel
                                                               personnel. ``Other             must be uploaded
                                                               Personnel'' biographical       in a single file
                                                               information can be uploaded    as an other
                                                               along with the Biosketches     supplementary
                                                               for Senior Personnel in the    document.
                                                               Biosketches section of the
                                                               proposal. It is not clear
                                                               that whether biosketches for
                                                               non-senior personnel should
                                                               be uploaded with the
                                                               biosketches of the PI or
                                                               with other senior/key
                                                               personnel? Do the
                                                               instructions to upload or
                                                               insert individual
                                                               biosketches only apply to
                                                               senior/key personnel?

[[Page 50332]]

 
12...............  COGR................  Current and Pending  . . . All project support      Language
                                          Support Chapter      from whatever source (e.g.,    incorporated.
                                          II.C.2h.             Federal, State, local or
                                                               foreign government agencies,
                                                               public or private
                                                               foundations, industrial or
                                                               other commercial
                                                               organization, or internal
                                                               institutional resources)
                                                               must be listed. The proposed
                                                               project and all other
                                                               projects or activities
                                                               requiring a portion of time
                                                               of the PI and other senior
                                                               personnel must be included,
                                                               even if they receive no
                                                               salary support from the
                                                               project(s). The total award
                                                               amount for the entire award
                                                               period covered (including
                                                               indirect costs) must be
                                                               shown as well as the number
                                                               of person-months per year to
                                                               be devoted to the project,
                                                               regardless of source of
                                                               support. While we recognize
                                                               that current and pending
                                                               support documentation has
                                                               long been a requirement of
                                                               NSF and other federal
                                                               agencies, requiring this
                                                               documentation at proposal
                                                               submission adds additional
                                                               administrative burden when
                                                               the likelihood of being
                                                               funded is unknown. We
                                                               therefore ask that only
                                                               those with favorable
                                                               scientific review outcomes
                                                               being considered for NSF
                                                               funding be asked to submit
                                                               current and pending support
                                                               information. Providing this
                                                               information post submission
                                                               or at the time that the
                                                               proposal has been selected
                                                               for funding also means that
                                                               the information will be more
                                                               current, benefitting both
                                                               NSF and the institution. In
                                                               addition, we recommend that
                                                               the request to have internal
                                                               institutional resources
                                                               identified, be limited to
                                                               internal funds allocated
                                                               toward specific projects.
                                                               This will eliminate the
                                                               unnecessary burden of
                                                               reporting routine new
                                                               faculty start-up packages
                                                               that may include general
                                                               equipment and space and/or
                                                               voluntary time and effort
                                                               dedicated toward another
                                                               project or endeavor. We are
                                                               further seeking confirmation
                                                               that an institution can
                                                               include zero (0) person
                                                               months in appropriate
                                                               situations who may commit to
                                                               contribute to the scientific
                                                               development or execution of
                                                               the project, but are not
                                                               committing any specific
                                                               measurable effort to the
                                                               project.
13...............  COGR................  Dual Use Research    Proposing organizations are    NSF has removed the
                                          of Concern Chapter   responsible for identifying    DURC checkbox from
                                          II.D.14b.            NSF-funded life sciences       the Cover Sheet.
                                                               proposals that could           Certification
                                                               potentially be considered      language regarding
                                                               dual use research of concern   DURC has been
                                                               as defined in the US           added to the
                                                               Government Policy for          listing of AOR
                                                               Institutional Oversight of     certifications for
                                                               Life Sciences Dual Use         compliance with
                                                               Research of Concern. If the    government-wide
                                                               proposing organization         requirements.
                                                               identifies the proposal as
                                                               dual use research of
                                                               concern, the associated box
                                                               must be checked on the Cover
                                                               Sheet. (See also AAG Chapter
                                                               VI.B.5 for additional
                                                               information.) We are
                                                               requesting clarity on the
                                                               use of identifying NSF-
                                                               funded life sciences that
                                                               could ``potentially'' be
                                                               considered dual use research
                                                               of concern as described
                                                               above vs the
                                                               ``identification'' of DURC
                                                               as implied by the second
                                                               paragraph. We request that
                                                               the DURC determination be
                                                               consistent with the USG
                                                               Policy that requires
                                                               institutions to provide
                                                               notification to the USG
                                                               funding agency of any
                                                               research that involves one
                                                               or more of the 15 listed
                                                               agents and one or more of
                                                               the seven listed
                                                               experimental effects as
                                                               defined in Section 6.2 of
                                                               the USG Policy within thirty
                                                               (30) calendar days of the
                                                               institutional review of the
                                                               research for DURC potential.
14...............  COGR................  Life Sciences Dual   . . . NSF awards are not       Language has been
                                          Use Research of      expected to result in          revised for
                                          Concern AAG,         research that falls within     compliance with
                                          Chapter VI.B.5b.     the scope of this Policy.      government-wide
                                                               If, however, in conducting     requirements.
                                                               the activities supported
                                                               under an award, the PI is
                                                               concerned that any of the
                                                               research results could
                                                               potentially be considered
                                                               Dual Use Research of Concern
                                                               under this Policy, the PI or
                                                               the grantee organization
                                                               should promptly notify the
                                                               cognizant NSF Program
                                                               Officer. See comments to
                                                               Chapter II. D.14(b) above.
15...............  COGR................  Reporting            Our membership has noted the   Language has been
                                          Requirements AAG,    difference in reporting        revised to change
                                          Chapter II.D.        dates between programmatic     the due date of
                                                               reporting (90 days) and        final reports and
                                                               financial reporting (120)      project outcomes
                                                               days. We appreciate the        reports to within
                                                               change NSF has made in the     120 days following
                                                               AAG to revise the financial    the end date the
                                                               reporting from 90 days to      award.
                                                               120 days but further request
                                                               your consideration to
                                                               reflect the same dates for
                                                               programmatic reporting. This
                                                               would allow institutions to
                                                               reconcile charges for
                                                               publications of its
                                                               subrecipients while giving
                                                               more time to incorporate the
                                                               programmatic results into
                                                               the prime recipients final
                                                               programmatic report.

