SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The NSF management officials having 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 Polar Programs, #1209

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: $44,856.

a. Federal personnel on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis: 0.66 FTE.

b. Other Federal internal costs: $0.

c. Proposed payments to members: $42,965.

d. Proposed number of members: 90.

e. Reimbursable costs: $1,891.

2. If applicable, the total dollar value of grants expected to be recommended during the fiscal year: $25,000,000.

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

Panel membership includes individuals with expertise in all areas of the sciences involved, selected for broad geographical distribution, and to provide an appropriate mix of types of colleges and universities. The Antarctic Artists and Writers panel is comprised of professional artists, writers, scientists, and educators—some, current or former NSF award recipients with first-hand Antarctic and Arctic ( printed page 32120) experience. The breadth of expertise required for fair peer evaluation of the variety of proposals received transcends the ability of NSF staff, so outside advice from scientists from all polar disciplines is essential. Panel review is the only viable means to obtain adequate review of proposals in these varied programs.

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

1196 Proposal Revew Panel for Electrical, Communications, and Cyber Systems

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

34558 Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Activities

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.

Polar Programs proposal review panels cannot be replaced by existing panels or advisory committees due to the highly specialized and interdisciplinary nature of polar science, the small and interconnected research community with elevated conflict-of-interest risk, and the tight coupling of scientific merit with constrained logistics resources. In Arctic contexts, the inclusion of social science perspectives introduces additional considerations related to community engagement and coordination alongside field-based science campaigns. Collectively, these factors preclude reliance on standing advisory bodies and require competition-specific panels to ensure independent, expert evaluation and compliance with NSF's statutory merit review requirements.

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

Past Polar Science panels have delivered significant value by strengthening the quality, consistency, and credibility of NSF funding recommendations through rigorous, independent merit review; advancing interdisciplinary Earth system science across atmosphere, ocean, ice, and ecosystems; informing the prioritization and execution of high-cost, logistically complex field campaigns in the Arctic and Antarctic; and reinforcing workforce development across the research community. These accomplishments have been particularly important given the strategic importance of the polar regions, enabling U.S. leadership in polar science, advancing data-intensive and emerging research areas, and ensuring that NSF investments continue to produce impactful and nationally relevant scientific outcomes in alignment with administration priorities.

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

Panel deliberations and subsequent advice is essential to upholding gold-standard merit review which inform NSF staff 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 through another advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.

91 FR 32119