[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52467-52478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Pub. L. 104-13.
This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published
in the Federal Register at 81 FR 30348, and 50 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 16, 2016, at 81 FR 30348, NSF
received 50 comments from eight different institutions/individuals; 36
comments were in response to the Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide, Part I, and 14 were in response to the Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part II. 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. Penn State Introduction, Facilitation Awards for Scientists Facilitation Awards for Scientists
University. Section A. and Engineers with Disabilities and Engineers with Disabilities
provide funding for special provide funding for special
assistance or equipment to enable assistance or equipment to enable
persons with disabilities to work persons with disabilities to work
on NSF-supported projects. See on NSF-supported projects. See
Chapter II.E.7 for instructions Chapter II.E.7 for instructions
regarding preparation of these regarding preparation of these
types of proposals. We believe the types of proposals. We believe the
above should reference Chapter II. above should reference Chapter II.
E. 6. E. 6.
[[Page 52468]]
2. Penn State Introduction, Part II of the NSF Proposal & Award It is not NSF's intent to
University. Section B. Policies & Procedures Guide sets incorporate NSF FAQs into the
forth NSF policies regarding the award terms and conditions. OMB
award, and administration, and has stated that their FAQs on 2
monitoring of grants and CFR Sec. 200 have the full force
cooperative agreements. Coverage and effect of the Uniform
includes the NSF award process, Guidance, but this has no impact
from issuance and administration on the PAPPG.
of an NSF award through closeout.
Guidance regarding other grant
requirements or considerations
that either is not universally
applicable or which do not follow
the award cycle also is provided.
Part II also implements other
Public Laws, Executive Orders
(E.O.) and other directives
insofar as they apply to grants,
and is issued pursuant to the
authority of Section 11(a) of the
NSF Act (42 USC Sec. 1870). When
NSF Grant General Conditions or an
award notice reference a
particular section of the PAPPG,
then that section becomes part of
the award requirements through
incorporation by reference. If the
intent of this edit is to
incorporate NSF FAQ's in the award
terms and conditions, we would
recommend further clarification to
spell this out in greater detail.
3. Penn State Letter of Intent, We propose an overall change to the Given the variance in the types of
University. Chapter I.D.1. LOI process (for the purpose/sake proposals that use the LOI
of consistency), to make all LOI mechanism, a change in this
submission's mandatory from an AOR process would not be appropriate.
(not the PI).
4. Penn State Who May Submit Recommend an inclusion statement to While there is a standard
University. Proposals, Chapter address Universities and Colleges definition of what constitutes a
I.E.1 (Universities with multi-campus locations and college or university, the PAPPG
and Colleges). academic focus. ie. Main campus as is indeed silent on how multi-
PhD awarding institution, while campus locations should be
branch campus as PUI. This addressed. Various NSF program
clarification would be useful for solicitations do address this
program solicitations with issue and vary according to
submission limitations. programmatic intent regarding how
such satellite campuses should be
treated. As such, a statement in
the PAPPG would not be able to
capture these variances. The PAPPG
however does address the vast
majority of the programs at NSF.
For those programs that limit such
eligibility, there are definitions
provided in the applicable Program
Solicitation.
5. Penn State When to Submit Include guidance that the name of Thank you for your comment. The
University. Proposals, Chapter the NSF Program Officer that PAPPG states that if written
I.F (Special granted the special exception to approval is available, it should
Exceptions). the deadline date policy. Either be uploaded. The email should
with a new fill in the blank box contain the name of the cognizant
on the NSF Cover Sheet or as a Program Officer, so an additional
Single Copy Documents in FastLane. space for this information on the
Cover Sheet is not necessary.
Additional guidance, however,
regarding this process has been
provided.
6. Penn State Format of the We believe references 6-10 need to References were accurate, as
University. Proposal, Chapter be updated as follows: 9. Center stated.
II.B. Proposal (see Chapter II.E.10 and
relevant funding opportunity); 10.
Major Research Equipment and
Facility Construction Proposal
(see Chapter II.E.11 and relevant
funding opportunity).