[[Page 50333]]

 
16...............  COGR................  Public Access Plan   We appreciate the significant  NSF thanks you for
                                          AAG, Chapter         efforts the NSF has made       your comment.
                                          VI.D.2.              with the release of its
                                                               Public Access plan and its
                                                               recognition that managing
                                                               investigator research data
                                                               that result from Federal
                                                               investments is a major
                                                               challenge. We are grateful
                                                               that the NSF's plan will be
                                                               carried out in an
                                                               incremental fashion allowing
                                                               all stakeholder groups to
                                                               collaborate on this
                                                               important initiative. While
                                                               the challenges our members
                                                               will face to monitor and
                                                               manage various agency plans
                                                               will be rough, we do
                                                               appreciate NSF's continued
                                                               willingness to engage
                                                               stakeholder groups and
                                                               coordinate with other
                                                               Federal agencies to identify
                                                               infrastructure capabilities,
                                                               resolve outstanding and
                                                               shared concerns, and develop
                                                               best practices and
                                                               standards.
17...............  Association of        Public Access Plan.  (1) Maintain commitment to     1. NSF thanks you
                    American Publishers/                       proceed carefully,             for your comment.
                    Division of                                incrementally, and in close    2. NSF thanks you
                    Professional and                           consultation with              for your comment.
                    Scholarly                                  stakeholders to avoid          Comments have been
                    Publishing.                                unintended consequences (2)    requested on NSF's
                                                               Ensure flexible approach to    implementation of
                                                               managing unique discipline     the Public Access
                                                               communities to sustain the     requirement in the
                                                               quality, integrity, and        PAPPG, and not on
                                                               availability of high-quality   the Plan itself.
                                                               peer-reviewed articles         3. NSF thanks you
                                                               reporting on scientific        for your comment.
                                                               research (3) Expand on         Comments have been
                                                               opportunities to minimize      requested on NSF's
                                                               administrative and             implementation of
                                                               researcher burdens and costs   the Public Access
                                                               by using flexible approaches   requirement in the
                                                               and public-private             PAPPG, and not on
                                                               partnerships (4) Keep          the Plan itself.
                                                               flexible data requirements     4. NSF thanks you
                                                               that recognize the unique      for your comment.
                                                               research practices of          The NSF policy on
                                                               different fields, and          data sharing and
                                                               encourage collaborative        data management
                                                               private sector solutions       plans remains
                                                               that minimize costs and        unchanged. 5. NSF
                                                               burdens (5) Ensure adequate    thanks you for
                                                               resources are available to     your comment. The
                                                               support allowable costs for    NSF policy on data
                                                               access to publications and     sharing and data
                                                               data (6) Continue clear        management plans
                                                               communication and engagement   remains unchanged.
                                                               with scholarly community.      6. NSF thanks you
                                                                                              for your comment.
18...............  University of         When to Submit       We are thankful for the        Thank you for your
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Proposals and        consistency in the use of      comment. No action
                                          Format of the        the 5 PM submitter's local     required.
                                          Proposal Chapter     time deadline and proposal
                                          I.F and Chapter      formatting requirements.
                                          II.B.                Regardless of the
                                                               solicitation or the
                                                               directorate issuing the
                                                               solicitation, institutions
                                                               will know what to expect and
                                                               manage proposals
                                                               accordingly. Such
                                                               consistency reduces
                                                               administrative burden on
                                                               institutions and
                                                               investigators, and we are
                                                               grateful for that.
19...............  University of         Collaborators &      We welcome the separation of   Thank you for your
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Other Affiliations   the information on             comment. No action
                                          Chapter II.C.1e.     collaborators and other        required.
                                                               affiliations. Doing so makes
                                                               it easier to comply with the
                                                               biosketch page limit. This
                                                               also allows us to be more
                                                               thorough with collaborator
                                                               and other affiliation
                                                               information, especially for
                                                               those researchers who are
                                                               very active collaborators.
20...............  University of         Project Description  That the Project Description   Thank you for your
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Chapter              must not contain URLs and      comment. No action
                                          II.C.2d(iii).        must be                        required.
                                                               self[hyphen]contained helps
                                                               create a level playing field
                                                               in that all proposers must
                                                               adhere to the same page
                                                               limits. We appreciate this
                                                               clarification and emphasis.
21...............  University of         Biographical         When biosketches for           Language has been
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Sketches Chapter     non[hyphen]senior personnel    revised to clarify
                                          II.C.2f(ii).         will be included, should       that biosketches
                                                               they be appended to the PI     for all Other
                                                               or another senior/key          Personnel and
                                                               person's biosketch? Does the   Equipment Users
                                                               instruction to upload or       must be uploaded
                                                               insert individual              in a single file
                                                               biosketches only apply to      as an other
                                                               senior/key personnel?          supplementary
                                                                                              document.

