42126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Responsible Conduct of Research 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

ACTION: NSF’s Implementation of 

Section 7009 of the America 

COMPETES Act. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is announcing its 

implementation of Section 7009 of the 

America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in 

Technology, Education, and Science 

(COMPETES) Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o–1). 

This section of the Act requires that 

‘‘each institution that applies for 

financial assistance from the 

Foundation for science and engineering 

research or education describe in its 

grant proposal a plan to provide 

appropriate training and oversight in the 

responsible and ethical conduct of 

research to undergraduate students, 

graduate students, and postdoctoral 

researchers participating in the 

proposed research project.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

responsible and ethical conduct of 

research (RCR) is critical for excellence, 

as well as public trust, in science and 

engineering. Consequently, education in 

RCR is considered essential in the 

preparation of future scientists and 

engineers. The COMPETES Act focuses 

public attention on the importance of 

the national research community’s 

enduring commitment and broader 

efforts to provide RCR training as an 

integral part of the preparation and 

long-term professional development of 

current and future generations of 

scientists and engineers. A wide array of 

information exists to help inform RCR 

training. For example, many 

professional societies as well as 

governmental licensing authorities for 

professional scientists and engineers 

have adopted policies or best practices 

that might be usefully considered. In 

addition, research is illuminating 

existing practices surrounding ethical 

issues, and providing an evaluation of 

pedagogical innovations in ethics 

education. A recent NSF-funded 

workshop entitled ‘‘Ethics Education: 

What’s Been Learned? What Should be 

Done?’’ was held by the National 

Academies of Science & Engineering 

(NAE). Information about the workshop, 

as well as additional resources, are 

available at: http://www.nae.edu/nae/

engethicscen.nsf/weblinks/NKAL7LHM86?OpenDocument. The 

workshop report is available at the 

NAE’s Center for Engineering, Ethics 

and Society Web site: http:// 

www.nae.edu/?ID=14646. NSF is 

committed to continue its funding of 

research in this important area through 

programs such as Ethics Education in 

Science and Engineering: http:// 

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_

summ.jsp?pims_

id=13338&org=SES&from=home and to 

promote the development and 

implementation of effective practices 

through its education and training 

programs. The Foundation also will 

continue to explore other mechanisms 

to support the academic community’s 

efforts in providing RCR training. 

Implementation Plan: Effective 

January 4, 2010, NSF will require that, 

at the time of proposal submission to 

NSF, a proposing institution’s 

Authorized Organizational 

Representative certify that the 

institution has a plan to provide 

appropriate training and oversight in the 

responsible and ethical conduct of 

research to undergraduates, graduate 

students, and postdoctoral researchers 

who will be supported by NSF to 

conduct research. While training plans 

are not required to be included in 

proposals submitted to NSF, institutions 

are advised that they are subject to 

review upon request. NSF will formally 

implement the new RCR requirement 

via an update to the NSF Proposal and 

Award Policies and Procedures Guide 

(PAPPG). It is anticipated that the 

revisions to the PAPPG will be issued 

on October 1, 2009. NSF also will 

modify its standard award conditions to 

clearly stipulate that institutions are 

responsible for verifying that 

undergraduate students, graduate 

students, and postdoctoral researchers 

supported by NSF to conduct research 

have received RCR training. In addition, 

NSF will support the development of an 

on-line RCR resource containing 

research findings, pedagogical materials, 

and promising practices regarding RCR 

in science and engineering. The 

development and evolution of the 

ongoing online RCR resource will be 

informed by the research communities 

that NSF supports, and it will serve as 

a living resource of multimedia 

materials that may be used to train 

current and future generations of 

scientists and engineers in RCR. 

Discussion of Comments: One 

hundred eighty-eight (188) comments 

were received in response to the 

February 26, 2009 Federal Register 

notice (74 FR 8818) requesting 

comments on NSF’s proposed plan. The 

comment request included a series of 

questions to help guide the comments: 

• What challenges do institutions face 

in meeting the new RCR requirement? 

• What role should Principal 

Investigators play in meeting NSF’s RCR 

requirement? 

• There are likely to be differences in 

the RCR plans that institutions develop 

to respond to this new requirement. 

What are the pros and cons of exploring 

a diversity of approaches? 

• How might online resources be 

most effective in assisting with training 

students and postdocs in the 

responsible and ethical conduct of 

research? 

• Discuss possible approaches to 

verifying that the requisite RCR training 

has been provided. 