7. Penn State Collaborators & Please add that this section must Instructions to order the list
University. Other Affiliations be alphabetical order by last alphabetically by last name have
Information, name. In general, it should be been included. No format for the
Chapter II.C.1.e. clarified if this list should be list is specified in the PAPPG,
set up much like the templates although some programs may specify
provided by NSF (columns), or if a a specific format in the
running list like the biosketch applicable program solicitation.
format is acceptable. Our hope is
that one day the file upload can
be an excel sheet template that
lists this information and becomes
sortable for NSF.
8. Penn State Sections of the Please add ``k. Single Copy Comment incorporated.
University. Proposal, Chapter Documents--Collaborators & Other
II.C.2. Affiliations.''.
9. Penn State Cover Sheet, Chapter Please add clarification that the Part I of the PAPPG provides policy
University. II.C.2.a. title is limited to 180 and procedural guidance for
characters, per the FastLane preparation of proposals. Issues
system. such as field length should be
articulated in the relevant NSF
system.
[[Page 52469]]
10. Penn State Project Summary, ``Each proposal must contain a This was a known defect in FastLane
University. Chapter II.C.2.b. summary of the proposed project that has now been addressed. The
not more than one page in Project Summary is limited to 1
length.'' This requirement is not page as stated in the PAPPG.
just one page in length BUT 4,600
characters. Please clarify that
the on-line text boxes only permit
this count.
11. Penn State Cover Sheet, Chapter If the proposal includes use of References were accurate, as
University. II.C.2.a vertebrate animals, supplemental stated.
(Footnotes). information is required. See GPG
Chapter II.D.7 for additional
information. If the proposal
includes use of human subjects,
supplemental information is
required. See GPG Chapter II.D.8
for additional information. We
believe the above should reference
Chapter II. D. 4 and Chapter
II.D.5.
12. Penn State References Cited, We request clarification be added Thank you for your comment. The
University. Chapter II.C.2.e. for references of large norms of the discipline should be
collaborative group, i.e. CREAM followed when preparing the
and ICE CUBE. There are hundreds References Cited. Given that each
of authors and collaborators to discipline may have different
list. Should these be listed in practices, it is not appropriate
their entirety or are et. al's to include additional instructions
acceptable? Should a full list be in this section.
loaded into supplemental documents
or single documents?
13. Penn State Senior Personnel As a general policy, NSF limits the NSF concurs with the portion of the
University. Salaries and Wages, salary compensation requested in comment regarding the ability to
Chapter the proposal budget for senior rebudget. However, this policy
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). personnel to no more than two relates to budgeting salary for
months of their regular salary in senior personnel in both the
any one year. This limit includes budget preparation and award
salary compensation received from phases of the process. NSF plans
all NSF-funded grants. This effort to maintain its long-standing
must be documented in accordance policy regarding senior personnel
with 2 CFR Sec. 200, Subpart E. salaries and wages in these phases
If anticipated, any compensation of the process, reflecting the
for such personnel in excess of assistance relationship between
two months must be disclosed in NSF and grantee institutions.
the proposal budget, justified in
the budget justification, and must
be specifically approved by NSF in
the award notice budget.12 Under
normal rebudgeting authority, as
described in Chapters VII and X, a
recipient can internally approve
an increase or decrease in person
months devoted to the project
after an award is made, even if
doing so results in salary support
for senior personnel exceeding the
two month salary policy. No prior
approval from NSF is necessary as
long as that change would not
cause the objectives or scope of
the project to change. NSF prior
approval is necessary if the
objectives or scope of the project
change. We ask that the 2 month
rule described above be removed
from the proposal budget
requirements. Given that
rebudgeting authority can allow
for internal approvals of
increased or decreases, we do not
understand why this requirement is
still part of the NSF PAPPG.
[[Page 52470]]
14. Penn State Participant Support This budget category refers to Reference should be Chapter II.E.7.
University. (Line F on the direct costs for items such as Comment incorporated.
Proposal Budget), stipends or subsistence
Chapter allowances, travel allowances, and
II.C.2.g.(v). registration fees paid to or on
behalf of participants or trainees
(but not employees) in connection
with NSF-sponsored conferences or
training projects. Any additional
categories of participant support
costs other than those described
in 2 CFR Sec. 200.75 (such as
incentives, gifts, souvenirs, t-
shirts and memorabilia), must be
justified in the budget
justification, and such costs will
be closely scrutinized by NSF.
