[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32693-32695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12929]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published
in the Federal Register at 78 FR 56876, and three comments were
received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with
the publication of this second notice. The full submission (including
comments) may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
National Science Foundation, 725--17th Street NW., Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite
1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected].
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339,
which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year
(including federal holidays).
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured
of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this
notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
703-292-7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless
the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such persons are not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
As required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), comments on the information
collection activities as part of this study were solicited through
publication of a 60 Day Notice in the Federal Register on September 14,
2012, at 77 FR 56876. We received three comments, to which we here
respond.
Commenter 1
We agreed with one commenter's conclusion that (a) the information
is necessary and will have practical use; and (b) our estimated burden
on respondents appears appropriate. In (c), the commenter raised two
points, and one more in (d) which we address here.
The first point of (c) is about our non-inclusion of the actual
course instructor in our survey. We did not specifically include
interviews with instructors for two reasons. The first is that NSF does
not require grantees to provide RCR instruction through a live person--
NSF concluded it was acceptable for grantees to direct participants to
a Web site for online RCR education. Thus, there may not be an RCR
instructor with whom we could speak. The second reason is that, based
on our limited experience with grantees in which live RCR instruction
is offered, the RCR administrator is also involved in that instruction,
so the administrator will also have that perspective in those
instances. Finally, we want to limit the burden this survey imposes on
awardee institutions.
The second point in (c) is that our minimum number of participants
of the RCR training (three--one undergraduate, one graduate, one post-
doc) seems too low to provide a representative sample. We will ask
grantees to make available as many students as practical, but since NSF
requires grantees to provide RCR training only to students directly
supported (paid) from NSF grants, we recognize that for many grantees,
this may mean that few NSF participants exist. Of course, if a grantee
provides RCR education to a broader range of students/post-docs/faculty
than the minimal requirements of NSF, we expect to be able to draw from
a larger pool of participants. Indeed, this is one of our questions for
the RCR Administrator.
The comment in (d) about the most significant way to reduce the
burden on respondents would be to give clear and timely guidance on
what does and does not constitute `adequate' training goes to one of
the points of doing this survey. NSF has not specified what constitutes
`adequate' RCR training. We are assessing how grantees have implemented
NSF's requirement, how many of them would welcome further specificity
in NSF's requirement, and how many would not--and why or why not. As we
note, one likely outcome of our effort would be recommendations back to
NSF for improving its RCR program, and, depending on the response data,
this could be one of those recommendations.
[[Page 32694]]
Commenter 2
Commenter 2 expressed concern that our RCR program data collection
strategy ``exceeds what is necessary to evaluate recipient's compliance
with NSF's policy'' and ``creates an unnecessary and excessive burden
on the respondents'' and that the interviews ``are not necessary nor
useful.'' We prepared our approach after interviewing experts in RCR
training and then conducted a trial run of the oversight program at a
university with multiple, decentralized RCR programs. Using a draft
questionnaire, respondents provided answers and promptly offered both
positive and negative feedback about their own RCR training
experiences. Indeed, they expressed to us a desire to have additional
discussions beyond the interviews, which we accommodated. Our
interviews and questions were necessary and essential to determine
compliance with NSF's RCR policy, to allow us to address the impact of
NSF's requirement on the university, and to determine whether a
recommendation to adjust the policy might be warranted. Thus, your
phrase ``unnecessary and excessive burden'' is quite opposite of our
actual experiences while interacting with upper-level administrators,
RCR administrators, and RCR course participants.
Another point raised was that the RCR policy ``does not require
institutions to demonstrate a commitment particularly through
separately allocated resources--financial and/or personnel--to the
program''. However, there is a requirement to allocate personnel. As
indicated in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide,
``An institution must designate one or more persons to oversee
compliance with the RCR training requirement''.\1\ As indicated in our
Federal Register Notice for this review, for evaluation purposes we are
interested how the institution's financial and staff resources are both
utilized to maintain the RCR training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Part II-Award and Administration Guide, Chapter IV, Part
B.2.c, nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_4.jsp#IVB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was also an overall concern that the length of time estimated
for interviews is not enough. As indicated above, our interview times
are based from our previous experiences and are used as an estimate,
not as an absolute fixed factor. We expect that interview duration
would vary for some institutions based on the size of their RCR program
and total number of participants. Individual institutions can have a
wide variety in the number of trainees who are supported by NSF. Our
estimated interview times are in line with the actual length of the
interviews conducted in our trial run.
Commenter 2's statement that the ``NSF OIG lacks the breadth of
expertise needed to reasonably assess the effectiveness of individual
institutional programs'' misses the mark of our intent. Our goal is not
to evaluate the effectiveness of individual institutional RCR programs,
but rather to evaluate an institution's methods for implementing its
RCR program in response to NSF's requirement. As Commenter 2 stated,
``There is not a required course content or structure nor a requirement
that faculty participate in the training activities''. Institutions can
freely develop their RCR training plans, and, as stated in our Notice,
we seek to collect such information for evaluation purposes. Our staff
has several scientists who have the requisite experience to complete
such an evaluation.
We agree with Commenter 2 that receipt of an institution's plan for
RCR training would be a valuable endeavor, and we will obtain such
institutional plans as part of our assessment.