[[Page 50334]]

 
22...............  University of         Current and Pending  (1) The proposed requirement   (1) COGR language
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Support Chapter      is that Current and Pending    incorporated from
                                          II.C.2h.             Support include project        comment #12. (2)
                                                               support from internal          NSF recognizes
                                                               institutional resources. We    that there may be
                                                               are seeking more clarity       confusion
                                                               regarding this proposed        regarding a PI's
                                                               requirement. A variety of      or other senior
                                                               internal institutional         personnel's
                                                               resources may be available     responsibilities
                                                               to support an investigator.    as it relates to
                                                               Internal institutional         reporting on
                                                               resources may be awarded for   projects where
                                                               a specific research project.   there is funding,
                                                               In such cases, researchers     but no time
                                                               have competed for resources    commitment. NSF
                                                               to support a project with a    plans to address
                                                               specific scope of work.        this issue in a
                                                               Internal institutional         future issuance of
                                                               resources may also be used     the PAPPG. (3)
                                                               to support multiple            Given the
                                                               projects. Resources may be     significance of
                                                               made available in a variety    this request, NSF
                                                               of ways, for example,          will consider it
                                                               start[hyphen]up packages or    in a future PAPPG.
                                                               fellowships that can be used
                                                               to support a faculty
                                                               member's research program as
                                                               a whole. Such funding may be
                                                               used at the discretion of
                                                               the researchers--to purchase
                                                               supplies or equipment, or to
                                                               help pay for personnel.
                                                               Another possible use of
                                                               internal institutional
                                                               resources would be to
                                                               support faculty salaries in
                                                               addition to or in lieu of
                                                               using a grant to pay for a
                                                               faculty member's time and
                                                               effort on a project. Given
                                                               the variety of ways in which
                                                               internal institutional
                                                               resources may be used, would
                                                               NSF be able to specify what
                                                               types of situations warrant
                                                               inclusion on a current and
                                                               pending support document?
                                                               (2) We are seeking
                                                               confirmation that a PI or
                                                               other senior personnel can
                                                               list zero person months on a
                                                               project. This may be
                                                               appropriate, depending on
                                                               the source of funding and
                                                               the purpose of the project,
                                                               e.g., an equipment grant.
                                                               That certain awards would
                                                               not require effort is
                                                               supported by OMB Memorandum
                                                               01[hyphen]06, which states
                                                               that ``some types of
                                                               research programs, such as
                                                               programs for equipment and
                                                               instrumentation, doctoral
                                                               dissertations, and student
                                                               augmentation, do not require
                                                               committed faculty effort,
                                                               paid or unpaid by the
                                                               Federal Government . . .''
                                                               (3) In lieu of requesting
                                                               that the Current and Pending
                                                               support information be
                                                               provided at the time of
                                                               proposal, NSF may wish to
                                                               consider asking for it to be
                                                               submitted only if an award
                                                               is being contemplated, a JIT
                                                               approach similar to NIH.
                                                               This approach might decrease
                                                               administrative burden for
                                                               the senior personnel and the
                                                               proposing organization as
                                                               well as for NSF and its
                                                               reviewers.
23...............  University of         Dual Use Research    The language in the second     ...................
                    Wisconsin Madison.    of Concern Chapter   paragraph of GPG Chapter
                                          II.D.14b.            II.D.14.b states that the
                                                               proposing organization is
                                                               responsible for identifying
                                                               proposals that could
                                                               ``potentially be considered
                                                               dual use research of
                                                               concern'' [emphasis added].
                                                               But, the final paragraph in
                                                               this section indicates that
                                                               the proposing organization
                                                               must check the appropriate
                                                               box if it ``identifies the
                                                               proposal as dual use
                                                               research of concern''
                                                               [emphasis added]. There are
                                                               two issues with these
                                                               paragraphs. First, the final
                                                               paragraph implies
                                                               (intentionally or not) that
                                                               the proposing organization
                                                               has already made a judgment
                                                               whether or not the proposal
                                                               is DURC, whereas the second
                                                               paragraph does not. The two
                                                               paragraphs convey different
                                                               messages, but should convey
                                                               the same message. Second,
                                                               the likelihood that a
                                                               proposal would be identified
                                                               as DURC is small because the
                                                               chance that it would be put
                                                               before the Institutional
                                                               Review Entity (IRE) prior to
                                                               submission is small. Given
                                                               the administrative burden
                                                               associated with the review
                                                               for DURC and proposal
                                                               success rates, it is
                                                               possible that an
                                                               investigator may notify the
                                                               Institutional Review Entity
                                                               of the potential of DURC
                                                               only after a proposal is
                                                               awarded. If an IRE does not
                                                               make a determination prior
                                                               to proposal submission, then
                                                               the proposing organization
                                                               will not be able to identify
                                                               a proposal as DURC or check
                                                               the box on the Cover Sheet.
                                                               We would prefer that the
                                                               language in the final
                                                               paragraph convey the same
                                                               message as the language in
                                                               the second paragraph.
                                                               Another alternative,
                                                               consistent with USG policy,
                                                               is that NSF could simply be
                                                               notified in the event that
                                                               research has been reviewed
                                                               and the IRE has made a
                                                               determination whether or not
                                                               the research meets the
                                                               definition of DURC.
                                                               Consistency with the USG
                                                               policy may relieve
                                                               administrative burden.
24...............  University of         Dual Use Research    The language in the AAG        Language has been
                    Wisconsin Madison.    of Concern AAG,      states that the PI or          revised for
                                          Chapter VI.B.5.      grantee organization should    compliance with
                                                               promptly notify the NSF        government-wide
                                                               Program Officer if ``any of    requirements.
                                                               the research results could
                                                               potentially be considered
                                                               Dual Use Research of
                                                               Concern'' [emphasis added].
                                                               The United States Government
                                                               (USG) DURC policy requires
                                                               us to contact the USG
                                                               funding agency only after
                                                               the review of the research
                                                               has occurred and a
                                                               determination has been made.
                                                               The language in the AAG
                                                               suggests that NSF is
                                                               imposing a requirement which
                                                               may create an additional
                                                               burden and is not part of
                                                               the USG policy and
                                                               procedures.

