1816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

structure to ensure effective 

coordination? Is the proposed budget 

realistic, does it provide sufficient cost 

detail/narrative, and does it represent 

good value relative to the anticipated 

results? 

Note: NIC will NOT award a cooperative 

agreement to an applicant who does not have 

a Dun and Bradstreet Database Universal 

Number (DUNS) and is not registered in the 

Central Contractor Registry (CCR). 

A DUNS number can be received at 

no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free 

DUNS number request line at 1–800– 

333–0505 (if you are a sole proprietor, 

you would dial 1–866–705–5711 and 

select option 1). 

Registration in the CRR can be done 

online at the CCR Web site: http:// 

www.ccr.gov. A CCR Handbook and 

worksheet can also be reviewed at the 

Web site. 

Number of Awards: One. 

NIC Opportunity Number: 10A30. 

This number should appear as a 

reference line in the cover letter, where 

indicated on Standard Form 424, and 

outside of the envelope in which the 

application is sent. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number: 16.601. Executive Order 12372: This 

project is not subject to the provisions of 

Executive Order 12372) 

Morris L. Thigpen, 

Director, National Institute of Corrections. 

[FR Doc. 2010–505 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–36–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request and Final Notice of a 

Uniform Research Performance Progress 

Report (RPPR) format. 

SUMMARY: Effective with publication of 

this Notice in the Federal Register, 

agencies will be able to utilize a new 

uniform format for reporting 

performance progress on Federallyfunded research projects. The Research 

Performance Progress Report (RPPR) 

will directly benefit award recipients by 

making it easier for them to administer 

Federal grant and cooperative agreement 

programs through standardization of the 

types of information required in interim 

performance reports—thereby reducing 

their administrative effort and costs. 

The RPPR will also make it easier to 

compare the outputs, outcomes, etc. of 

research programs across the 

government. 

The RPPR resulted from an initiative 

of the Research Business Models (RBM) 

Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Science (CoS), a committee of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council (NSTC). One of the RBM 

Subcommittee’s priority areas is to 

create greater consistency in the 

administration of Federal research 

awards. Given the increasing 

complexity of interdisciplinary and 

interagency research, it is important for 

Federal agencies to manage awards in a 

similar fashion. Upon implementation, 

the RPPR will be used by agencies that 

support research and research-related 

activities for use in submission of 

interim progress reports. It is intended 

to replace other interim performance 

reporting formats currently in use by 

agencies. The RPPR does not change the 

performance reporting requirements 

specified in 2 CFR part 215 (OMB 

Circular A–110) and the Common Rule 

implementing OMB Circular A–102. 

Each category in the RPPR is a 

separate reporting component. Agencies 

will direct recipients to report on the 

one mandatory component 

(‘‘Accomplishments’’), and also may 

direct them to report on optional 

components, as appropriate. Within a 

particular component, agencies may 

direct recipients to complete only 

specific questions, as not all questions 

within a given component may be 

relevant to all agencies. Agencies may 

develop an agency- or program-specific 

component, if necessary, to meet 

programmatic requirements, although 

agencies should minimize the degree to 

which they supplement the standard 

components. Such agency- or programspecific requirements will require 

review and clearance by OMB. 

Agencies also may use other OMBapproved reporting formats, such as the 

Performance Progress Report (PPR), if 

those formats are better suited to the 

agency’s reporting requirements, for 

example, for research centers/institutes, 

clinical trials, or fellowship/training 

awards or in connection to reporting on 

program performance, through 

mechanisms such as the Performance 

Assessment Rating Tool. 

On behalf of the RBM Subcommittee, 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

has agreed to serve as sponsor of this 

new format. We anticipate this being the 

final notice before the format and 

instructions are finalized. The general 

public and Federal agencies, however, 

are invited to comment on the proposed 

final format during the 30 day public 

comment period. The Government-wide 

RPPR is posted on the NSF Web site at: 

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/ 

rppr/index.jsp. 

Comments: In compliance with the 

requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

the National Science Foundation is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed collection for public 

comment. Interested persons are invited 

to send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, Division of 

Administrative Services, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, 

Arlington, VA 22230, e-mail 

splimpton@nsf.gov; telephone: (703) 

292–7556; fax: (703) 292–9188. 

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. 

