Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request renewed clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action.

After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting OMB clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

# DATES:

Written comments should be received by October 10, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail to                         *splimpto@nsf.gov*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or send e-mail to                         *splimpto@nsf.gov.*                         Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf                               ( print page 45077)                            (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title of Collection:*                     “National Science Foundation Proposal and Award Information—NSF Proposal and Award Policies & Procedures Manual.                

*OMB Approval Number:*                     3145-0058.                

*Expiration Date of Approval:*                     July 31, 2007.                

*Type of Request:*                     Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an information collection for three years.                

*Proposed Project:*                     The National Science Foundation (NSF) is seeking to revise its existing mechanism for issuance of proposal and award policies and procedures. Previously, these policies and procedures were contained in two separate issuances; the                     *Grant Proposal Guide*                     and the                     *Grant Policy Manual.*                     These documents were each separately maintained and issued with different effective dates and significant redundancies between the two documents. We have now collapsed these two documents into a new policy framework: the                     *NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Manual.*

                    Part I of this document will include                     *NSF Proposal Preparation and Submission Guidelines, i.e.,*                     the                     *Grant Proposal Guide*                     (GPG), and Part II will include the                     *NSF Award & Administration Manual*                     (previously known as the GPM). This initial issuance of the                     *NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Manual*                     will be effective January, 2007. Future issuances of this Manual will be supplemented with additional documents, such as the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.                

We believe that this new policy framework will assist both NSF customers as well as NSF staff by:

1. Improving both awareness and knowledge of the complete set of NSF policies and procedural documents;

2. Increasing ease of access to the policies and procedures that govern the entire grant lifecycle; and

3. Eliminating redundancies between coverage in the documents.

This streamlining process also will combine the Grant Proposal Guide (OMB Clearance No.  3145-0058) with the Proposal Review Process (3145-0060) to streamline the proposal and award management processes for applicants and awardees. This will allow NSF to better manage amendments between the two collections due to administrative changes. Following OMB approval, this information will be available to the community via the Internet.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is ``to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering.'' The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
    - Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process;
    - Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential;
    - Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
    - Programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation; and
    - Other activities to promote these ends.

From those first days, NSF has had a unique place in the Federal Government: It is responsible for the overall health of science and engineering across all disciplines. In contrast, other Federal agencies support research focused on specific missions such as health or defense. The Foundation also is committed to ensuring the nation's supply of scientists, engineers, and science and engineering educators.

The Foundation fulfills this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the scientific and engineering disciplines. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research institutions throughout the U.S. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

Over the years, NSF's statutory authority has been modified in a number of significant ways. In 1968, authority to support applied research was added to the Organic Act. In 1980, The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act gave NSF standing authority to support activities to improve the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering.

Another major change occurred in 1986, when engineering was accorded equal status with science in the Organic Act. NSF has always dedicated itself to providing the leadership and vision needed to keep the words and ideas embedded in its mission statement fresh and up-to-date. Even in today's rapidly changing environment, NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: Promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out this charges have evolved significantly over the last four decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.

*Use of the Information:*                     The regular submission of proposals to the Foundation is part of the collection of information and is used to help NSF fulfill this responsibility by initiating and supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the scientific and engineering disciplines. NSF receives more than 40,000 proposals annually for new projects, and makes approximately 10,500 new awards.                

Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The awards are based mainly on evaluations of proposal merit submitted to the Foundation (proposal review is cleared under OMB Control No. 3145-0060).

The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the operations of its information collection to identify and address excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s).

## Proposal Evaluation Process

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

                    Review of proposals may involve large panel sessions, small groups, or use of a mail-review system. Proposals are reviewed carefully by scientists or engineers who are expert in the particular field represented by the proposal. About 50% are reviewed                           ( print page 45078)                        exclusively by panels of reviewers who gather, usually in Arlington, VA, to discuss their advice as well as to deliver it. About 35% are reviewed first by mail reviewers expert in the particular field, then by panels, usually of persons with more diverse expertise, who help the NSF decide among proposals from multiple fields or sub-fields. Finally, about 15% are reviewed exclusively by mail.                

## 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) What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? (2) What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

The information collected on reviewer background questionnaire (NSF 428A) 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, and ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to Congressional and other queries into equity issues. These data also are used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering, and education.

## Confidentiality

When a decision has been made (whether an award or a  declination), verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the PI. A proposer also may request and obtain any other releasable material in NSF's file on their proposal. Everything in the file except information that directly identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the proposer.

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, ethnicity, 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 information regarding race, ethnicity, disability, and gender. This information also is protected by the Privacy Act.

*Burden on the Public:*                     For the Grant Proposal Guide, NSF estimates that an average of 120 hours is expended for each proposal submitted. An estimated 40,000 proposals are during the course of one year for a total of 4,800,000 public burden hours annually.                

For the proposal review process, NSF 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 6.3 reviews, with a minimum requirement of three reviews for an estimated total of 600,000 hours. The estimated burden for the Reviewer Background Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at 5 minutes per respondent with up to 10,000 potential new reviewers for a total of 83 hours. The estimated total  is 600,083 for the reviewer process and the reviewer background information.

The estimated aggregated total for both the Grant Proposal Guide and the proposal review process is 5,400,083 hours.

Dated: August 3, 2006.

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 06-6761  Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M