[[Page 50335]]

 
25...............  University of         Project Reporting    We note that the lack of       Language has been
                    Wisconsin Madison.    and Grant Closeout   uniformity in deadlines        revised to change
                                          AAG, Chapter         between programmatic reports   the due date of
                                          II.D.2, 3.5 and      (90 day deadlines) and         final reports and
                                          Chapter III.E.       financial reporting (120       project outcomes
                                                               days) may cause confusion.     reports to within
                                                               We note that the lack of       120 days following
                                                               uniformity in deadlines        the expiration of
                                                               across Federal agencies may    the award.
                                                               cause confusion, as well.
                                                               Our recommendation would be
                                                               to harmonize these deadlines
                                                               as much as possible.
26...............  University of         Basic                This chapter opens with a      Thank you for your
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Considerations AAG   statement that                 comment. No action
                                          Chapter V.A.         ``expenditures . . . must      required.
                                                               conform with NSF policies
                                                               where articulated in the
                                                               grant terms and conditions .
                                                               . .'' We appreciate the
                                                               addition of this language
                                                               and the comment that ``NSF
                                                               policies that have a post
                                                               award requirement are
                                                               implemented in the grant
                                                               terms and conditions.''
27...............  University of         Indirect Costs AAG,  In the second paragraph of     Noted and
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Chapter V.D.1b.      this section, ``de minimus''   corrected.
                                                               [sic] is misspelled.
28...............  University of         Public Access        We understand the importance   NSF thanks you for
                    Wisconsin Madison.    Chapter VI.D.2c      of the public access policy.   your comment.
                                          and VI.E.            However, the administrative    NSF's public
                                                               burden to comply with this     access initiative
                                                               policy for two dozen           is part of a US
                                                               separate agencies is           government-wide
                                                               daunting. The requirements     activity initiated
                                                               across the agencies differ     by the Office of
                                                               in terms of what should be     Science and
                                                               submitted, how compliance      Technology Policy
                                                               will be monitored, and when    (OSTP) that is
                                                               the implementation will        consistent with
                                                               occur. Agencies also are       NSF's primary
                                                               using a variety of             mission of
                                                               repositories, which will       promoting the
                                                               require institutions to        progress of
                                                               learn new systems and          science and
                                                               procedures. All of these       helping to ensure
                                                               factors accumulate and         the nation's
                                                               signify larger workloads.      future prosperity.
                                                               Our institution, like          Comments have been
                                                               others, has devoted            requested on NSF's
                                                               significant time and           implementation of
                                                               resources to learning how to   the Public Access
                                                               use the PubMed Central         requirement in the
                                                               system. We understand how it   PAPPG, and not on
                                                               functions and have in-house    the Plan itself.
                                                               expertise to help faculty
                                                               members with questions and
                                                               submissions. We encourage
                                                               NSF to consider allowing use
                                                               of an established, familiar
                                                               system such as PubMed
                                                               Central.
29...............  Wiley & Sons........  Public Access......  See backup documentation for   NSF thanks you for
                                                               additional details: (1)        your comment.
                                                               Embargoes and Petitions (2)    Comments have been
                                                               Implementation and             requested on NSF's
                                                               Repositories (3) Digital       implementation of
                                                               Data Sets.                     the Public Access
                                                                                              requirement in the
                                                                                              PAPPG, and not on
                                                                                              the Plan itself.
                                                                                              NSF describes its
                                                                                              approach to
                                                                                              requesting a
                                                                                              waiver to the 12-
                                                                                              month embargo (or
                                                                                              administrative
                                                                                              interval) in
                                                                                              Section 7.5.1 of
                                                                                              the Public Access
                                                                                              Plan (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15052 ey=nsf15052).
30...............  CalTech.............  NSF Grantee          The discussion regarding       Thank you for your
                                          Relationships        Cooperative Agreements and     comment. No action
                                          Introduction. D.     the circumstances in which     required.
                                                               they should be used is very
                                                               well written and quite
                                                               helpful. There are many
                                                               within the research
                                                               community, on both the
                                                               awarding and awardee sides,
                                                               who have not had a clear
                                                               understanding of the
                                                               purposes of the Cooperative
                                                               Agreement and the ways in
                                                               which Cooperative Agreements
                                                               differ from Grants and
                                                               Contracts. This discussion
                                                               will be very useful,
                                                               particularly when working
                                                               with the Audit community.
31...............  CalTech.............  Preliminary          We are very supportive of      Thank you for your
                                          Proposals Chapter    your decision to require       comment. No action
                                          I.D.2.               that preliminary proposals     required.
                                                               be submitted through the
                                                               Authorized Organizational
                                                               Representative (AOR). It is
                                                               extremely helpful for the
                                                               central research
                                                               administration office to
                                                               become aware of the interest
                                                               of a PI in submitting a
                                                               proposal for a specific NSF
                                                               program at the earliest
                                                               possible time. By requiring
                                                               the preliminary proposal to
                                                               go through the AOR, we can
                                                               become aware of potential
                                                               issues that must be
                                                               addressed internally before
                                                               the full proposal is due.
32...............  CalTech.............  Voluntary Committed  We are very well aware of      Thank you for your
                                          Cost Sharing         NSF's position on Voluntary    comment. No action
                                          Chapter              Committed Cost Sharing: It     required.
                                          II.C.2g(xi).         is not allowed unless it is
                                                               an eligibility requirement
                                                               that is clearly identified
                                                               in the solicitation.
                                                               Nevertheless, we also
                                                               realize that there may be
                                                               instances when investigators
                                                               insist on the need to
                                                               include voluntary committed
                                                               cost sharing in their
                                                               proposals. You have now
                                                               provided a mechanism whereby
                                                               that can be done, while
                                                               staying within the overall
                                                               NSF policy on voluntary
                                                               committed cost sharing. The
                                                               requirement not to include
                                                               voluntary committed cost
                                                               sharing in the budget or
                                                               budget justification is very
                                                               clear and will be easy to
                                                               follow. Declaring that these
                                                               resources will not be
                                                               auditable by NSF will also
                                                               make things easier for the
                                                               post-award financial
                                                               administration of the
                                                               resulting grant.
33...............  CalTech.............  Conference           The additional information on  Thank you for your
                                          Proposals Chapter    allowable costs associated     comment. No action
                                          II.D.9.              with Conference Proposals is   required.
                                                               helpful because it removes
                                                               the ambiguity surrounding
                                                               potentially allowable or not
                                                               allowable costs in
                                                               connection with conference
                                                               grants. Clarity on this
                                                               topic, particularly with
                                                               regard to food and beverage
                                                               costs associated with
                                                               intramural meetings, is
                                                               appreciated. It will make It
                                                               easier for everyone,
                                                               investigators, departmental
                                                               research administrators, and
                                                               post-award financial staff
                                                               to understand when such
                                                               costs are not allowed.