Commenter 3
1. We agree with Commenter 3 that receipt of an institution's plan
for RCR training would be a valuable endeavor, and we will obtain such
institutional plans as part of our assessment. We prepared our approach
after interviewing experts in RCR training and then conducting a trial
run of the oversight program at a university with multiple,
decentralized RCR programs. Using a draft questionnaire, respondents
provided answers and promptly offered both positive and negative
feedback about their own RCR training experiences. Our interviews and
questions were necessary and essential to determine compliance with
NSF's RCR policy, to allow us to address the impact of NSF's
requirement on the university, and to determine whether a
recommendation to adjust the policy might be warranted.
This commenter suggested we use an electronic survey rather than
conducting interviews to gather information. During our trial run, we
specifically asked the participants how their responses would differ if
they received and answered the same questionnaire electronically vs. in
an interview. While a couple of interviewees noted it would be more
convenient logistically to complete an electronic questionnaire at
their leisure, all interviewees preferred an interview format for a
more fruitful discussion.
2. Commenter 3 suggested our list of interviewees is incomplete
because we exclude faculty. We do not specifically exclude faculty as
we found that faculty members are often the RCR program administrators
and/or RCR course instructors. Furthermore, we plan to ask RCR program
administrators for information on faculty involvement. We realize
faculty mentoring could be an integrated part of a RCR program, as we
recognize that institutions have varying RCR training programs that are
suited to their specific research disciplines or type of institution.
Commenter 3 believed we underestimated the time burden on
institutions due to systematic auditing and self-assessment. We are not
conducting an audit, nor do we require a university to conduct an audit
or self-assessment either prior, or subsequent, to our information
gathering. Our interview times are based from our previous experiences
and are used as an estimate, not as an absolute fixed factor. We expect
that interview duration would vary for some institutions based on the
size of their RCR program and total number of participants. Individual
institutions can have a wide variety in the number of trainees who are
supported by NSF. Our estimated interview times are in line with the
actual length of the interviews conducted in our trial run.
After consideration of all comments, we are moving forward with our
submission to OMB.
Title of Collection: Office of Inspector General Review of Awardee
Implementation of NSF's Requirement for a Responsible Conduct of
Research Program.
OMB Approval Number: 3145--NEW.
Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish an
information collection.
Abstract: The National Science Foundation Office of Inspector
General (NSF OIG) requests establishment of data collection to assess
awardee institutions' plans to provide adequate training in the
responsible conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate
students, and postdoctoral researchers who are supported by NSF.
Section 7009 of the America COMPETES Act (codified at 42 U.S.C.
862o-1) requires NSF to ensure that ``each institution that applies for
financial assistance from the Foundation for science and engineering
research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide
appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical
conduct of research. . . .'' NSF's implementation of this requirement
is described in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures
Guide, Part II--Award and
[[Page 32695]]
Administration Guide, Chapter IV, Part B and is available at nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_4.jsp#IVB.
The Office of Inspector General provides independent oversight of
NSF's programs and operations. NSF OIG is responsible for promoting
efficiency and effectiveness in agency programs and for preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. NSF OIG supports NSF in its mission
by safeguarding the integrity of NSF programs and operations through
audits, investigations, and other reviews.
This information collection is necessary for review of
institutional compliance with the responsible conduct of research
requirements. NSF OIG will primarily use the data collected to inform
the Foundation and Congress whether current responsible conduct of
research programs comply with NSF's requirement and to make
recommendations to strengthen these programs if necessary. The results
of the information collection also will assist NSF OIG in developing a
responsible conduct of research oversight plan.
The scope of this information request will primarily address how
awardees have implemented NSF's requirement by interviewing three
groups of people: (1) upper-level administrators (e.g., Vice Presidents
or Vice Provosts), (2) program administrators (e.g., Research Integrity
Officers or Compliance Officers), and (3) trainees who have
participated in the program (undergraduate students, graduate students
and postdoctoral researchers). From the upper-level administrators, we
will request information that will allow us to assess the institution's
commitment to the program, including resources (both financial and
staff), and how the expectations for the program are communicated to
faculty and students. We will request from the program administrators
specific information such as course structure and content,
participation requirements and options, compliance tracking, faculty
participation, resource allocation, and oversight. From the course
participants, we will request information about their experiences in
the courses with regard to format, duration, content, and the benefits
and drawbacks of taking an RCR course. The information collection will
be conducted through video-conferencing between NSF OIG and the
institutions' participants.
Use of the Information: This information is required for NSF OIG's
effective oversight of NSF programs and operations by reviewing
institutions' compliance with the responsible conduct of research
requirements of the America COMPETES Act and NSF's Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Guide.
This collection primarily will be used for accountability and
evaluation purposes, and to inform Congress and NSF on the outcome of
the information collection.
Respondents: Institutions that receive funding from NSF and are
required to provide adequate training on the responsible conduct of
research.
Number of Respondents: NSF OIG anticipates collecting information
from a minimum of 20 institutions per year and a maximum of 100
institutions. Participants at each institution will include at least
one senior level administrator, one representative from the responsible
conduct of research program, and a group of students with at least one
undergraduate student, one graduate student, and one postdoctoral
researcher. The information collection will involve between 100 and 500
respondents per year.
Burden on the Public: NSF OIG estimates that the time required for
information collection from each senior level administrator will be
approximately 30 minutes, from each representative from the responsible
conduct of research program approximately 1.5 hours, and from students
and postdocs approximately 1 hour each.
At a minimum, each institution will require 4 hours to complete the
information collection. The minimum total time burden for 20
institutions per year is 80 hours and 400 hours per year for 100
universities.
Dated: May 28, 2013.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2013-12929 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P