We encourage respondents to submit 

comments electronically to ensure 

timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that 

comments mailed will be received 

before the comment closing date. Please 

include ‘‘Research Performance Progress 

Reporting’’ in the subject line of the email message; please also include the 

full body of your comments in the text 

of the message, and as an attachment. 

Include your name, title, organization, 

postal address, telephone number, and 

e-mail address in your message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the RPPR, contact Jean 

Feldman; Head, Policy Office, Division 

of Institution & Support; National 

Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Blvd; 

Arlington, VA 22230; e-mail: 

jfeldman@nsf.gov; telephone: (703) 292– 

8243; fax: (703) 292–9171. 

For further information on the NSTC 

RBM Subcommittee, contact Diane 

DiEuliis, at the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, 725 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20503; e-mail: 

ddieuliis@ostp.eop.gov; telephone: 202– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1817 

456–6059; fax: 202–456–6027. See also 

the RBM Subcommittee’s Web site: 

http://rbm.nih.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Purpose of Today’s 

Federal Register Notice 

This project is an initiative of the 

Research Business Models (RBM) 

Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Science (COS), a committee of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council (NSTC). The RBM 

Subcommittee’s objectives include: 

• Facilitating a coordinated effort 

across Federal agencies to address 

policy implications arising from the 

changing nature of scientific research; 

and 

• Examining the effects of these 

changes on business models for the 

conduct of scientific research sponsored 

by the Federal government. 

The Subcommittee used public 

comments, agency perspectives, and 

input from a series of regional public 

meetings to identify priority areas on 

which it would focus its initial efforts. 

In each priority area, the Subcommittee 

is pursuing initiatives to promote, as 

appropriate, common policy, 

streamlining of current procedures, or 

the identification of agencies’ and 

institutions’ ‘‘best practices.’’ As further 

information about initiatives becomes 

available, it will be posted at the 

Subcommittee’s Web site at: http:// 

rbm.nih.gov. 

One of the RBM Subcommittee’s 

priority areas is greater uniformity in 

the form and content of performance 

reports that are required by Federal 

grants and cooperative agreements 

awarded under research programs. 

Many Federal agencies have their own 

forms or formats that recipients must 

use to report progress on activities 

supported by research awards. While 

agencies use different formats and 

different language to request 

information on progress, they generally 

collect similar information. These 

variations increase the administrative 

effort and costs for recipients of Federal 

awards, and make it difficult to compare 

the outputs, outcomes, etc., of research 

programs across the government. The 

RPPR format will increase uniformity of 

content across Federal research 

agencies. 

The RBM Subcommittee reviewed 

forms and formats currently in use by 

Federal agencies for reporting 

performance on research grants. The 

reporting categories used by the NSF 

were selected as a starting point for 

designing a standard format, as 

hundreds of NSF research programs 

have used these categories successfully. 

The RPPR does not change the 

performance reporting requirements 

specified in 2 CFR part 215 (OMB 

Circular A–110) and the Common Rule 

implementing OMB Circular A–102; it 

merely provides additional clarification, 

instructions, and a standard format for 

collecting the information. 

The RPPR is intended for use in 

submission of interim progress reports, 

not for use in submission of final 

reports, and it is intended to replace 

other formats currently in use by 

agencies supporting research and 

research-related activities. The RBM 

Subcommittee plans to undertake 

development of a final Research 

Performance Progress Report format 

upon completion of the interim RPPR 

exercise. The RPPR addresses progress 

for the most recently completed period, 

at the frequency required or designated 

by the sponsoring agency. Information, 

once reported, may not have to be 

provided again on subsequent reports, if 

an agency has implemented an 

electronic solution for submission of 

progress reports. However, upon 

implementation, agencies may use this 

format in either paper copy or in 

electronic form. 

The National Science Foundation 

(NSF), on behalf of the National Science 

and Technology Council’s Research 

Business Models Subcommittee, 

proposed the draft RPPR for comment in 

the Federal Register [Volume 72, pages 

63629–63631, November 9, 2007]. 347 

public comments were received from a 

wide variety of respondents, including 

six institutions of higher education; 

three associations of academic and 

nonprofit institutions; components of 

six Federal agencies; and one 

individual. All comments were carefully 

considered in developing a final version 

of the RPPR. The majority of public 

comments strongly supported the 

overall proposal to create a governmentwide standard RPPR, citing the 

advantages of increased consistency in 

Federal agencies’ reporting 

requirements. A number of specific 

issues were raised, and those comments 

and responses are summarized in 

Section II. 

