81 FR 52467 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 152 (August 8, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 152 (August 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 52467-52478 | |
| FR Document | 2016-18758 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 52467-52478] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices 52467
Estimated Burden Hours per following information collection to splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who
Response: 0.5. requirement to OMB for review and use a telecommunications device for the
Estimated Total Annual Burden clearance under the Paperwork deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Hours: 1,890 burden hours. Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
Request for Comments: Comments This is the second notice for public 800–877–8339, which is accessible 24
submitted in response to this notice will comment; the first was published in the hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a
be summarized and included in the Federal Register at 81 FR 30348, and 50 year (including federal holidays).
request for Office of Management and comments were received. NSF is
Budget approval. All comments will Comments regarding these
forwarding the proposed renewal
become a matter of public record. The information collections are best assured
submission to the Office of Management
public is invited to submit comments of having their full effect if received
and Budget (OMB) for clearance
concerning: (a) Whether the collection within 30 days of this notification.
simultaneously with the publication of
of information is necessary for the Copies of the submission(s) may be
this second notice. The full submission
proper performance of the function of obtained by calling 703–292–7556.
may be found at: http://
the agency, including whether the www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
information will have practical utility; The National Science Foundation collection of information unless the
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate collection of information displays a
(NSF) is announcing plans to request
of the burden of the collection of currently valid OMB control number
renewed clearance of this collection.
information, including the validity of and the agency informs potential
The primary purpose of this revision is
the methodology and assumptions used; persons who are to respond to the
to implement changes described in the
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, collection of information that such
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
and clarity of the information to be persons are not required to respond to
this notice. Comments regarding (a)
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the the collection of information unless it
whether the collection of information is
burden of the collection of the displays a currently valid OMB control
necessary for the proper performance of
information on the respondents, number.
the functions of the agency, including
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of whether the information will have SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
information technology. practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including Summary of Comments on the National
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the validity of the methodology and Science Foundation Proposal and
the National Credit Union Administration, on
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance Award Policies and Procedures Guide
August 3, 2016.
Dated: August 3, 2016. the quality, utility and clarity of the and NSF’s Responses
information to be collected; (d) ways to
Troy S. Hillier, minimize the burden of the collection of The draft NSF PAPPG was made
NCUA PRA Clearance Officer. information on those who are to available for review by the public on the
[FR Doc. 2016–18750 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am] respond, including through the use of NSF Web site at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/
BILLING CODE 7535–01–P appropriate automated, electronic, dias/policy/. In response to the Federal
mechanical, or other technological Register notice published May 16, 2016,
collection techniques or other forms of at 81 FR 30348, NSF received 50
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION information technology should be comments from eight different
addressed to: Office of Information and institutions/individuals; 36 comments
Agency Information Collection Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: were in response to the Proposal and
Activities: Comment Request Desk Officer for National Science Award Policies and Procedures Guide,
AGENCY:National Science Foundation Foundation, 725–17th Street NW., Room Part I, and 14 were in response to the
Submission for OMB review;
ACTION:
10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Proposal and Award Policies and
comment request. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Procedures Guide, Part II. Following is
Officer, National Science Foundation, the table showing the summaries of the
SUMMARY: The National Science 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, comments received on the PAPPG
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email sections, with NSF’s response.
Comment Topic & PAPPG Sec-
No. Comment NSF Response
source tion
1. Penn State Introduction, Section Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engi- Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engi-
University. A. neers with Disabilities provide funding for neers with Disabilities provide funding for
special assistance or equipment to enable special assistance or equipment to enable
persons with disabilities to work on NSF- persons with disabilities to work on NSF-
supported projects. See Chapter II.E.7 for supported projects. See Chapter II.E.7 for
instructions regarding preparation of these instructions regarding preparation of these
types of proposals. We believe the above types of proposals. We believe the above
should reference Chapter II. E. 6. should reference Chapter II. E. 6.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Aug 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_52619/page/1.svg)
![52476 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
Comment Topic & PAPPG Sec-
No. Comment NSF Response
source tion
42. NSF Office of Award Financial Re- ‘‘NSF will notify grantees of any canceling ap- A reference to the section on grantee pay-
the Inspector porting Require- propriations on open awards in order for ments has been incorporated into the para-
General. ments and Final grantees to properly expend and draw down graph on cancelling appropriations.