[[Page 50336]]

 
34...............  CalTech.............  Long Term            NSF's adoption of the          Thank you for your
                                          Disengagement of     language in the Uniform        comment. No action
                                          the PIAAG, Chapter   Guidance on the long term      required.
                                          II.B.2a.             disengagement of the PI will
                                                               be of great assistance to
                                                               investigators and research
                                                               administrators, alike. When
                                                               Federal agencies adopt
                                                               uniform practices with
                                                               regard to situations such as
                                                               the absence or disengagement
                                                               of Pies, it makes it easier
                                                               for everyone involved to
                                                               understand and follow the
                                                               requirements. The notion of
                                                               ``disengagement is a
                                                               reflection of the
                                                               significant changes that
                                                               have occurred as a result of
                                                               modern communications
                                                               technology. It is a reality
                                                               that we live with and the
                                                               use of ``disengagement as a
                                                               criterion for having to
                                                               notify and involve the
                                                               sponsor will reduce some of
                                                               the administrative burdens
                                                               associated with post-award
                                                               administration.
35...............  CalTech.............  Project Reporting    We would appreciate your       Language has been
                                          AAG, Chapter         consideration of making        revised to change
                                          II.D.3.              these reports due 120 days     the due date of
                                                               after the end of the award,    final reports and
                                                               rather than the 90 day time    project outcomes
                                                               period in the draft PAPPG.     reports to within
                                                               This would bring the           120 days following
                                                               reporting and closeout         the expiration of
                                                               requirements associated with   the award.
                                                               the technical aspects of the
                                                               grant in line with the
                                                               reporting and closeout
                                                               requirements associated with
                                                               the financial aspects of the
                                                               grant: 120 days after the
                                                               end date of the award.
36...............  CalTech.............  Grant Closeout AAG,  NSF's adoption of the          Thank you for your
                                          Chapter II.D.5.      requirement for the closeout   comment. No action
                                                               process to be completed        required.
                                                               within 120 days after the
                                                               end of the project is
                                                               greatly appreciated. Despite
                                                               our best efforts, we have
                                                               long had difficulty with the
                                                               90 day requirement for
                                                               financial closeout,
                                                               particularly when our award
                                                               includes subawards. Giving
                                                               us an added 30 days to
                                                               complete this task should
                                                               reduce the number of late
                                                               closeouts and also reduce
                                                               the instances when revised
                                                               closeout activities are
                                                               required. We hope that other
                                                               Federal agencies will join
                                                               NSF and NIH in recognizing
                                                               the benefits of providing a
                                                               more reasonable amount of
                                                               time to complete the
                                                               closeout process.
37...............  CalTech.............  Informal Resolution  The revision of this section   Thank you for your
                                          of Grant             is appreciated. Although the   comment. No action
                                          Administrative       use of this procedure is       required.
                                          Disputes AAG,        extremely rare, it is
                                          Chapter VII.B.       helpful if everyone can be
                                                               clear on just how the
                                                               process is supposed to work.
                                                               This should save time and
                                                               aggravation when it is
                                                               necessary to resolve
                                                               administrative disputes.
38...............  Cold Spring Harbor    Current and Pending  We encourage the NSF to seize  (1) Given the
                    Laboratory.           Support Chapter      the opportunity to lessen      significance of
                                          II.C.2h.             the administrative burden      this request, NSF
                                                               for investigators and          will consider it
                                                               institutions by not having     in a future PAPPG.
                                                               them submit current and        (2) COGR language
                                                               pending support at the time    incorporated from
                                                               of proposal submission. Only   comment #12.
                                                               those with favorable
                                                               scientific review outcomes
                                                               being considered for NSF
                                                               funding should be asked to
                                                               submit current and pending
                                                               support information. This
                                                               information will be more up
                                                               to date if acquired later in
                                                               the application process. In
                                                               addition, we recommend that
                                                               the requirement to have
                                                               internal institutional
                                                               resources identified, be
                                                               eliminated. This will remove
                                                               the unnecessary burden of
                                                               reporting routine new
                                                               faculty start-up packages
                                                               that may include general
                                                               equipment, facilities and/or
                                                               voluntary time and effort
                                                               not dedicated toward a
                                                               specific project or
                                                               endeavor. The trend for
                                                               Federal research funding
                                                               agencies seems to be toward
                                                               determining how much
                                                               unrestricted support
                                                               investigators may have
                                                               available so that this
                                                               information can potentially
                                                               be used to sway funding
                                                               decisions and final award
                                                               budgets. With stagnant and
                                                               decreasing federal research
                                                               funding, additional
                                                               institutional support for
                                                               investigators and
                                                               postdoctoral fellows is
                                                               essential in order to help
                                                               their research continue and
                                                               make ends meet. We strongly
                                                               encourage the NSF to break
                                                               with this trend that puts
                                                               investigators and
                                                               institutions in a vicious
                                                               circle in which their
                                                               efforts to help support and
                                                               sustain research may
                                                               negatively impact their
                                                               ability to secure Federal
                                                               research funding. We urge
                                                               the NSF to modify the
                                                               proposed PAPPG text
                                                               accordingly to eliminate the
                                                               requirement to report
                                                               internal institutional
                                                               resources.