(See also GPG Chapter II.E.10D.9)
For some educational projects
conducted at local school
districts, however, the
participants being trained are
employees. In such cases, the
costs must be classified as
participant support if payment is
made through a stipend or training
allowance method. The school
district must have an accounting
mechanism in place (i.e., sub-
account code) to differentiate
between regular salary and stipend
payments. We believe the above
should reference is pointing to
the incorrect area but we're not
sure what reference to suggest in
its place.
15. Penn State Voluntary Committed While voluntary uncommitted costs A description of the resources
University. and Uncommitted share is not auditable by NSF, if provided in the Facilities,
Cost Sharing, included in the Facilities and Equipment and Other Resources
Chapter Other Resources section of a document are reviewable, however,
II.C.2.g.(xii). proposal, will it be REVIEWABLE by per NSF instructions, these
NSF and external reviews? Our resources should not be
concern is that this sort of quantified. A reviewer needs to be
institutional contribution will able to assess all resources
still impact reviewers and available to the project in order
application that are selected. to consider whether sufficient
resources are available to carry
out the project as proposed. NSF's
cost sharing policy was not
directed at voluntary uncommitted
cost sharing.
16. Penn State Collaborative Table of Documents for Lead and Non- Comment incorporated.
University. Proposals, Chapter Lead Organization documents:
II.D.3. Please add the Collaborators &
Other Affiliations Information
under each Organizations column.
This will clarify where it belongs
in a Collaborative proposal.
17. Penn State GOALI, Chapter We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. II.E.4.b. read: ``Supplemental funding to
add GOALI elements to a currently
funded NSF research project should
be submitted by using the
``Supplemental Funding Request''
function in FastLane.''.
18. Penn State Conference We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. Proposals, Chapter read: ``A conference proposal will
II.E.7. be supported only if equivalent
results cannot be obtained by
attendance at regular meetings of
professional societies. Although
requests for support of a
conference proposal ordinarily
originates with educational
institutions or scientific and
engineering societies, they also
may come from other groups.''.
19. Penn State Travel Proposals, We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. Chapter II.E.9. read: ``A proposal for travel,
either domestic and/or
international, support for
participation in scientific and
engineering meetings are handled
by the NSF organization unit with
program responsibility for the
area of interest.''.
20. Penn State Proposal Preparation We believe the sentence should Comment incorporated.
University. Checklist, Exhibit read: ``Results from Prior NSF
II-1 (Project Support have been provided for PIs
Description). and co-PIs who have received NSF
support within the last five
years. Results related to
Intellectual Merit and Broader
Impacts are described under two
separate, distinct headings and
are limited to five pages of the
project description.''.
[[Page 52471]]
21. Cal Tech............ Senior Personnel The PAPPG states that ``NSF limits Much like guidance contained in the
Salaries and Wages, the salary compensation requested Uniform Guidance, NSF policies are
Chapter in the proposal budget for senior written to allow awardees maximum
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). personnel to no more than two flexibility in the development of
months of their regular salary in their internal controls to ensure
any one year.'' (emphasis added). compliance with NSF and federal
The policy is very clear that the requirements. As a result the NSF
focus is on compensation policy on senior personnel
requested, and not on salary salaries and wages requires
expenditures. We agree with and awardees to determine for
are supportive of that themselves the best approach for
distinction. Our concern here is ensuring compliance.
largely a mechanical one. When we
submit a proposal to NSF, how
should we determine whether the
amount of salary support being
requested is ``more than two
months of their regular salary in
any one year?'' The answer is very
simple if we are dealing with an
investigator who has only one NSF
grant. It gets much more
complicated for investigators with
multiple NSF grants, with widely
overlapping performance periods.
Should we be looking at currently
active NSF awards and trying to
determine that if the current
proposal is funded, will there be
a one-year period in which the
amount of salary requested will
exceed two months of salary?
Should we look at currently funded
NSF proposals or also take into
account pending proposals, as
well? We are seeking guidance in
the PAPPG that provides some
concrete steps to be followed to
meet the policy requirement. In
the absence of this guidance, we
are never quite sure if the
approach we are taking is or is
not consistent with the policy.
22. Cal Tech............ Voluntary Committed The discussion of voluntary Thank you for your comment.
and Uncommitted committed and uncommitted cost
Cost Sharing, sharing is very clear. The
Chapter revisions to this section of the
II.C.2.g.(xii). PAPPG have definitely improved the
clarity.