Following the close of the comment 

period, NSF reviewed and responded to 

the comments. A summary of the 

comments and NSF’s responses are 

below: 

Comment 1: 22 comments were 

received noting general challenges that 

institutions will face in providing 

education and training that meet the 

needs of a diverse community. 

Response: NSF recognizes that many 

issues must be considered in developing 

effective content and training 

mechanisms and that universities and 

research institutions will need 

flexibility to develop and deliver 

effective training that is tailored to their 

student/postdoc needs. 

Comment 2: 19 respondents 

commented on the resource burden the 

RCR training requirement will place on 

institutions. It was specifically 

suggested that the 26 percent cap on 

Facilities and Administration costs 

currently contained in OMB Circular A– 

21, Cost Principles for Educational 

Institutions (2 CFR Part 220), be lifted. 

(See http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/ 

text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=

c8bb5a0992df470805

b85610c02e77ec&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/

Title02/2cfr220_main_02.tpl.) 

Response: The 26 percent cap is 

specified in OMB Circular A–21, and 

NSF, therefore, does not have the 

authority or independent discretion to 

change it. 

NSF, however, has supported, and 

will continue to support, research on 

RCR training to help inform the 

development of training programs 

through programs such as Ethics 

Education in Science and Engineering. 

NSF will also continue to promote the 

development and implementation of 

effective practices through its education 

and training programs such as the 

Integrative Graduate Research and 

Education Traineeship Program. NSF 

has also funded two beta sites (NSF 

Award 0936857, http://www.umass.edu/ 

sts/digitallibrary/, and NSF Award 

0936865, http://www.onlineethics.org/ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 42127 

CMS/about/UserGuide/18848.aspx) to 

begin to provide an interactive 

community online resource on ethics 

education in science and engineering. 

These beta sites will provide a 

foundation for an ongoing on-line RCR 

resource in ethics education in science 

and engineering that NSF plans to 

award through open competition. NSF 

will also continue to explore other 

potential methods to support the 

academic community’s efforts in 

providing RCR training. 

Comment 3: Three respondents 

inquired whether the institution was 

permitted to include the costs 

associated with RCR training as direct 

costs on NSF awards. 

Response: Most institutions have 

included training expenses in their 

Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rate 

pool and they therefore cannot charge 

the costs directly to proposals/awards 

per OMB Circular A–21, Section F, 

Identification and Assignment of F&A 

costs. This is not a decision that 

program officials and principal 

investigator(s) can make on a proposalby-proposal basis. Rather, the cognizant 

agency and institution must determine 

the treatment of these costs during the 

process of negotiating the institution’s 

indirect cost rate. These costs effect the 

development and oversight of the 

Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rate 

and must be in compliance with the 

OMB cost principles. Accordingly, the 

institution must involve its cognizant 

agency along with NSF in this decision 

and provide information of their current 

policies and procedures along with its 

disclosed practices per its Disclosure 

Statement. 

Comment 4: 35 respondents requested 

clarity or provided input on whether or 

not NSF should provide guidance on 

content for training in responsible and 

ethical research conduct. 

Response: NSF understands that some 

institutions would like NSF guidance 

regarding appropriate content for 

training in RCR. However, NSF does not 

intend to issue NSF-specified standards 

and recognizes that training needs may 

vary depending on specific 

circumstances of research or the needs 

of students intending to pursue careers 

in a variety of science and engineering 

settings after completing their 

education. Therefore, it is the 

responsibility of each institution to 

determine both the content and the 

delivery method for the training that 

will meet the institution’s particular 

needs for RCR training in all areas at 

that institution for which NSF provides 

support. Furthermore, each institution 

must decide if development of content 

or pedagogical method is required, or if 

appropriate content and training can be 

provided from some existing sources or 

capabilities, and take appropriate action 

to implement its decisions. 

NSF does support the development of 

resources and forums for the research 

community to discuss the most 

appropriate content in ethical research 

training and to develop shared 

guidelines. For example, NSF funded a 

workshop held at the National 

Academies of Science and Engineering 

in August 2008 entitled, ‘‘Ethics 

Education: What Have We Learned? 

What Should be Done?’’ The workshop 

report is available at the NAE’s Center 

for Engineering, Ethics and Society Web 

site: http://www.nae.edu/?ID=14646. 

NSF has also funded two beta sites (NSF 

Award 0936857, http://www.umass.edu/ 

sts/digitallibrary/, and NSF Award 

0936865, http://www.onlineethics.org/

CMS/about/UserGuide/18848.aspx) to 

begin to provide an interactive 

community location and searchable 

clearinghouse of resources on ethics 

education in science and engineering. 