[[Page 50337]]

 
39...............  American Society of   Public Access......  ASCE is primarily concerned    NSF thanks you for
                    Civil Engineers.                           that the plan calls for a 12-  your comment.
                                                               month embargo, which would     Comments have been
                                                               seriously impact the ability   requested on NSF's
                                                               of ASCE to recover our cost.   implementation of
                                                               Compared to many areas of      the Public Access
                                                               science and technology,        requirement in the
                                                               civil engineering research     PAPPG, and not on
                                                               moves at a more sedate rate.   the Plan itself.
                                                               As such, civil engineering     NSF describes its
                                                               journals remain ``fresh''      approach to
                                                               for a longer period, selling   requesting a
                                                               over a longer period, and      waiver to the 12-
                                                               taking a correspondingly       month embargo (or
                                                               longer time for ASCE to re-    administrative
                                                               coop our cost. ASCE believes   interval) in
                                                               that a 12-month embargo        Section 7.5.1 of
                                                               would impede ASCE's ability    the Public Access
                                                               to continue to produce the     Plan (http://
                                                               high-quality journals that     www.nsf.gov/
                                                               we currently do. The NSF       publications/
                                                               plan includes conference       pub_summ.jsp?ods_k
                                                               proceedings, which many        ey=nsf15052).
                                                               times are expanded and
                                                               published as journal
                                                               articles. Again, this leads
                                                               to duplicate versions of
                                                               results. Once again, thank
                                                               you for the opportunity for
                                                               ASCE to comment on the
                                                               proposed Policies and
                                                               Guidelines. ASCE, like other
                                                               engineering and scientific
                                                               societies, fulfills its role
                                                               in the advancement of
                                                               engineering by determining
                                                               through the peer review
                                                               process what is worthy of
                                                               publication. While
                                                               supporting open access, we
                                                               must be careful not to lose
                                                               the ``value-added'' by peer
                                                               review is what sets apart
                                                               top-flight research from
                                                               mediocre work.
40...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Preliminary          The change requiring           It is vital that an
                    College of            Proposals Chapter    submission of pre-proposals    institution be
                    Engineering.          I.D.2.               by the authorized              aware of
                                                               representative adds some       commitments being
                                                               burden to the proposer, and    made in a
                                                               thus partially defeats the     preliminary
                                                               purpose of reducing            proposal. As such,
                                                               unnecessary effort.            AOR submission
                                                                                              will be beneficial
                                                                                              to the submitting
                                                                                              organization.
41...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Format Chapter       Removing guidance information  NSF has added.
                    College of            II.B..               from the GPG is a very bad
                    Engineering.                               idea. Instead of
                                                               streamlining the content,
                                                               this would create an
                                                               incomplete set of
                                                               instructions. We need all of
                                                               the guidance in one place
                                                               for two reasons: (1) Not
                                                               everyone involved with the
                                                               proposal necessarily will be
                                                               working in Fastlane, and (2)
                                                               considerable work is done
                                                               before upload, and finding
                                                               unexpected instructions in
                                                               Fastlane could create
                                                               emergencies. Please don't
                                                               let NSF become NIH, where
                                                               the answer to every question
                                                               is six links and four
                                                               obsolete documents away. Put
                                                               all of the instructions
                                                               where we can find them.
42...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Format Chapter       You should consider updating   Minor changes.
                    College of            II.B.1.              the formatting requirements.
                    Engineering.                               The fonts you identify were
                                                               selected years (decades?)
                                                               ago, and are optimized for
                                                               print. All proposal
                                                               submission and most proposal
                                                               review now takes place on
                                                               the screen, so you should
                                                               consider allowing fonts that
                                                               are optimized for the
                                                               screen. These might include
                                                               Calibri and Cambria. The
                                                               standards regarding lines
                                                               per inch and characters per
                                                               line should be deleted;
                                                               specifying font size and
                                                               single-spacing should be
                                                               sufficient. When a proposal
                                                               is converted from, say, Word
                                                               to PDF, it shrinks slightly.
                                                               Moreover, since Fastlane
                                                               distills Word documents and
                                                               redistills PDFs, the
                                                               proposer has no actual
                                                               control over the final PDF
                                                               version. This rule makes the
                                                               proposer responsible for
                                                               something that is ultimately
                                                               out of his/her control.
43...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Collaborators &      This will be an excellent      Thank you for your
                    College of            Other Affiliations   change if implemented          comment. NSF will
                    Engineering.          Chapter II.C.1e.     properly. I would strongly     explore the
                                                               recommend specifying an NSF-   viability of such
                                                               wide format for this           a suggestion.
                                                               information. Our experience
                                                               has been that even within an
                                                               individual directorate
                                                               (CISE), the requirements for
                                                               this list vary. Today, a
                                                               list produced for one
                                                               proposal might require
                                                               significant reformatting for
                                                               the next proposal. It would
                                                               be nice to eliminate the
                                                               need for this extra work.
44...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Cover Sheet Chapter  Even though Fastlane is being  Thank you for your
                    College of            II.C.2a.             phased out, three changes to   suggestion,
                    Engineering.                               the cover page would be        however upgrades
                                                               nice: 1. Improve the           to FastLane are
                                                               Performance Site page          not feasible at
                                                               programming. Often, each       this time. 3)
                                                               line must be entered and       Clarifying
                                                               saved before the next line     language has been
                                                               can be entered. Ideally, you   added.
                                                               could pre-populate this with
                                                               information on the
                                                               institution. 2. Make it
                                                               possible to go to the
                                                               remainder of the cover page
                                                               before the first section is
                                                               completed. 3. Add a legend
                                                               indicating that the
                                                               Beginning Investigator box
                                                               is for BIO proposals only.
45...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Project Summary      This is a good place to point  Thank you for your
                    College of            Chapter II.C.2b.     out sloppy language            comments.
                    Engineering.                               throughout the GPG. If you
                                                               want the project description
                                                               written in the third person,
                                                               instruct us to do that. The
                                                               words ``must'' and
                                                               ``should'' do not mean the
                                                               same thing, and here you say
                                                               ``should.'' The word
                                                               ``should'' appears 265 times
                                                               in this document. How many
                                                               of those times do you really
                                                               mean ``must'' or ``shall''?
                                                               Statements like the
                                                               following are of no value
                                                               whatsoever: ``Additional
                                                               instructions for preparation
                                                               of the Project Summary are
                                                               available in FastLane.''
                                                               What instructions? Where? If
                                                               I don't track them down,
                                                               will I be in danger of
                                                               submitting a non-compliant
                                                               proposal?
46...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Content Chapter      What does ``relation to        Language has been
                    College of            II.C.2d(i).          longer-term goals of the       revised.
                    Engineering.                               PI's project'' mean? What is
                                                               the PI's project? It is not
                                                               this proposed project,
                                                               because then you would be
                                                               asking how this proposal
                                                               relates to this proposal.