23. Cal Tech............ High Performance The information in this section is Thank you for your comment.
Computing, Chapter helpful for investigators who
II.D.7. require high-performance computing
resources, etc. It is good that
the PAPPG has identified specific
facilities that can provide
advanced computational and data
resources.
24. Cal Tech............ Indirect Costs, NSF The statement that continuing Thank you for your comment.
Policy, Chapter increments and supplements will be
X.D.1. funded using the negotiated
indirect cost rate in effect at
the time of the initial award is
improved over the previous edition
of the PAPPG. That clarity is very
helpful and should reduce any
confusion or misunderstanding
about the intentions of NSF in
these situations.
25. University of Definitions of Our office has reviewed the Comment incorporated.
Louisiana at Categories of proposed changes to the PAPPG and
Lafayette. Personnel, Exhibit all seem to add clarity and better
II-7. organization to the document. We
do have a comment regarding
Section II-61: Definition of
senior personnel Faculty Associate
(Faculty member) (or equivalent):
Defined as an individual other
than the Principal Investigator
considered by the performing
institution to be a member of its
Faculty (or equivalent) or who
holds an appointment as a Faculty
member at another institution and
who will participate in the
project being supported. We
recommend adding `or equivalent'
to the definition (see red text
above) for clarity, since certain
Center staff across our campus are
not Faculty members but are
eligible to submit proposals.
[[Page 52472]]
26. University of NSF-NIH/OLAW MOU.... Relevant to the complications posed Updated link has been incorporated.
Arkansas at Little by the NSF-NIH/OLAW MOU regarding
Rock. animal oversight, the latest
revision of the Guidelines of the
American Society of Mammologists
for the use of wild mammals in
research and education has just
been published and is available at
http://www.mammalsociety.org/uploads/committee_files/CurrentGuidelines.pdf. This
document does a good job of
explaining the enormous gulf that
exists between effective and
appropriate oversight of
activities involving wild
vertebrates and those using
typical laboratory animals.
Additionally, the ASM and Oxford
University Press have collaborated
on and are advertising a
collection of papers that address
these same concerns. That
collection is available at http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/page/Guidelines Guidelines.
27. Kansas State Project Summary, The GPG really needs to be updated This was a known defect in FastLane
University. Chapter II.C.2.b. with the same information that is that has now been addressed. The
contained in FastLane on the Project Summary is limited to 1
Project Summary instructions. page as stated in the PAPPG.
Specifically, the GPG doesn't tell
the faculty the 4600 character
limit.
28. Cornell University.. Cancelling Thanks for making the draft FY17 Your understanding is accurate.
Appropriations, PAPPG available. I noted the FastLane or other mechanisms will
Chapter VIII.E.6. additional clarity surrounding prevent an NCE that goes beyond
cancelled funds, and appreciate the appropriation's life.
things being made clearer. My
understanding--but please correct
me if I am wrong--is that the
period of performance can never go
beyond the life of the underlying
appropriation. The question has
been raised as to how one knows
what year's funds were used for an
award, and whether FASTLANE or
other mechanisms will prevent a
grantee-approved NCE that goes
beyond the appropriation's life.
29. Boise State Collaborators & NSF currently requires Additional scrutiny will be given
University. Other Affiliations ``Collaborators & Other in the review of NSF Program
Information, Affiliations'' as a single-copy Solicitations to ensure that: (1)
Chapter II.C.1.e. document. It is not unusual for Any requirements that are
specific RFPs to require a second supplemental to the COI
collaborators document in various requirements specified in the
formats. This is a time-consuming PAPPG receive an additional level
process for what is essentially of review; and (2) that the COI
duplicate information. My comment/ information is provided only once
request is that NSF have a single in a given proposal.
``Collaborators & Other
Affiliations'' document that is in
the same format for all RFPs.
