41094 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Call or write Gail A. McHenry for a copy

of the collection instrument and

instructions at NSF Reports Clearance

Officer, National Science Foundation,

4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite 245, Arlington,

VA. 22230; call (703) 306–1125 x2010;

or send email to gmchenry@nsf.gov.

Please include OMB No. 3145–0101

with your communication.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Abstract. This survey collects

information on the science and

engineering (S&E) research facilities at

the nation’s higher education

institution. These modifications to the

approved 1998 questionnaire will make

the data more useful to Federal agencies

and policymakers. The OMB, Health

Division, intends to use the aggregate

data to establish benchmark guidelines

for cost of construction and renovation.

Indirect cost rate negotiators will also

use these benchmarks for colleges and

universities.

2. Proposed Modifications to the

OMB-Approved 1998 Survey.

• Sample size. We are requesting that

the 1998 survey sample be increased

from 315 to 365. (This change is

requested by NIH, NSF, and OMB.)

Expanding the sample size with 50

additional institutions will allow for

data to be reported by Carnegie

classification, by minority serving

institutions and institutions within the

EPSCoR States, and to ensure that

appropriate representation is made for

each state.

• Additional Information

• Currently data are collected for the

total net assignable square feet (NASF)

of animal laboratories. NIH has

requested that the survey collect the

percent of total animal research NASF

assigned to levels of restricted use

laboratories. The information is readily

available to the institutions and

reporting it would be of minimal

burden. This request would also serve

the need of OMB to identify some of the

driving forces behind high cost of some

research facilities.

• For more usable data, OMB is

requesting that data also be reported by

gross square feet (GSF) of space in

science and engineering disciplines.

Institutions already have that data to

calculate the NASF of that project

• Clarifying Relationship of Data

• OMB has requested that in addition

to collecting the total repair/renovation

or new construction costs (including

non-fixed equipment over $1 million),

that we also collect the proportion of

repair/renovation or new construction

project costs assignable to non-fixed

equipment costing over $1 million.

These data are readily available to the

institutions and reporting these data

should add very little burden.

• OMB has requested that in addition

to collecting the proportion of

construction and repair/renovation cost

attributable to institutional funds, that

we collect the percent of institutional

funds made up by indirect costs

recovered from federal grants and/or

contracts. The question will be posed in

two parts: (1) Asking if the institution

has ready access to these data; and (2)

if data are available, asking the

institution to supply that data. This way

of posing the question assures minimal

burden to the respondent.

• Discontinuing the collection of the

status of institutions relative to the cap

on tax-exempt bonds. This modification

was requested by NIH as well as NSF.

3. Use of Information. The purpose of

this study is to collect data about status

of academic S&E research facilities. The

information from this survey will be

used by Federal policy makers,

planners, and budget analysts in making

policy decisions, as well as by academic

officials, the S&E establishment, and

State agencies that fund universities and

colleges.

The NSF will publish a separate

report of the findings for Congress; it

will also prepare a special report for

NIH on the Status of Biomedical

Research Facilities and it will also

include them in other NSF compilations

such as National Patterns of R&D

Resources and Science and Engineering

Indicators. Special reports will be

prepared for other Federal agencies on

an as-needed basis. A public release file

of collected data in aggregate form will

be made available to researchers on the

World Wide Web. The results of the

survey will help policy makers in

decision about the health of academic

S&E research, funding, regulations, and

reporting guidelines.

4. Expected Respondents. Not-forProfit institutions, specifically, research

organizations/hospitals and academic

institutions.

5. Burden on the Public. Much of the

proposed modification includes data

that are readily available to the

respondents; we expect that changes to

the questionnaire will cause little or no

change in burden hours. A substantial

reduction in response burden over 1996

is expected with the improvements in

the computer-aided survey: 60% of the

institutions are expected to respond

through this method in 1998, compared

to 40% in 1986.

The Foundation estimates a total

annual burden of 8,760 hours. The

calculation is 365 institutions×total

annual reporting and recordkeeping

burden of 24 hours per respondent.

Comments Requested

Date: NSF should received written

comments on or before September 29,

1997.