These beta sites will provide a 

foundation for an ongoing on-line RCR 

resource in ethics education in science 

and engineering that NSF plans to 

award through open competition. These 

kinds of resources give institutions 

places to find materials and standard 

approaches to ethics education that 

research communities have already 

developed. 

Comment 5: Three comments noted 

the challenge with identifying and 

tracking postdocs and students to 

receive RCR training and suggested that 

for tracking purposes it would be easier 

to extend the training requirement to all 

students. 

Response: NSF is requiring RCR 

training and tracking only for those 

postdocs and students who receive 

support to conduct research on NSF 

grants. However, NSF recognizes that all 

student and postdocs would benefit 

from RCR training and that institutions 

may decide to extend the training 

beyond NSF-supported students and 

postdocs at their discretion. 

Comment 6: 24 respondents provided 

input in response to NSF’s question on 

the role of the Principal Investigators in 

meeting NSF’s RCR requirement. 

Response: The institution is 

responsible for certification that the 

RCR training plan is in place and 

verification that the students and 

postdocs have completed the RCR 

training. The role of a PI in meeting 

these institution responsibilities is 

determined by the institution. 

Comment 7: One respondent noted 

that NSF should encourage PIs to 

include RCR training in annual and 

final reports. 

Response: NSF will not require PIs to 

report on RCR training in annual and 

final reports because the requirement for 

verifying training will be part of the 

standard award conditions and 

institutions will decide how they will 

track completion of training. 

Comment 8: 15 respondents noted 

that an NSF-supported online RCR 

resource will be an invaluable resource 

for materials, research and innovative 

teaching and delivery methods. 

Response: NSF is supporting two beta 

sites that provide resources on ethics 

education in science and engineering. 

These sites will serve as a foundation 

for an open competition for an ongoing 

on-line RCR resource on ethics 

education in science and engineering. 

This resource has the potential to 

provide a centralized location for 

information that can be used to help 

institutions and PIs meet their own 

particular needs. The resource will 

contain information the community 

develops including research findings, 

pedagogical materials, and promising 

practices regarding the ethical and 

responsible conduct of research in 

science and engineering. The 

development and evolution of the 

ongoing on-line RCR resource will be 

informed by the research communities 

that NSF supports, and will serve as a 

living resource of multimedia materials 

that may be used to train current and 

future generations of scientists and 

engineers. 

Comment 9: 11 respondents noted 

that although online training modules 

may teach rules, policies and 

guidelines, they should be 

complemented by more interactive, 

mentored-discussion of ethical 

principles and evaluation of case 

studies. 

Response: It will be up to each 

institution to determine how best to 

ensure effective and appropriate 

education in responsible research 

practices. 

NSF funds innovative research and 

education projects in ethics education 

in science and engineering including 

the development of resources and 

forums for the research community to 

discuss the most appropriate content in 

ethical research training and to develop 

shared guidelines. For example, NSF 

funded a workshop held at the national 

Academies of Science and Engineering 

in August 2008 entitled, ‘‘Ethics 

Education: What Have We Learned? 

What Should be Done?’’ The workshop 

report is available at the NAE’s Center 

for Engineering, Ethics and Society’s 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
42128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

Web site: http://www.nae.edu/ 

?ID=14646. 

Institutions are encouraged to visit the 

two beta sites NSF is supporting that 

provide resources on ethics education in 

science and engineering. These sites 

will serve as a foundation for an open 

competition for an ongoing on-line RCR 

resource on ethics education in science 

and engineering. This resource has the 

potential to provide a centralized 

location for information that can be 

used to help institutions and PIs meet 

their own particular needs. The resource 

will contain whatever information 

resources the community chooses to 

develop and share including research 

findings, pedagogical materials, and best 

practices. It will be up to each 

institution and discipline to determine 

how best to ensure effective and 

appropriate education in responsible 

research practices. 

Comment 10: Six respondents noted 

current online resources that might be 

used with the online resource. 

Response: NSF will forward the 

recommended resources to the on-line 

resource beta-site for consideration. 

Comment 11: 20 respondents either 

suggested that NSF allow institutions to 

develop their own systems to track and 

verify the delivery of the required 

training or provided potential 

approaches to accomplish this. 

Response: NSF recognizes that there 

are many ways to achieve the training 

objectives of RCR, each with strengths 

and potential pitfalls. NSF intends to 

allow institutions to meet the 

verification requirement using 

appropriate systems of their choosing. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

suggested that NSF’s proposed 

implementation plan will not be 

effective because it does not include 

systems to mitigate against unethical 

behavior. 