[[Page 52473]]
30. NSF Office of the Introduction, ``When NSF Grant General Conditions In large part, the PAPPG provides
Inspector General. Section B. or an award notice reference a guidance and explanatory material
particular section of the PAPPG, to proposers and awardees.
then that section becomes part of Therefore, it would be
the award requirements through inappropriate to impose on NSF
incorporation by reference.'' This awardee organizations the
sentence is confusing in light of requirement to comply with all
the preceding sentences, which such guidance and explanatory
state, ``Part II of the NSF material as terms and conditions
Proposal & Award Policies & of an NSF award. NSF strongly
Procedures Guide sets forth NSF believes that the articles
policies regarding the award, specified in the General
administration, and monitoring of Conditions clearly articulate the
grants and cooperative agreements. parts of the PAPPG that are indeed
Coverage includes the NSF award requirements imposed on a
process, from issuance and recipient, and, for which they
administration of an NSF award will be held responsible.
through closeout. Guidance
regarding other grant requirements
or considerations that either is
not universally applicable or
which do not follow the award
cycle also is provided.'' NSF
General Grant Conditions require
recipients to comply with NSF
policies (NSF General Grant
Conditions, Article 1.d.2), which
are set forth in this document.
The sentence in question could
wrongly lead one to believe that
only sections of the PAPPG
specifically mentioned in award
terms and conditions need to be
followed. We strongly suggest that
this sentence be removed.
31................................ NSF Office of the Introduction, ``The PAPPG does not apply to NSF Language has been revised to
Inspector General. Section B. contracts.'' We suggest expanding address issue.
this to include language that
appeared in prior versions of the
AAG: ``The PAPPG is applicable to
NSF grants and cooperative
agreements, unless noted otherwise
in the award instrument. This
Guide does not apply to NSF
contracts.''.
32................................ NSF Office of the Special Exceptions ``If available, written approval The ability to receive verbal
Inspector General. to NSF's Deadline from the cognizant NSF Program approval only is absolutely vital
Date Policy, Officer should be uploaded with in cases of natural or
Chapter I.F.2. the proposal as a Single Copy anthropogenic events. We have
Document in FastLane. Proposers received numerous complaints from
should then follow the written or PIs who did not even have access
verbal guidance provided by the to a computer during the natural
cognizant NSF Program Officer.'' event, but wanted NSF to be aware
We suggest that approval for that their proposal would not be
exceptions to the deadline date able to be submitted on time. We
policy only be provided in writing believe that it is vital to retain
rather than also allowing for the such flexibility in cases of
option of verbal approval. natural or anthropogenic events.
33................................ NSF Office of the Contingency and General comment: We suggest that an A reference to the Large Facilities
Inspector General. Management Fees, explicit reference be made to the Manual has been incorporated into
Chapter II. appropriate NSF guides and/or the opening of the budget section.
manuals that contain information
related to the proper budgeting
and expenditure of management fees
and contingency funds.
34................................ NSF Office of the Senior Personnel ``This effort must be documented in Section 2 CFR 200.430(i) is
Inspector General. Salaries and Wages, accordance with 2 CFR Sec. 200, specifically relevant to
Chapter Subpart E.'' We suggest that the documentation of personnel
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). third sentence of the second expenses. This reference has been
paragraph be modified to add incorporated.
references to specific sections of
the Uniform Guidance, as follows
(new text in red): ``This effort
must be documented in accordance
with 2 CFR Sec. 200, Subpart E,
including Sec. Sec. 200.430 and
200.431.'' Adding a reference to
specific sections of the Uniform
Guidance will allow users to more
easily identify and understand the
regulations that govern their
awards.
[[Page 52474]]
35................................ NSF Office of the Senior Personnel ``Under normal rebudgeting In accordance with final decisions
Inspector General. Salaries and Wages, authority, as described in issued by the NSF Audit Followup
Chapter Chapters VII and X, a recipient Official on this audit matter, by
II.C.2.g.(i)(a). can internally approve an increase the nature of assistance awards,
or decrease in person months awardees have the responsibility
devoted to the project after an to determine how best to achieve
award is made, even if doing so stated goals within project
results in salary support for objective or scope. Research often
senior personnel exceeding the two requires adjustments, and NSF
month salary policy. No prior permits post-award re-budgeting of
approval from NSF is necessary as faculty compensation. NSF is
long as that change would not aligned with federal guidelines
cause the objectives or scope of and regulations in allowing re-
the project to change.'' We budgeting of such compensation
suggest that the indicated without prior Agency approval,
sentences be removed. Allowing unless it results in changes to
awardees to exceed the general two objectives or scope.
month salary limit without NSF
approval contradicts the prior
paragraph in section
II.C.2.g.(i)(a) that states, ``NSF
regards research as one of the
normal functions of faculty
members at institutions of higher
education. Compensation for time
normally spent on research within
the term of appointment is deemed
to be included within the faculty
member's regular organizational
salary.'' By allowing awardees to
unilaterally rebudget salary above
the two-month limit, NSF runs the
risk of reimbursing the very
compensation costs that it deems
``to be included within the
faculty member's regular
organizational salary.''.
