Agency information collection activities: Submission for OMB review; comment request,

[Federal Register: January 5, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 2)]

[Notices]

[Page 531-532]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr05ja99-103]

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. 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:

[[Page 532]]

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 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov. 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 703-306-1125 X 2017.

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.

Title: National Science Foundation Proposal Evaluation Process.

OMB Control Number: 3145-0060.

Summary of Collection: The missions of NSF are to: increase the Nation's base of scientific and engineering knowledge and strengthen its ability to support research in all areas of science and engineering; promote innovative science and engineering education programs that can better prepare the Nation to meet the challenges of the future; and promote international cooperation in science and engineering. The Foundation is also committed to ensuring the Nation's supply of scientists, engineers, and science educators. In its role as leading Federal supporter of science and engineering, NSF also has an important role in national policy planning.

The Foundation fulfills this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the scientific and engineering disciplines. This support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to over 2000 universities, colleges, academic consortia, non-profit institutions, and small business.

The Foundation relies heavily on the advice and assistance of external advisory committees, ad-hoc proposal reviewers, and other experts to ensure that the Foundation is able to reach fair and knowledgeable judgments. These scientists and educators come from colleges and universities, non-profit research and education organizations, industry, and other Government agencies.

In making its decisions on proposals, the counsel of these merit reviewers has proven invaluable to the Foundation both in the identification of meritorious projects and in providing sound basis for project restructuring.

Merit review is successful because of the thousands of experts from all fields of research who volunteer their time to evaluate and determine which proposals deserve consideration for funding. NSF program officers rely on the advice of expert reviewers to help make often-difficult decisions on how to best allocate limited resources and to target those proposals that promise to produce the most significant contributions. Review of proposals may involve large panel sessions, small groups, or use of a mail-review system. Proposals are reviewed carefully by scientists and engineers who are expert in the particular field represented by the proposal.

Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is used to support grant programs of the Foundation. The information collected on the proposal evaluation forms is used by the Foundation to determine the following criteria when awarding or declining proposals submitted to the agency: (1) Research performance competence; (2) Intrinsic merit of the research; (3) Utility or relevance of the search; and (4) Effect of the research on the infrastructure of science and engineering.

The information collected on reviewer background questionnaires 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, ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to congressional and other queries into equity issues. These data are aslo used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the participation on various groups in science, engineering, and education.

Confidentiality. Verbatim but anonymous copies of reviews are sent to the principal investigators/project directors. Subject to this NSF policy and applicable laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, reviewers' comments will be given maximum protection from disclosure. While listings of panelists' names are released, the names of individual reviewers, associated with individual proposals, are not released to anyone.

Because the Foundation is committed to monitoring and identifying any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethinicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s), the Foundation also collects race, ethnicity, disabilty, and gender. This information also is protected by the Privacy Act.

Description of Respondents: Nonprofit institutions; state, local or tribal governments; and business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 30,000.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: The Foundation estimates that anywhere from one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is estimated that approximately five hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of three reviews, resulting in approximately 450,000 burden hours each year.

Dated: December 29, 1998. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 99-24Filed1-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M