[[Page 50338]]

 
47...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Project Description  The prohibition on URLs seems  Thank you for your
                    College of            Chapter              extreme, and it is a step in   comments.
                    Engineering.          II.C.2d(ii).         the wrong direction. As you
                                                               point out, the reviewers are
                                                               under no obligation to look
                                                               at them, so no harm is done
                                                               in including them.
48...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Results from Prior   This should be eliminated      Project reports are
                    College of            NSF Support          from NSF proposals. The        not publicly
                    Engineering.          Chapter              program officer (and,          available and
                                          II.C.2d(iii).        indeed, the public) already    therefore is
                                                               has access to all of this      essential
                                                               information via project        information for
                                                               reports. A more effective      use by the
                                                               use of space, time, and        reviewer in
                                                               energy would be to invite      assessing the
                                                               the proposer to describe how   proposal.
                                                               this proposed project
                                                               relates to prior or
                                                               concurrent work.
49...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  References Cited     Since URLs are prohibited in   GPG Chapter
                    College of            Chapter II.C.2e.     the project description, it    II.C.2.d(iii)(d)
                    Engineering.                               is likely that some URLs (to   already specifies
                                                               examples of outreach           that a complete
                                                               projects, for example) will    bibliographic
                                                               end up in the References       citation for each
                                                               Cited list. Now we are at      publication must
                                                               risk of disqualification       be provided in
                                                               since a URL does not contain   either the
                                                               all of the items each          References Cited
                                                               citation must have.            section or the
                                                                                              Results from Prior
                                                                                              NSF Support
                                                                                              section of the
                                                                                              proposal, to avoid
                                                                                              duplication.
50...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Biographical         We would strongly recommend    (1) Upon review of
                    College of            Sketches Chapter     that NSF provide a template    this comment, NSF
                    Engineering.          II.C.2f(ii).         for the entire biographical    cannot validate
                                                               sketch. This will leave no     the reviewer
                                                               question as to what can be     comment, as the
                                                               included and what cannot.      instructions in
                                                               The instructions have a list   that section do
                                                               of information that can't be   not contain a list
                                                               included, but this is not      of information not
                                                               exhaustive. What about         to include. (2)
                                                               honors and awards, for         Language has been
                                                               example? If a bio sketch       revised to clarify
                                                               contains everything            that biosketches
                                                               required, in the order         for all personnel
                                                               specified, plus a section on   must be uploaded
                                                               honors and awards, is it       separately.
                                                               compliant or not? Today, the
                                                               answer varies from program
                                                               officer to program officer.
                                                               As noted earlier, the
                                                               elimination of the conflict
                                                               list from the bio sketch is
                                                               an excellent decision. The
                                                               instructions on Other
                                                               Personnel and the notation
                                                               that biographical sketches
                                                               cannot be uploaded as a
                                                               group appear to be at odds.
                                                               If someone is an Other
                                                               Person rather than an Other
                                                               Senior Person, how will it
                                                               be possible to upload a
                                                               biographical sketch?
51...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Equipment Chapter    The term information           2 CFR 200 (Uniform
                    College of            II.C.2g(iii).        technology systems should be   Guidance) does not
                    Engineering.                               defined, especially since      define information
                                                               NSF funds research on          technology, and as
                                                               information technology         such NSF is
                                                               systems.                       consistent with
                                                                                              government-wide
                                                                                              requirements.
52...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Special Information/ This is a good change, but it  Instructions have
                    College of            International        belongs in the instructions    been added to the
                    Engineering.          Conferences          for the Cover Page, not the    Cover Sheet
                                          Chapter II.C.2j.     instructions for the           section.
                                                               supplementary documents.
53...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Collaborative        A definition of ``within a     Noted.
                    College of            Proposals Chapter    reasonable timeframe'' would
                    Engineering.          II.D.5.              be helpful.
54...............  UC Riverside, Bourns  Conference Grants    The language ``may be          Comment
                    College of            Chapter II.D.9.      appropriate or not             incorporated.
                    Engineering.                               appropriate'' is wishy-
                                                               washy. Why not just say
                                                               allowable and unallowable?
55...............  University of         Participant Support  Are we to interpret the        (1) Yes. (2) NSF
                    Virginia.             Costs Chapter        definition this way,           deliberately
                                          II.C.2g.             removing the ``such as'' so    revised the
                                                               as to broaden the definition   definition of
                                                               beyond the examples            participant
                                                               mentioned?: ``Participant      support for
                                                               support costs means direct     consistency with
                                                               costs for items in             the Uniform
                                                               connection with conferences,   Guidance.
                                                               or training projects.''        Significant
                                                               Previous guidance from NSF     clarity has been
                                                               included the ``such as''       added in the
                                                               examples mentioned as well     conferences
                                                               as ``and other costs related   section to
                                                               to conferences and             highlight the
                                                               meetings'' but the new         types of costs
                                                               guidance removes that ``and    that may be
                                                               other costs'' part and         appropriate for
                                                               appears to limit PSC to the    inclusion in a
                                                               items used as examples. I am   conference budget,
                                                               asking because conferences     of which
                                                               can include other costs such   participant
                                                               as venue rental, poster        support is one.
                                                               supplies, etc. that aren't
                                                               part of what is listed after
                                                               ``such as'' and we are
                                                               trying to determine what
                                                               part of a conference should
                                                               be considered PSC and which
                                                               parts should not. Any idea
                                                               how we should interpret the
                                                               new definition?
56...............  Inside Public Access  Public Access......  Statutory authority for the    NSF thanks you for
                                                               collection may also be an      your comment.
                                                               issue because there is no      NSF's public
                                                               clear authority given by       access initiative
                                                               Congress for the US Public     is part of a US
                                                               Access program. It was         government-wide
                                                               created by an Executive        activity initiated
                                                               Branch memo. NSF needs to      by the Office of
                                                               address this issue. (1) The    Science and
                                                               strangeness of the NSF         Technology Policy
                                                               request. What is strange is    (OSTP) that is
                                                               that the collection of         consistent with
                                                               articles under Public Access   NSF's primary
                                                               has nothing to do with the     mission of
                                                               proposal and award process,    promoting the
                                                               which is the subject of the    progress of
                                                               PAPPG. (2) The burden of       science and
                                                               mandatory data sharing. (3)    helping to ensure
                                                               The issue of burden            the nation's
                                                               estimating. (4) Vague          future prosperity.
                                                               requirements create            NSF has formally
                                                               complexity.                    implemented its
                                                                                              Public Access
                                                                                              requirement in the
                                                                                              PAPPG. Comments
                                                                                              have been
                                                                                              requested on NSF's
                                                                                              implementation of
                                                                                              the Public Access
                                                                                              requirement in the
                                                                                              PAPPG and not on
                                                                                              the plan itself.
                                                                                              The NSF policy on
                                                                                              data sharing and
                                                                                              data management
                                                                                              plans remains
                                                                                              unchanged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50339]]