Response: We note that the National 

Science and Technology Council has 

developed a Federal policy on research 

misconduct, which authorizes agencies 

to impose administrative actions on 

those who engage in research 

misconduct. See NSF’s implementation 

at 45 CFR Part 689. The NSF Office of 

the Inspector General investigates 

reports of research misconduct and 

refers the results of their findings to 

NSF management for appropriate action. 

Institutions involved in international 

collaborations might find materials 

provided by the Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) ‘‘Research 

Integrity: preventing misconduct and 

dealing with allegations’’ useful. See: 

http://tinyurl.com/l76p3b. 

Comment 13: Six comments suggested 

that reviewers of proposals and other 

faculty members should be required to 

take RCR training. These comments 

appear to be aimed at the issue of 

plagiarism when reviewing proposals. 

Another commenter suggested that only 

Ph.D. students should be required to 

take such training. 

Response: Section 7009 of the 

COMPETES Act mandates that 

institutions applying for financial 

assistance from the Foundation provide 

such training for undergraduate 

students, graduate students, and 

postdoctoral researchers participating in 

the proposed research project. Thus, 

reviewers and other faculty members are 

not required to take such training, 

although undergraduate and graduate 

students are subject to such a 

requirement. As to faculty members, 

institutions, at their discretion, may 

expand the scope of such training to 

include other categories of individuals 

not covered by Section 7009 of the 

COMPETES Act. As to reviewers, NSF 

has a longstanding policy of providing 

guidance and instructions to our 

reviewer community on the 

confidentiality of information, which 

includes plagiarism, contained in 

proposals and the treatment of conflictsof-interest. 

Comment 14: Two respondents 

suggested alternate mechanisms for an 

institution to inform NSF that it has an 

appropriate training plan. One 

commenter suggested that NSF require 

investigators to include a short 

summary of their institutions’ training 

plans in the body of the proposal. 

Another commenter suggested that, in 

lieu of an institution providing a 

certification with each proposal, an 

institution should only have to submit 

such a certification once and, NSF 

should simply compile a list of 

institutions that have provided the 

requisite certification. 

Response: Although these alternative 

mechanisms have merit, NSF has 

chosen the implementation approach 

that is consistent with how NSF has had 

institutions certify their compliance 

with statutory requirements such as 

Non-discrimination, Conflict of Interest, 

Drug Free Workplace, etc. 

Comment 15: One respondent 

recommended that NSF make the 

development of conceptual models and 

practical assessment of the effects of 

RCR education a research priority. 

Response: Although not an explicit 

research priority, NSF may support 

proposals that address these topics. For 

example, proposals for the development 

of conceptual models and assessment 

methods for RCR may be appropriate for 

submission to programs in the 

Directorate for Education and Human 

Resources. Innovative research on ethics 

and values in science and engineering 

may be appropriate for submission to 

programs in the Social, Behavioral and 

Economic Sciences Directorate. NSF 

expects that such proposals would 

compete for resources along with other 

important educational and research 

activities. 

Comment 16: NSF received 19 general 

comments. These include: (a) comments 

expressing support for the requirement 

or support for the value of RCR training 

in general; and (b) comments not related 

to the RCR requirement. 

Response: These comments provide 

valuable perspectives on RCR training. 

However, no NSF responses are needed 

for purposes of this Federal Register 

Notice. 

Dated: August 14, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–19930 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0276; NRC–2009–0275; NRC– 

2009–0274; NRC–2009–0277] 

Draft Regulatory Guides: Granting 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Granting of Request to 

Extend the Comment Period of Draft 

Regulatory Guide (DG)–1221, ‘‘Control 

of Stainless Steel Weld Cladding of 

Low-Alloy Steel Components;’’ DG– 

1222, ‘‘Control of Preheat Temperature 

for Welding of Low-Alloy Steel;’’ DG– 

1223, ‘‘Control of Electroslag Weld 

Properties;’’ and DG–1224, ‘‘Control of 

the Processing and Use of Stainless 

Steel.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Hixon, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 251–7639 or 

e-mail to Jeffrey.Hixon@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) issued for public 

comment DG–1221, DG–1222, DG–1223, 

and DG–1224, which were published in 

the Federal Register, 74 FR 31991, 74 

FR 31993, 74 FR 31993, and 74 FR 

31992, respectively, on July 6, 2009. 

This series was developed to describe 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES