[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