36................................ NSF Office of the Administrative and ``Conditions (i) (ii) and (iv) NSF does not find this language
Inspector General. Clerical Salaries above are particularly relevant confusing as (i), (ii) and (iv)
and Wages Policy, for consideration at the budget are the only conditions that are
Chapter preparation stage.'' As revised, relevant at the proposal
II.C.2.g.(i)(b). the last sentence of this page preparation stage. That is why a
highlights 3 of the 4 conditions similar sentence is not included
as ``particularly relevant.'' The in Chapter X.b.2. of the PAPPG.
fourth condition, which is not
highlighted as ``particularly
relevant,'' is the requirement
that such costs be included in the
approved budget or have prior
written approval of the cognizant
NSF Grants Officer--a requirement
that is explicitly stated in
Chapter X, Sec. A.3.b.2 of the
proposed PAPPG. We suggest
deleting the sentence,
``Conditions (i) (ii) and (iv)
above are particularly relevant
for consideration at the budget
preparation stage.'' If desired,
an alternative sentence such as
the following could replace it:
``These conditions are
particularly relevant for
consideration at the budget
preparation stage.''
37................................ NSF Office of the Equipment, Chapter ``Any request to support such items 2 CFR 200.313 will be incorporated.
Inspector General. II.C.2.g.(iii)(d). must be clearly disclosed in the
proposal budget, justified in the
budget justification, and be
included in the NSF award
budget.'' We suggest including the
following sentence at the end of
the section on Equipment: ``See 2
CFR Sec. Sec. 200.310 and
200.313 for additional
information.'' Adding a reference
to specific sections of the
Uniform Guidance will allow users
to more easily identify and
understand the regulations that
govern their awards.
[[Page 52475]]
38................................ NSF Office of the Entertainment, ``Costs of entertainment, A reference to the relevant Uniform
Inspector General. Chapter amusement, diversion and social Guidance section will be added and
II.C.2.g.(xiii)(a). activities, and any costs directly the first stricken sentence
associated with such activities identified will be kept. However,
(such as tickets to shows or the second sentence will be
sporting events, meals, lodging, removed to ensure clarity on the
rentals, transportation and intended topic which is
gratuities) are unallowable. ``Entertainment Costs``. NSF
Travel, meal and hotel expenses of believes that the search tools/
grantee employees who are not on options available in the PAPPG are
travel status are unallowable. sufficient to provide awardees
Costs of employees on travel quick and direct access to
status are limited to those specific topics on items of costs,
specifically authorized by 2 CFR including travel and entertainment
Sec. 200.474.'' We suggest costs.
keeping the two sentences that are
proposed to be stricken at the end
of this section (in addition to
having this text also included in
Chapter II.C.2.g.(iv)), as it is
useful and applicable guidance to
grantees looking up the rules in
both sections. We also recommend
adding an explicit reference to 2
CFR Sec. 200.438 at the end of
the Entertainment paragraph so the
last three sentences read:
``Travel, meal and hotel expenses
of grantee employees who are not
on travel status are unallowable.
Costs of employees on travel
status are limited to those
specifically authorized by 2 CFR
Sec. 200.474. See 2 CFR Sec.
200.438 for additional information
about entertainment costs.''
Adding a reference to specific
section of the Uniform Guidance
will allow users to more easily
identify and understand the
regulations that govern their
awards.
39................................ NSF Office of the NSF Award ``When these conditions reference a See NSF Response to Comment 30.
Inspector General. Conditions, Chapter particular PAPPG section, that
VI.C. section becomes part of the award
requirements through incorporation
by reference.'' Please see our
suggestions outlined in comment
number 1.