Disbursements, funds before the end of the fiscal year.’’ We
Chapter VIII.E.6. 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 draw-
down, 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 an-
ticipated to be incurred within 3 days.
43. NSF Office of Conflict of Interest ‘‘Guidance for development of such polices NSF defers to grantee organizations regarding
the Inspector Policies, Chapter has been issued by university associations the provision of examples in their policies
General. IX.A. and scientific societies. In addition to the that are most applicable to their organiza-
stated language, we suggest that NSF also tion.
provide examples of key components of an
effective policy.
44. NSF Office of Conflict of Interest ‘‘significant financial interest’’ does not include NSF believes that there is value in having a
the Inspector Policies, Chapter ‘‘any ownership in the organization, if the or- consistent SBIR exclusion between NSF
General. IX.A. ganization is an applicant under the [SBIR/ and NIH. Excluding SBIR awards from
STTR programs]?’’ What is intended regard- NSF’s policy reflects the fact that limited
ing IX.A.2.b, that the term ‘‘significant finan- amounts of funding are provided for SBIR
cial interest’’ does not include ‘‘any owner- Phase I awards and an ownership interest in
ship in the organization, if the organization an SBIR institution at this phase is not likely
is an applicant under the [SBIR/STTR pro- to create a bias in the outcome of the re-
grams]?’’ In the instance of a professor search. This exclusion takes into consider-
being proposed as co-PI for a university for ation the fact that potentially biasing finan-
a subcontract through an SBIR award, cial interests will be assessed during sub-
where that professor is also an owner of an mission of SBIR Phase II proposals. More-
SBIR applicant, this section may be inter- over, in order for an institution to receive the
preted to mean that professor does not have designation as being eligible for the SBIR
to disclose her ownership interest in the program, this information is collected
SBIR company. We suggest adding lan- through the SBIR Company Registry by the
guage to make this more clear and to re- Small Business Administration and identified
move any potential loop holes. in the supplemental SBIR document pro-
vided by SBA. Further, we note that the
OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (September 10, 2015), re-
quire a Federal awarding agency to have an
awardee conflict of interest policy and re-
quire the awardee to report conflicts of inter-
est to the Federal awarding agency. (2 CFR
200.112) NSF’s policy complies with the uni-
form standards.
45. NSF Office of Conflict of Interest ‘‘an equity interest that, when aggregated for NSF’s thresholds reflect language agreed
the Inspector Policies, Chapter the investigator and the investigator’s upon in 1995, as a result of close coordina-
General. IX.A. spouse and dependent children, meets both tion between NSF and NIH. At the time,
of the following tests: (i) Does not exceed both agencies’ policies went through exten-
$10,000 in value as determined through ref- sive public comment periods.
erence to public prices or other reasonable
measures of fair market value; and (ii) does
not represent more than a 5% ownership in-
terest in any single entity;’’ How were the
thresholds of $10,000 or a 5% ownership in-
terest in IX.A.2.e determined? How is 5%
ownership interest defined and how is an in-
dividual supposed to determine if he/she
has a 5% ownership interest? It may require
knowledge outside of their control, for in-
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
stance, knowledge of all owners and the
total assets of the company in order to cal-
culate their share. We suggest erring on the
side of more disclosure as opposed to less,
and simply requiring individuals with owner-
ship interests to make disclosures so that it
is more clear.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Aug 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_52619/page/10.svg)
![52478 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices
awarded to approximately 2,000 Dated: August 3, 2016. disabilities where appropriate. If you
colleges, universities, academic Suzanne H. Plimpton, need a reasonable accommodation to
consortia, nonprofit institutions, and Reports Clearance Officer, National Science participate in these public meetings, or
small businesses. The awards are based Foundation. need this meeting notice or the
mainly on merit evaluations of [FR Doc. 2016–18758 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am] transcript or other information from the
proposals submitted to the Foundation. BILLING CODE 7555–01–P public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify
The Foundation has a continuing Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
commitment to monitor the operations Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by
of its information collection to identify NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION videophone at 240–428–3217, or by
and address excessive reporting burdens email at Kimberly.Meyer-
as well as to identify any real or [NRC–2016–0001] Chambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on
apparent inequities based on gender, requests for reasonable accommodation
race, ethnicity, or disability of the Sunshine Act Meeting will be made on a case-by-case basis.
proposed principal investigator(s)/ * * * * *
project director(s) or the co-principal DATE: August 8, 15, 22, 29, September 5,
12, 2016. Members of the public may request to
investigator(s)/co-project director(s). receive this information electronically.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference If you would like to be added to the
Burden on the Public Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, distribution, please contact the Nuclear
Maryland. Regulatory Commission, Office of the
It has been estimated that the public
STATUS: Public and Closed. Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–
expends an average of approximately
120 burden hours for each proposal Week of August 8, 2016 415–1969), or email
submitted. Since the Foundation Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or
There are no meetings scheduled for Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
expects to receive approximately 52,000 the week of August 8, 2016.
proposals in FY 2017, an estimated Dated: August 3, 2016.
6,240,000 burden hours will be placed Week of August 15, 2016—Tentative Denise L. McGovern,
on the public. There are no meetings scheduled for Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
The Foundation has based its the week of August 15, 2016. [FR Doc. 2016–18831 Filed 8–4–16; 4:15 pm]
reporting burden on the review of BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Week of August 22, 2016—Tentative
approximately 52,000 new proposals
expected during FY 2017. It has been There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 22, 2016. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
estimated that anywhere from one hour COMMISSION
to 20 hours may be required to review Week of August 29, 2016—Tentative
a proposal. We have estimated that [Docket No. 70–0938; NRC–2016–0152]
There are no meetings scheduled for
approximately 5 hours are required to the week of August 29, 2016. Massachusetts Institute of
review an average proposal. Each
Week of September 5, 2016—Tentative Technology; Renewal of Special
proposal receives an average of 3
Nuclear Materials License
reviews, resulting in approximately There are no meetings scheduled for
780,000 burden hours each year. the week of September 5, 2016. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
The information collected on the Commission.
Week of September 12, 2016—Tentative ACTION: License renewal application;
reviewer background questionnaire
(NSF 428A) is used by managers to Monday, September 12, 2016 receipt; notice of opportunity to request
maintain an automated database of a hearing and to petition for leave to
1:30 p.m. NRC All Employees Meeting
intervene; order imposing procedures.
reviewers for the many disciplines (Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda
represented by the proposals submitted North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road, SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
to the Foundation. Information collected Rockville, MD 20852. Commission (NRC) is considering an
on gender, race, and ethnicity is used in Friday, September 16, 2016 application for the renewal of Special
meeting NSF needs for data to permit Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No.
response to Congressional and other 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Fee Process SNM–986, which currently authorizes
queries into equity issues. These data (Public Meeting), Contact: Michele the Massachusetts Institute of
also are used in the design, Kaplan: 301–415–5256. Technology (MIT) to possess and use
implementation, and monitoring of NSF * * * * * SNM for education, research, and
efforts to increase the participation of The schedule for Commission training programs. The renewed license
various groups in science, engineering, meetings is subject to change on short would authorize MIT to continue to
and education. The estimated burden notice. For more information or to verify possess and use SNM for an additional
for the Reviewer Background the status of meetings, contact Denise 10 years from the date of issuance. The
Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email NRC proposes to determine that the
at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. renewal involves no significant hazards
5 minutes per respondent with up to
* * * * * consideration. Because this application
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
10,000 potential new reviewers for a
The NRC Commission Meeting contains sensitive unclassified non-
total of 833 hours.
Schedule can be found on the Internet safeguards information (SUNSI) an
The aggregate number of burden at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ order imposes procedures to obtain
hours is estimated to be 7,020,000. The public-meetings/schedule.html. access to SUNSI for contention
actual burden on respondents has not * * * * * preparation.
changed. The NRC provides reasonable DATES: A request for a hearing or
accommodation to individuals with petition for leave to intervene must be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Aug 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_52619/page/12.svg)
Document Created: 2016-08-06 03:08:29
Document Modified: 2016-08-06 03:08:29
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Submission for OMB review; comment request. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 52467 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR