SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The NSF management officials having ( printed page 32107) responsibility for the advisory committee listed below have determined that renewing this committee for another two years is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.

Committee

Proposal Review Panel for Electrical, Communications, and Cyber Systems, #1196

Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee. Information on the following factors for the committee is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the committee is in the public interest:

1. Annual budget: $216,389.

a. Federal personnel on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis: 2.9 FTE.

b. Other Federal internal costs: $0.

c. Proposed payments to members: $212,745.

d. Proposed number of members: 529.

e. Reimbursable costs: $3,644.

2. If applicable, the total dollar value of grants expected to be recommended during the fiscal year: $108,005,090.

3. Criteria for selecting members to ensure the committee has the necessary.

Members represent a broad balance of the research community to include geographic distribution, industry, academe, Federal government and laboratories, career level distribution, and appropriate research disciplines. Members are selected to achieve a balance of viewpoints and expertise in scientific areas encompassed by division activities.

4. List of all other Federal advisory committees of the agency:

84684 Advisory Committee for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

1172 Alan T. Waterman Award Committee

13883 Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee

1173 Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering

1186 Proposal Review Panel for Astronomical Sciences

10751 Proposal Review Panel for Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences

10747 Proposal Review Panel for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences

10743 Proposal Review Panel for Biological Infrastructure

1189 Proposal Review Panel for Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems

1191 Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry

1194 Proposal Review Panel for Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation

1207 Proposal Review Panel for Computer and Network Systems

1192 Proposal Review Panel for Computing & Communication Foundations

1185 Proposal Review Panel for Cyberinfrastructure

1569 Proposal Review Panel for Earth Sciences

34558 Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Activities

44011 Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers in Biological Sciences

173 Proposal Review Panel for Engineering Education and Centers

10744 Proposal Review Panel for Environmental Biology

1756 Proposal Review Panel for Geosciences

57 Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education

1200 Proposal Review Panel for Information and Intelligent Systems

84685 Proposal Review Panel for Innovation and Technology Ecosystems

2469 Proposal Review Panel for Integrative Activities

10745 Proposal Review Panel for Integrative Organismal Systems

10749 Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering

1203 Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research

1204 Proposal Review Panel for Mathematical Sciences

10746 Proposal Review Panel for Molecular and Cellular Biosciences

10752 Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences

1208 Proposal Review Panel for Physics

1209 Proposal Review Panel for Polar Programs

59 Proposal Review Panel for Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings

10748 Proposal Review Panel for Social and Economic Sciences

1766 Proposal Review Panel for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences

84683 Proposal Review Panel for Translational Impacts

1214 Proposal Review Panel for Undergraduate Education

5. Justification that the information or advice provided by the Federal advisory committee or subcommittee is not available from another Federal advisory committee, another Federal Government source, or any other more cost-effective and less burdensome source.

Proposals submitted from the research community demonstrate methods of incorporating the latest state-of-the-art expertise into their subject matter. The community of subject matter experts provides qualified peer review specific to the proposals.

6. If the consultation is a committee renewal, a summary of the previous accomplishments of the committee and the reasons it needs to continue.

In the fiscal year 2025, the committee reviewed 1,186 proposals in 76 meetings, with 529 members participating from external institutions and federal organizations. The use of panelists to review proposals for the Agency is an invaluable asset. The cost of obtaining the expertise, insight, and information received by the Division using alternative methods, such as hiring full or part-time employees, would be extremely high.

7. Explanation of why the committee/subcommittee is essential to the conduct of agency business.

The NSF mission is set out in the NSF Act of 1950 authorizes and directs the Agency to initiate and support basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process and science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering. The involvement of knowledgeable peers from outside the Foundation in the review of proposals is the keystone of NSF's proposal review system. Their judgments of the extent to which proposals address the merit review criteria are vital for informing NSF staff and influencing funding recommendations.

This public interest determination documents that renewing the committee is essential to the conduct of agency business and that the information to be obtained is not already available ( printed page 32108) through another advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.

91 FR 32106