Each category in the RPPR is a 

separate reporting component. Agencies 

will direct recipients to report on the 

one mandatory component 

(‘‘Accomplishments’’), and may also 

direct them to report optional 

components, as appropriate. Recipients 

will not be required or expected to 

report on each of the questions or items 

listed under a particular category. They 

will be advised to state ‘‘Nothing to 

Report’’ if they have nothing significant 

to report during the reporting period. 

Within a particular component, agencies 

also may direct recipients to complete 

only specific questions, as not all 

questions within a given component 

may be relevant to all agencies. 

Agencies will utilize the standard 

instructions that have been developed 

for each category, but may provide 

additional program-specific instructions 

necessary to clarify a requirement for a 

particular program. For example, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is required to collect information on 

environmental impacts; so EPA can 

direct recipients to report on the 

research’s benefit to the environment or 

human health under the following 

reporting question: ‘‘How has the project 

contributed to society beyond science 

and technology?’’ 

Agencies may develop additional 

agency- or program-specific reporting 

components and instructions (e.g., the 

National Institutes of Health may need 

to collect information on clinical trials 

in certain types of awards); however, to 

maintain maximum uniformity, 

agencies will be instructed to minimize 

the degree to which they supplement 

the standard categories. Such agency- or 

program-specific requirements will 

require review and clearance by OMB. 

Agencies also may use other OMBapproved reporting formats, such as the 

Performance Progress Report (PPR), if 

those formats are better suited to the 

agency’s reporting requirements, for 

example, for research centers/institutes, 

clinical trials, or fellowship/training 

awards or in connection to reporting on 

program performance, through 

mechanisms such as the Performance 

Assessment Rating Tool. 

II. Comments, Responses, and Changes 

to the Research Performance Progress 

Report Format 

The following are the comments, and 

associated responses, resulting from the 

November 9, 2007 Federal Register 

Notice. 

Comment: Four Federal and six 

university commenters questioned the 

process for development and 

implementation of the RPPR. 

Response: When the RBM Working 

Group was initially formed in 2004, it 

examined existing research progress 

reports with the intent of standardizing 

the reporting requirements across 

agencies. Once a draft was developed, 

the RPPR Working Group requested 

comments and modified the format 

based on the comments. Once final, NSF 

(on behalf of the National Science and 

Technology Council’s Research 

Business Models subcommittee) will 

send the RPPR to OMB for clearance as 

part of the Paperwork Reduction Act 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

(PRA) process. The RPPR Working 

Group will develop guidance and 

training as part of the implementation. 

Comment: Nine Federal commenters 

requested additional data elements 

associated with project budgets. 

Response: Agree. A new, optional 

‘‘Budget’’ section of the format was 

created. 

Comment: Six Federal commenters 

requested additional data elements to 

comply with agency special reporting 

requirements on things such as clinical 

trials. 

Response: Agree. An optional ‘‘Special 

reporting requirements’’ section of the 

format was added. 

Comment: One Federal commenter 

requested the addition of a data element 

capturing changes in project/ 

performance site. 

Response: Agree. A ‘‘Change of 

primary performance site location’’ data 

element was added. 

Comment: Five Federal commenters 

requested the inclusion of contact 

information and signature for the 

authorized official submitting the 

report, as well as date of submission. 

Response: Agree. Data elements to 

capture the electronic or hard copy 

signature and contact information of the 

authorized official and date of 

submission were added and are 

expected to be captured as part of the 

electronic implementation solution. 

Comment: 60 Federal commenters 

requested additional data elements to 

meet agency-specific requirements. 

Response: No change. The 

information is either already captured in 

the report, or the proposed data element 

would go beyond the scope of the 

report, potentially increasing grantee 

burden and confusing users. Agencies 

may pursue developing agency-specific 

requirements through OMB. However, 

every attempt was made to minimize the 

need for agency-specific requirements. 

Comment: Seven Federal commenters 

expressed concern that the format 

would not be adequate for an agency’s 

reporting requirements, especially in 

regards to reporting on PART. 

Response: Agencies may consider 

using the Performance Progress Report 

(PPR) in lieu of the RPPR. The PPR has 

a specific section for reporting on the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool. 