Address: Submit written comments to

Mrs. McHenry through surface mail

(NSF Reports Clearance Officer,

National Science Foundation, 4201

Wilson Blvd. Suite 245, Arlington, VA

22230); email (gmchenry@nsf.gov); or

fax (703–306–0201). Please include

OMB No. 3145–0101 with your

communication.

Special Areas for Review: NSF

especially requests comments 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 to

be collected; and

(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, e.g.,

permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Gail A. McHenry,

NSF Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–20099 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Environmental Molecular Science

Institutes (EMSI): Special Research

Opportunity (NSF 97–135); Program

Announcement

The National Science Foundation

(NSF) Directorate for Mathematical and

Physical Sciences and U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy

Research (ER) announce a one-time

opportunity for support of

Environmental Molecular Science

Institutes (EMSI) aimed at increasing

fundamental understanding of natural

and industrial processes and their

interaction at the molecular level. NSF

and DOE encourage cohesive,

interdisciplinary, university-industry

group efforts in basic research on

fundamental issues that underpin the

amelioration of environmental problems

caused by societal activities such as
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices 41095

manufacturing and utilization activities

that are energy- and pollution-intensive.

This funding opportunity will

establish one to three Environmental

Molecular Science Institutes. Five year

requests in the range of $0.5 million to

$2 million per year are appropriate. Up

to $2.0 million per year from NSF will

be made available beginning in FY98,

subject to availability of funds. In

addition, approximately $2.0 million

from DOE in FY98, subject to

availability of funds, will support

specific activities within Institutes

appropriate to DOE interests, such as

elaborated in the supplementary

information section below. This

announcement is being made jointly by

DOE and NSF to ensure that the

strongest possible programs are

supported with the limited funds

available, to minimize multiple

submissions to the two agencies, and to

concentrate resources to realize

measurable progress in focused research

areas.

An Institute should serve as a national

model and resource for excellence in

collaborative environmental research

and in dissemination of results for

solution of amelioration of

environmental problems. To strengthen

the probability that the proposed basic

research focus will contribute in the

future to improved technologies and

processes, it is expected that proposals

will include working collaborations

with appropriate and relevant

industries. Understanding the molecular

behavior of complex, dynamic

environmental systems is expected to

require interdisciplinary approaches

involving scientists from multiple

departments. An Institute must have a

focused research theme and specific

goals. The organization and

management structure must be designed

to enable these goals to be met. An

Institute should not be a collection of

existing projects. Rather proposers are

invited to take a fresh look at

environmental challenges to develop a

unified activity.

Examples of appropriate research

areas include, but are not limited to:

chemical and materials synthesis or

processing for pollution prevention;

integrated understanding of speciation,

sorption, transport, and bioavailability

in a specified environment; response of

a specific environment to chemical

perturbations caused by human

activities. The proposed activities, as an

ancillary benefit, should help to

integrate research and education and

provide broadened experience to

students. Strong institutional support

for programmatic reinforcement of the

educational activities will be considered

positively.

Proposal Submission

Eligibility is limited to colleges,

universities, and other not-for-profit

institutions in the U.S. and its

territories, as described in detail in the

Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95–27).

Potential applicants are required to

submit a brief preliminary proposal. All

preliminary applications must reference

this document (NSF 97–135) and five

copies must be received by October 15,

1997. The preliminary proposal should

include a project summary; a three-page

project description that outlines goals,

research plans, and roles of

collaborators; biographical sketches

limited to two pages per investigator;

one budget page for the total funding

requested (institutional signature is not

required). Other general guidance and

forms are provided in the NSF Grant

Proposal Guide (NSF 9527). Proposals

must be sent to: EMSI (NSF 97–135),

NSF—Room P60–PPU, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

Preliminary proposals will be

evaluated by NSF and DOE staff from

relevant disciplines in order to advise

Principal Investigators on

responsiveness to goals and priorities

described above and on the likelihood

of successful competition with other

proposals in the merit review process.

Those submitting will be informed of

the result of this review by November

15, 1997.

Full proposals (15 copies including

the original, prepared in accordance

with the NSF Grant Proposal Guide)

must be received by February 1, 1998.

These will be evaluated by appropriate

mechanisms, which may include ad hoc

mail review, panel review, or site visits.

In addition to the published new NSF

criteria, other factors will be considered,

such as the potential for significant

contributions to environmental

chemistry, the strength of the

collaborations planned, the value to

education, and the potential for national

leadership among the constituency

interested in the research theme.

Proposals involving industrial

collaboration will receive preference

over those of equal scientific merit that

lack such collaboration. Activities

considered for funding by DOE will be

reviewed for excellence of the science

and relevance to the mission of the

Department and its technology

programs. Below is Additional

Information on scope, format, and

review criteria.

Grants awarded as a result of this

announcement will be administered in

accordance with the terms and

conditions of NSF GC–1 (10/95) or FDP–

III (u/1/96), Grant General Conditions.

Copies of these documents are available

on www.nsf.gov under ‘‘Grants and

Awards.’’ NSF encourages, but does not

require, organizations responding to this

announcement to contribute to the costs

of the project beyond the minimum onepercent statutory cost-sharing

requirement. However, any additional

cost-sharing specified in the proposal

will be referenced and included as a

condition of any award resulting from

this announcement.

Janet G. Osteryoung, Director, Division

of Chemistry, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,

Arlington, VA 22230,

josteryo@nsf.gov, 703-306-1845

Robert S. Marianelli, Director, Chemical

Sciences Division, Office of Basic

Energy Sciences, Office of Energy

Research, U.S. Department of Energy,

19901 Germantown Road,

Germantown, MD 20874-1290,

robert.marianelli@mailgw.er.doe.gov,

(301) 903-5808

Additional Information on Scope of

Institutes and Full Proposal Format

This letter broadly describes the

nature and scope of an institute and is

not intended to be unnecessarily

prescriptive. There are many models

and variations that may be considered,

including the traditional understanding

of an institute at a specific location, as

well as regional or more widely

distributed institutes. Proposal should

include information that defines the

institute, describes the planning

process, defines mission and goals,

describes how the desired goals will be

achieved and how it will be determined

that these goals have been

accomplished. The proposing groups are

encouraged to construct the appropriate

organization and structure that will

maximize the effectiveness and impact

of their strengths and resources.

The leadership of an institute should

be provided by a small group, including

a director and, as approrpratie for the

size of the institute, an associate

director and an external advisory

committee. The director of an institute

should be a respected scientist with

demonstrated organizational,

managerial, and leadership ability. An

institute’s scientific guidance should be

provided by a committee of scientists

from the participating institutions.

Although a multi-institutional

consortium may be involved, a single

entity must accept overall management

responsibility in dealing with NSF.

The NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG),

NSF 95-27, describes the format

required for proposals. The Project
41096 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices

Description in the full proposal will be

subject to the page limitations for each

section described below.

Proposals not adhering to these limits

will be returned without review.

*Detailed description of the intellectual

focus and rationale for the institute,

its overall goals, and expected impact

(3 pages, maximum);

*Planned scientific activities, including

a five-year plan for phasing activities

in or out, and the roles of the various

partners (15 pages, maximum);

*Plans for human resource

development, including involvement

of undergraduate, graduate and

postdoctoral students and members of

under-represented groups (2 pages,

maximum);

*Description of planned outreach

activities and dissemination (2 pages,

maximum);

*Description of goals and outcomes

expected and how the impact will be

demonstrated and evaluated (2 pages,

maximum);

*Description of the organizational

structure of the institute, clearly

outlining the proposed management

structure, mechanisms for focusing

institute activities, methods for

selecting and integrating research

emphases, criteria for selection of

participants, allocating funds and

equipment, and managing the

involvement of other groups (4 pages,

maximum).

Each biographical sketch, limited to

two pages, should include a brief

summary of results of prior NSF

support. Please note that letters

describing collaborative arrangements

significant to the proposals should be

included under ‘‘supplementary

documentation.’’ Only letters of

commitment are permitted;

‘‘endorsement’’ letters may not be

included. No appendices are permitted.

Additional sources of financial support

for the institute should be identified.

Merit Review Process

Proposals submitted in response to

this announcement will be subject to the

NEW merit review criteria approved by

the National Science Board on March

28, 1997 (NSB9772). Additional

information on NSF’s new merit review

criteria is available in the Merit Review

Task Force Final Report at

www.nsf.gov/cgibin/getpub?nsbmr975.

The new merit review criteria are:

What is the Intellectual Merit and

Quality of the Proposed Activity?

The following are suggested questions

that the reviewer will consider in

assessing how well the proposal meets

this criterion. Each reviewer will

address only those questions which he/

she considers relevant to the proposal

and for which he/she is qualified to

make judgments.

How important is the proposed

activity to advancing knowledge and

understanding within its own field and

across different fields? How well

qualified is the proposer (individual or

team) to conduct the project? (If

appropriate, the reviewer will comment

on the quality of prior work.) To what

extent does the proposed activity

suggest and explore creative and

original concepts? How well conceived

and organized is the proposed activity?

Is there sufficient access to resources?

Wht Are the Broader Impacts of the

Proposed Activity?

The following are suggested questions

that the reviewer will consider in

assessing how well the proposal meets

this criterion. Each reviewer will

address only those questions which he/

she considers relevant to the proposal

and for which he/she is qualified to

make judgments.

How well does the activity advance

discovery and understanding while

promoting teaching, training, and

learning? How well does the proposed

activity broaden the participation of

underrepresented groups (e.g., gender

ethnicity, geographic, etc.)? To what

extent will it enhance the infrastructure

for research and education, such as

facilities, instrumentation, networks,

and partnerships? Will the results be

disseminated broadly to enhance

scientific and technological

understanding? What may be the

benefits of the proposed activity to

society?

Additional Criteria Specific to This

Activity

In addition to these generic review

criteria, reviewers will be asked to use

the following additional criteria when

reviewing proposals that respond to this

announcement. These criteria are as

follows:

* Quality of the scientific activities and

their potential for leadership and

impact on environmental chemistry

and solutions to environmental

problems;

* Extent of interdisciplinarity and the

extent to which communication and

interaction with other areas of science

and engineering are fostered by

linkages and partnerships among

university research groups, industry,

national laboratories, etc.;

* Capabilities of the institute

leadership, including managerial and

organizational ability of the director

and of the proposed leadership team;

* Quality and anticipated effectiveness

of the management plan, including

plans for interaction among institute

staff and institutional partners and for

operation of the institute, including

selection of activities and

participants;

* Quality of the institute’s education

and training components, especially

plans to attract, involve and mentor

students and under-represented

groups;

* Quality and effectiveness of proposed

outreach activities and dissemination

of results;

* Clarity of mission and goals and

quality of the evaluation plan;

* Level and quality of the commitment

to the institute by the lead institution

and its partners.

A summary rating and accompanying

narrative will be completed and signed

by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews

are treated as confidential documents.

Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding

the names of the reviewers, are mailed

to the proposer by the Program Director.

In addition, the proposer will receive an

explanation of the decision to award or

decline funding.

Supplementary Information on Topical

Workshops Sponsored by NSF and DOE

NSF and DOE have co-sponsored two

interdisciplinary workshops to help

define priorities for research in two

areas that have been identified as

activities responsible for complex and

intransigent environmental problems.

These are: (1) Vehicular

Transportation and (2) Reducing Energy

Consumption and Pollution from Energy

and Pollution Intensive Processes.

A critical issue identified for the 21st

Century is the balancing of industrial

activity and environmental stewardship;

more knowledge is needed to make

choices to achieve that balance. There

are seven industries that consume 80

percent of the energy and produce over

90 percent of the wastes in the

manufacturing sector. These seven

industries are chemicals, petroleum

refining, forest products, steel,

aluminum, glass, and metal casting.

Those aspects of the workshop reports

that deal with fundamental molecular

science and the crosscutting issues

identified in the reports are particularly

relevant to proposals in response to this

announcement.

Copies of the workshop reports

entitled ‘‘Basic Research Needs for

Environmentally Responsive

Technologies of the Future’’ and ‘‘Basic

Research Needs for Vehicles of the

Future’’ can be obtained from Princeton
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Notices 41097

Materials Institute, Bowen Hall,

Princeton University, 70 Prospect

Avenue, Princeton, New Jersey 08544–

522.