40................................ NSF Office of the NSF-Approved ``The request should be submitted NSF believes that the revised
Inspector General. Extension, Chapter to NSF at least 45 days prior to language is appropriate. Requests
VI.D.3.c(ii)(a). the end date of the grant.'' We must be submitted at least 45 days
believe that this alteration fully prior to the end date of the
changes the guidance rather than grant. If submitted late, the
simply updating it for clarity. We request must include a strong
suggest returning the sentence justification as to why it was not
back to the way it was originally submitted earlier. That provides
written to state, ``The request the necessary ability for the
must be submitted to NSF at least Foundation to appropriately
45 days prior to the end date of respond to situations where a
the grant.'' This will allow compelling rationale is provided.
responsible NSF officials adequate
time to fully review the request.
41................................ NSF Office of the Changes in ``The objectives or scope of the Rather than develop a listing of
Inspector General. Objectives or project may not be changed without potential ``indicators'' of a
Scope, Chapter prior NSF approval. Such change change in scope, NSF prefers to
VII.B.1(a). requests must be signed and continue use of Article 2 to
submitted by the AOR via use of identify areas that require NSF
NSF's electronic systems.'' We prior approval.
suggest adopting similar guidance
to the National Institutes of
Health that defines change of
scope and provides potential
indicators. This guidance can be
found in section 8.1.2.5 of the
NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Alternatively, we suggest adding a
list of circumstances that could
be considered a change of scope.
For example, significant increase/
decrease in a PI's effort
allocated to the project, a
significant decrease in research
opportunities for graduate and
undergraduate students, and
significant (>25%) rebudgeting of
costs among budget categories,
which indicates a material change
in the research methodology.
[[Page 52476]]
42................................ NSF Office of the Award Financial ``NSF will notify grantees of any A reference to the section on
Inspector General. Reporting canceling appropriations on open grantee payments has been
Requirements and awards in order for grantees to incorporated into the paragraph on
Final properly expend and draw down cancelling appropriations.
Disbursements, funds before the end of the fiscal
Chapter VIII.E.6. year.'' We suggest adding a
sentence that reminds awardees
that funds must still be used on
allowable, allocable, and
reasonable costs, and that the
drawdown must be related to
expenses that have already been
incurred or will be incurred
within 3 days of the drawdown, per
NSF policy. In the past, awardees
have misconstrued NSF's guidance
and have drawn down funds for
expenditures that had not been
incurred and were not anticipated
to be incurred within 3 days.
43................................ NSF Office of the Conflict of Interest ``Guidance for development of such NSF defers to grantee organizations
Inspector General. Policies, Chapter polices has been issued by regarding the provision of
IX.A. university associations and examples in their policies that
scientific societies. In addition are most applicable to their
to the stated language, we suggest organization.
that NSF also provide examples of
key components of an effective
policy.
44................................ NSF Office of the Conflict of Interest ``significant financial interest'' NSF believes that there is value in
Inspector General. Policies, Chapter does not include ``any ownership having a consistent SBIR exclusion
IX.A. in the organization, if the between NSF and NIH. Excluding
organization is an applicant under SBIR awards from NSF's policy
the [SBIR/STTR programs]?'' What reflects the fact that limited
is intended regarding IX.A.2.b, amounts of funding are provided
that the term ``significant for SBIR Phase I awards and an
financial interest'' does not ownership interest in an SBIR
include ``any ownership in the institution at this phase is not
organization, if the organization likely to create a bias in the
is an applicant under the [SBIR/ outcome of the research. This
STTR programs]?'' In the instance exclusion takes into consideration
of a professor being proposed as the fact that potentially biasing
co-PI for a university for a financial interests will be
subcontract through an SBIR award, assessed during submission of SBIR
where that professor is also an Phase II proposals. Moreover, in
owner of an SBIR applicant, this order for an institution to
section may be interpreted to mean receive the designation as being
that professor does not have to eligible for the SBIR program,
disclose her ownership interest in this information is collected
the SBIR company. We suggest through the SBIR Company Registry
adding language to make this more by the Small Business
clear and to remove any potential Administration and identified in
loop holes. the supplemental SBIR document
provided by SBA. Further, we note
that the OMB Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards (September 10,
2015), require a Federal awarding
agency to have an awardee conflict
of interest policy and require the
awardee to report conflicts of
interest to the Federal awarding
agency. (2 CFR 200.112) NSF's
policy complies with the uniform
standards.