Agencies also may pursue developing 

agency-specific requirements through 

OMB. 

Comment: 29 Federal, nine university, 

and four association commenters noted 

the use of current agency data collection 

systems and the need to develop a new, 

electronic, web-based solution for 

research performance progress 

reporting. 

Response: All electronic system 

implementation comments received in 

response to the Federal Register Notice 

will be forwarded to the Grants 

Executive Board and the Grants 

Management Line of Business for 

dissemination to appropriate agency 

contacts for further consideration 

However, upon implementation, 

agencies may use this format in either 

paper copy or in electronic form. 

Comment: One Federal and five 

university commenters suggested that 

agencies be able to pre-populate the 

report with data from the grants.gov 

application. 

Response: The information collected 

on Grants.gov and in grant applications 

would not be appropriate for the RPPR 

because the information often changes 

between application and award. 

Comment: One Federal commenter 

requested the development of a standard 

taxonomy for types of projects. 

Response: Keeping an updated list 

would be extremely time consuming 

and difficult. However, if an agency or 

group develops a standardized 

taxonomy, the RPPR Working Group 

will consider incorporating this 

taxonomy in a future update to the 

format. 

Comment: Four Federal commenters 

suggested page and word limits for 

report responses. 

Response: This is a format, not a form. 

Agencies can define page and word 

limits when appropriate. 

Comment: 48 Federal and six 

university commenters requested 

clarifications regarding the type of data 

requested and the purpose of each 

section in the instructions. 

Response: Agree. The instructions 

were amended to clarify the type of data 

requested and the purpose of each 

section, where necessary. 

Comment: Ten Federal commenters 

questioned the broad applicability and 

order of the proposed format. 

Response: The RPPR is intentionally 

broad to create maximum flexibility, 

allowing agencies to use it for all 

research and research-related programs. 

The standardized instructions were 

developed to ensure consistency across 

agencies wherever possible. There is no 

prescribed order to the format because 

the order will depend on which sections 

an agency determines to be mandatory. 

Comment: Four Federal and five 

association commenters questioned the 

intent of and need for the demographic 

information in the ‘‘Participants’’ 

section. 

Response: The demographics 

information being requested is based on 

government-wide standard categories 

currently in use on a variety of forms. 

The demographics being requested only 

pertain to the people who have directly 

worked on the award. This section is 

optional and if another institution has 

regulations preventing its reporting, the 

award recipient may choose not to 

provide such data. While demographic 

data will be used by agencies for data 

analysis and reporting, it will not be 

used by agencies as part of the progress 

report evaluation. 

Comment: Six Federal and one 

association commenters requested a 

clearer indication of which paid persons 

an award recipient should report on and 

clarification of ‘person months’ in the 

‘‘Participants’’ section. 

Response: Agree. Language was added 

to the instructions. 

Comment: Three Federal and one 

university commenters proposed the use 

of ‘‘None’’ or ‘‘Nothing to report’’ vs. 

allowing an award recipient to leave a 

box blank. 

Response: Agree. ‘‘Nothing to report’’ 

is more accurate and was added. A 

blank field could represent ‘‘nothing to 

report’’ or a spot that the awardee forgot 

to fill in. 

Comment: Eight Federal, four 

university, and two association 

commenters expressed concern about 

the potential burden the report might 

create. 

Response: The burden was carefully 

considered during the development of 

the RPPR. Depending on how it is 

implemented by each agency, the RPPR 

may request more extensive data than 

are currently collected; but both 

agencies and award recipients will 

receive better information. As with any 

standardization effort, there may be a 

short term burden increase in order to 

produce a long-term gain. Finally, while 

there may be additional burden on the 

first report for the project, assuming an 

electronic solution, the next form could 

potentially be pre-populated with 

information that carries over, leading to 

a burden reduction. 

Comment: Four Federal commenters 

noted apparent redundancy of data 

elements across different sections of the 

report. 

Response: Each section captures 

different types of data. Any apparent 

redundancy is intentional to ensure 

agencies using only a select few of the 

optional sections capture the necessary 

data. 

Comment: One Federal commenter 

questioned the need for invention, 

patent, and license information, since it 

is already captured elsewhere by many 

agencies. 

Response: The purpose of this section 

is to provide the agency program officer 

with a record of all that has occurred 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1819 

within the reporting period, including 

patents. 