    Title of Collection: ``National Science Foundation Proposal & Award 
Policies & Procedures Guide. ``
    OMB Approval Number: 3145-0058.
    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an 
information collection for three years.
    Proposed Project: The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 
(Public Law 81-507) sets forth NSF's mission and purpose:
    ``To promote the progress of science; to advance the national 
health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. . . 
.''
    The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
     Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the 
engineering process;
     Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research 
potential;
     Science and engineering education programs at all levels 
and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
     Programs that provide a source of information for policy 
formulation; and
     Other activities to promote these ends.
    NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: 
promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and 
enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the 
Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to 
carry out its charges have evolved significantly over the last six 
decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.
    Use of the Information: The regular submission of proposals to the 
Foundation is part of the collection of information and is used to help 
NSF fulfill this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-
selected research and education projects in all the scientific and 
engineering disciplines. NSF receives more than 50,000 proposals 
annually for new projects, and makes approximately 11,000 new awards.
    Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other 
agreements awarded to approximately 2,000 colleges, universities, 
academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The 
awards are based mainly on merit evaluations of proposals submitted to 
the Foundation.
    The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the 
operations of its information collection to identify and address 
excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify 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).

Burden on the Public

    It has been estimated that the public expends an average of 
approximately 120 burden hours for each proposal submitted. Since the 
Foundation expects to receive approximately 51,700 proposals in FY 
2016, an estimated 6,204,000 burden hours will be placed on the public.
    The Foundation has based its reporting burden on the review of 
approximately 51,700 new proposals expected during FY 2016. It has been 
estimated that anywhere from one hour to 20 hours may be required to 
review a proposal. We have estimated that approximately 5 hours are 
required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an 
average of 3 reviews, resulting in approximately 775,500 burden hours 
each year.
    The information collected on the reviewer background questionnaire 
(NSF 428A) is used by managers to maintain an automated database of 
reviewers for the many disciplines represented by the proposals 
submitted to the Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, and 
ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to 
Congressional and other queries into equity issues. These data also are 
used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to 
increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering, 
and education. The estimated burden for the Reviewer Background 
Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at 5 minutes per respondent with up 
to 10,000 potential new reviewers for a total of 833 hours.
    The aggregate number of burden hours is estimated to be 6,980,333. 
The actual burden on respondents has not changed.

    Dated: August 13, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015-20365 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P