The reports can also be found on the

World Wide Webb at http://

pmi.princeton.edu.

The Foundation provides awards for

research and education in the sciences

and engineering. The awardee is wholly

responsible for the conduct of such

research and preparation of the results

for publication. The Foundation,

therefore, does not assume

responsibility for the research findings

or their interpretation.

The Foundation welcomes proposals

from all qualified scientists and

engineers and strongly encourages

women, minorities, and persons with

disabilities to compete fully in any of

the research and education related

programs described here. In accordance

with federal statutes, regulations, and

NSF policies, no person on grounds of

race, color, age, sex, national origin, or

disability shall be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits

of, or be subject to discrimination under

any program or activity receiving

financial assistance from the National

Science Foundation.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and

Engineers with Disability (FASED)

provide funding for special assistance or

equipment to enable persons with

disabilities (investigators and other staff,

including student research assistants) to

work on NSF projects. See the program

announcement or contact the program

coordinator at (703) 306–1636.

Privacy Act. The information

requested on proposal forms in solicited

under the authority of the National

Science Foundation Act of 1950, as

amended. It will be used in connection

with the selection of qualified proposals

and may be disclosed to qualified

reviewers and staff assistants as part of

the review process; to applicant

institutions/grantees; to provide or

obtain data regarding the application

review process, award decisions, or the

administration of wards; to government

contractors, experts, volunteers, and

researchers as necessary to complete

assigned work; and to other government

agencies in order to coordinate

programs. See Systems of Records, NSF

50, Principal Investigators/Proposal File

and Associated Records, and NSF–51,

60 FR 4449 (January 23, 1995).

Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated

Records, 59 FR 8031 (February 17,

1994).

Public Burden. Submission of the

information is voluntary. Failure to

provide full and complete information,

however, may reduce the possibility of

your receiving an award.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 120 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions. Send comments regarding

this burden estimate or any other aspect

of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this

burden, to Gail A. McHenry, Reports

Clearance Officer, Information

Dissemination Branch, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Suite 245, Arlington, VA 22230.

The National Science Foundation has

TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf)

capability, which enables individuals

with hearing impairment to

communicate with the Foundation

about NSF programs, employment, or

general information. To access NSF

TDD, dial (703) 306–0090; for FIRS,

1–800–877–8339.

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Janet G. Osteryoung,

Director, Chemistry Division.

[FR Doc. 97–20096 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting or

Recordkeeping Requirements: Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

Review

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently

submitted to OMB for review the

following for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission: Reinstatement.

2. The title of the information

collection: Applicant Self-Assessment

Form.

3. The form number if applicable:

NRC Form 563.

4. How often is the collection

required: On occasion.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: Basically qualified external

applicants applying for engineering and

scientific positions with the NRC.

6. An estimated of the number of

responses: 1,500.

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents: 1,500.

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: 125 hours (five

minutes per response).

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d). Pub. Law 104–13 applies: Not

Applicable.

10. Abstract: The Applicant SelfAssessment will be used to collect

uniform information from external

applicants as to which technical

specialties they possess that are unique

to the needs of the NRC. This

information will be reviewed by Office

of Personnel staff and used to match

applicants’ technical specialties with

those required by selecting officials

when an engineering or scientific

vacancy position is to be filled.

Submit, by September 2, 1997,

comments that address the following

questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the NRC to

properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the

information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology?

A copy of the draft supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street NW, (lower level),

Washington, DC. Members of the public

who are in the Washington, DC, area can

access this document via modem on the

Public Document Room Bulletin Board

(NRC’s Advanced Copy Document

Library). Members of the public who are

located outside of the Washington, DC,

area can dial FedWorld, 1–800–303–

9672, or use the FedWorld Internet

address: fedworld.gov (Telnet). The

document will be available on the

bulletin board for 30 days after the

signature date of the notice. If assistance

is needed in accessing the document,

please contact the FedWorld help desk

at 703–487–4608.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by

September 2, 1997: Edward Michlovich,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (3150–0177), NEOB–10202,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–7318.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of July, 1997.