45................................ NSF Office of the Conflict of Interest ``an equity interest that, when NSF's thresholds reflect language
Inspector General. Policies, Chapter aggregated for the investigator agreed upon in 1995, as a result
IX.A. and the investigator's spouse and of close coordination between NSF
dependent children, meets both of and NIH. At the time, both
the following tests: (i) Does not agencies' policies went through
exceed $10,000 in value as extensive public comment periods.
determined through reference to
public prices or other reasonable
measures of fair market value; and
(ii) does not represent more than
a 5% ownership interest in any
single entity;'' How were the
thresholds of $10,000 or a 5%
ownership interest in IX.A.2.e
determined? How is 5% ownership
interest defined and how is an
individual supposed to determine
if he/she has a 5% ownership
interest? It may require knowledge
outside of their control, for
instance, knowledge of all owners
and the total assets of the
company in order to calculate
their share. We suggest erring on
the side of more disclosure as
opposed to less, and simply
requiring individuals with
ownership interests to make
disclosures so that it is more
clear.
[[Page 52477]]
46................................ NSF Office of the Allowability of General comment: We suggest that A hypertext link to 2 CFR Sec.
Inspector General. Costs, Chapter X. any references to 2 CFR Sec. 200 200 already appears in the html
include a hyperlink directly to version of the PAPPG.
the regulation to help facilitate
better understanding by the user.
47................................ NSF Office of the Pre-Award (Pre-Start We suggest language reinforcing the Comment incorporated.
Inspector General. Date) Costs, policy in Chapter VI, Sec. E.2.
Chapter X.A.2.b. that costs incurred under an ``old
grant cannot be transferred to the
new grant'' in the case of a
renewal grant. The 90-day preaward
cost allowability provision should
not apply to renewal grants, even
if the ``old'' award has been
fully expended. This would
constitute a transfer of a loss on
the ``old'' grant to the ``new''
grant, which is unallowable under
2 CFR Sec. 200.451.
48................................ NSF Office of the Salaries and Wages, ``Compensation paid or accrued by NSF believes that incorporation of
Inspector General. Chapter X.B.1.a. the organization for employees the entire Uniform Guidance into
working on the NSF-supported the PAPPG is not prudent. The
project during the grant period is PAPPG would then become incredibly
allowable, in accordance with 2 lengthy and unhelpful to users.
CFR Sec. 200.430'' We suggest Rather, a hypertext link is
including additional narrative provided to each of the applicable
here summarizing the requirements references in the Uniform
that are specified in 2 CFR Sec. Guidance.
200.430 (similar to what is
included at Chapter II.C.2.g.(i))
as opposed to relying solely on
awardees pulling up the reference
to the Uniform Guidance. This will
allow users to better understand
the guidance and regulations
applicable to their awards.
49................................ NSF Office of the Administrative and ``Such costs are explicitly This recommendation is inconsistent
Inspector General. Clerical Salaries included in the approved budget or with the approach established in 2
and Wages, Chapter have the prior written approval of CFR Sec. 200. Throughout the
X.B.2. the cognizant NSF Grants document, regular reference is
Officer;'' We suggest that for made to ``are explicitly included
direct charging of administrative/ in the budget.'' Such inclusion in
clerical salaries and wages to be the budget serves to explicitly
allowable, they must be explicitly document agency approval of
approved in the award notice. This specific cost categories at the
is consistent with section time of the award.
X.A.3.b.2, which states that
salaries of administrative and
clerical staff must receive
written prior approval from the
Grants and Agreements Officer.
50................................ NSF Office of the Intra-University ``If anticipated, any compensation Comment incorporated.
Inspector General. (IHE) Consulting, for such consulting services
Chapter X.B.3. should be disclosed in the
proposal budget, justified in the
budget justification, and included
in the NSF award budget.'' We
suggest including the following
sentence at the end of this
section: ``See 2 CFR Sec.
200.430(h)(3) for additional
information.'' Adding a reference
to specific section of the Uniform
Guidance will allow users to more
easily identify and understand the
regulations that govern their
awards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 52478]]
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 52,000 proposals in FY
2017, an estimated 6,240,000 burden hours will be placed on the public.
The Foundation has based its reporting burden on the review of
approximately 52,000 new proposals expected during FY 2017. 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 780,000 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 7,020,000.
The actual burden on respondents has not changed.
Dated: August 3, 2016.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2016-18758 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P