Comment: 26 Federal, four university, 

and two association commenters 

questioned the distinction between the 

mandatory and optional sections of the 

form. 

Response: Only the 

‘‘Accomplishments’’ component of the 

RPPR format is mandatory, while the 

other components are for optional use at 

the discretion of the agencies. The 

Federal awarding agency determines 

which categories are mandatory or 

optional for the award recipient to 

complete. This should be determined as 

early as possible, preferably at the time 

the funding opportunity is issued. As 

information required can vary between 

agencies and programs, the combination 

of mandatory and optional sections 

provides agencies the maximum 

flexibility to collect only the 

information they specifically require. 

Comment: One Federal commenter 

asked whether the RPPR would be 

required in addition to the PHS 2590. 

Response: The RPPR would replace 

the PHS 2590. Information not collected 

as part of the RPPR could be requested 

through the optional agency-specific 

categories. 

Comment: Three Federal commenters 

asked for a clear definition of research— 

which programs are considered research 

or research-related programs? 

Response: It is up to the agencies to 

determine which programs are research 

or research-related programs. 

Comment: Four Federal and one 

university commenters requested 

language stating that the RPPR should 

not be used as the vehicle for seeking 

prior approvals and/or fulfilling 

invention reporting requirements. 

Response: Agree. Appropriate 

language was added to the RPPR. 

Comment: 25 Federal, five university, 

and one association commenters offered 

suggestions regarding the development 

of a Final Report format. 

Response: These comments will be 

considered after the development and 

implementation of the RPPR has been 

completed. 

III. Paperwork Reduction Act 

In furtherance of the goals of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council’s Research Business Models 

Subcommittee, this proposed format 

aims to reduce the burden on recipients 

currently expending time and effort on 

a variety of agency-specific forms. 

Under the PRA, OMB assigns a control 

number to each ‘‘collection of 

information’’ that it reviews and 

approves for use by an agency. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid OMB Control Number. The PRA 

also requires agencies to estimate the 

burden for each collection of 

information. It should be noted that 

burden estimates associated with forms 

currently in use range from a minimum 

of 2 hours to a maximum of 16 hours, 

depending on the type of research 

project being supported. 

The following table provides the 

estimated numbers of annual progress 

reports, hours per report, and total 

annual burden hours by agency: 

Department/agency name 

Number of 

annual 

progress 

reports 

Number of 

annual burden 

hours 

Total annual 

burden hours 

DHHS (including NIH) ................................................................................................................ 37,900 14 .862 563,275 

DHS ........................................................................................................................................... 411 12 4,932 

DoC/NIST ................................................................................................................................... 100 4 400 

DoC/NOAA ................................................................................................................................. 1,105 2 2,210 

DoD ............................................................................................................................................ 11,000 6 66,000 

DoE ............................................................................................................................................ 16,000 5 80,000 

DoEd/IES ................................................................................................................................... 500 16 8,000 

EPA ............................................................................................................................................ 150 4 600 

NASA ......................................................................................................................................... 4,000 4 16,000 

NEH ........................................................................................................................................... 55 2 1,100 

NSF ............................................................................................................................................ 28,030 5 140,150 

USDA/NIFA ................................................................................................................................ 12,658 2 .7 34,177 

Totals .................................................................................................................................. 116,404 6 .6 916,844 

IV. Final Administrative Requirements 

and Future Steps 

The final version of the uniform 

Research Performance Progress Report 

format that incorporates the changes 

discussed in the preceding Sections I 

and II of Supplementary Information, 

may be viewed at: http://www.nsf.gov/ 

bfa/dias/policy/rppr/index.jsp. 

Each Federal research agency that 

supports research and research-related 

activities must post their policy or an 

implementation plan on the NSF and 

RBM Web sites within nine months after 

issuance of OSTP/OMB policy 

direction. Each implementation plan 

will address whether the agency plans 

to implement the RPPR in paper or 

electronic format, and include an 

anticipated implementation date. 

Dated: January 8, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–469 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–7016; CLI–10–04] 

GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

LLC; (GLE Commercial Facility); Notice 

of Receipt of Application for License; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

License; Notice of Hearing and 

Commission Order; and Order 

Imposing Procedures for Access to 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Safeguards 

Information for Contention Preparation 

Commissioners: Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman; 

Dale E. Klein; Kristine L. Svinicki. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES