19326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices 

1 77 FR 58175 (Sept. 19, 2012), available at 

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/ 

77fr58175.pdf. 

whether the transaction is in fact a 

prohibited transaction; and 

(3) The availability of this exemption 

is subject to the express condition that 

the material facts and representations 

contained in the application accurately 

describes all material terms of the 

transaction which is the subject of the 

exemption. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

March, 2013. 

Lyssa E. Hall, 

Acting Director of Exemption Determinations, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07380 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Notice of Funding Availability for 

Calendar Year 2014 Competitive Grant 

Funds Request for Proposals: 2014 

Competitive Grant Funds 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Legal Services 

Corporation (LSC) is the national 

organization charged with administering 

Federal funds provided for civil legal 

services to low-income people. 

This Request for Proposals (RFP) 

announces the availability of 

competitive grant funds and is soliciting 

grant proposals from interested parties 

who are qualified to provide effective, 

efficient and high quality civil legal 

services to eligible clients in the service 

area(s) of the states and territories 

identified below. The exact amount of 

congressionally appropriated funds and 

the date, terms, and conditions of their 

availability for calendar year 2014 have 

not been determined. 

DATES: This RFP is available the week of 

April 8, 2013. Legal Services 

Corporation must receive all applicants’ 

Notice of Intent to Compete (NIC) on or 

before May 10, 2013, 5:00 p.m., E.T. 

Other key application and filing dates, 

including the dates for filing grant 

applications, are published at 

www.grants.lsc.gov/resources/notices. 

ADDRESSES: Legal Services Corporation: 

Competitive Grants, located at 3333 K 

Street NW., Third Floor, Washington, 

DC, 20007–3522. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Office of Program Performance by email 

at competition@lsc.gov, or visit the 

grants competition Web site at 

www.grants.lsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LSC will 

accept proposals from any of the 

following entities: (1) Non-profit 

organizations that have as a purpose the 

provision of legal assistance to eligible 

clients; (2) private attorneys; (3) groups 

of private attorneys or law firms; (4) 

state or local governments; or (5) substate regional planning and coordination 

agencies that are composed of sub-state 

areas and whose governing boards are 

controlled by locally elected officials. 

The RFP, containing the NIC and 

grant application, guidelines, proposal 

content requirements, service area 

descriptions, and specific selection 

criteria, will be available at 

www.grants.lsc.gov the week of April 8, 

2013. 

Below are the service areas for which 

LSC is requesting grant proposals. 

Service area descriptions will be 

available at www.grants.lsc.gov/aboutgrants/where-we-fund. LSC will post all 

updates and/or changes to this notice at 

www.grants.lsc.gov. Interested parties 

are asked to visit www.grants.lsc.gov 

regularly for updates on the LSC 

competitive grants process. 

State or Territory Service 

Area(s) 

Alabama ................................ MAL. 

American Samoa ................... AS–1. 

Arizona .................................. AZ–2, AZ–3, 

AZ–5, MAZ, 

NAZ–5, 

NAZ–6. 

Arkansas ............................... AR–6, AR–7, 

MAR. 

California ............................... CA–1, CA–27, 

CA–28, 

NCA–1. 

Connecticut ........................... CT–1. 

Delaware ............................... MDE. 

District of Columbia ............... DC–1. 

Illinois .................................... IL–3, IL–7. 

Kentucky ................................ KY–10, KY–2, 

KY–5, KY– 

9, MKY. 

Louisiana ............................... LA–1, LA–12, 

MLA. 

Maryland ................................ MD–1, MMD. 

Massachusetts ...................... MA–10, MA– 

11. 

Michigan ................................ MI–12, MI–13, 

MI–15, MI– 

9, MMI, 

NMI–1. 

Minnesota .............................. MN–1, MN–4, 

MN–5, MN– 

6, MMN. 

Mississippi ............................. MS–10, MS– 

9, MMS, 

NMS–1. 

Missouri ................................. MO–3, MO–4, 

MO–5, MO– 

7, MMO. 

New Hampshire ..................... NH–1. 

New Mexico ........................... NM–1, NM–5, 

MNM, 

NNM–2, 

NNM–4. 

New York ............................... NY–9. 

State or Territory Service 

Area(s) 

North Dakota ......................... ND–3, MND, 

NND–3. 

Ohio ....................................... OH–18, OH– 

20, OH–21, 

OH–23, 

MOH. 

Oklahoma .............................. MOK, NOK–1. 

Pennsylvania ......................... PA–24. 

Puerto Rico ........................... PR–2. 

South Dakota ........................ SD–2, SD–4, 

NSD–1. 

Tennessee ............................. TN–10, TN–4, 

TN–7, TN– 

9, MTN. 

Texas ..................................... TX–13, TX– 

14, TX–15, 

MTX, NTX– 

1. 

Vermont ................................. VT–1. 

Virginia .................................. VA–17, VA– 

18, VA–19, 

VA–20, 

MVA. 

West Virginia ......................... WV–5. 

Wisconsin .............................. WI–5, MWI. 

Wyoming ............................... WY–4, NWY– 

1. 

Dated: March 21, 2013. 

Victor Fortuno, 

General Counsel & Vice President, Legal 

Services Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07269 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

United States Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2013–3] 

Resale Royalty Right; Public Hearing 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office will host a public hearing to 

discuss issues relating to the 

consideration of a federal resale royalty 

right in the United States. The meeting 

will provide a forum for interested 

parties to address the legal and factual 

questions raised in the comments 

received by this Office in response to its 

September 2012 Notice of Inquiry.1

DATES: The public hearing will take 

place on April 23, 2013, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 5:00 p.m. The Copyright Office 

strongly prefers that requests for 

participation be submitted 

electronically. A participation request 

form is posted on the Copyright Office 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices 19327 

2U.S. Copyright Office, Droit De Suite: The 

Artist’s Resale Royalty (1992), available at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/history/droit_de_suite.pdf. 

3 1992 Report at 149. 

4 Id. 

Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/ 

docs/resaleroyalty/. Persons who are 

unable to submit a request electronically 

should contact Jason M. Okai, Counsel 

for Policy and International Affairs, at 

202–707–9444. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will take 

place in the Copyright Office Hearing 

Room, LM–408 of the Madison Building 

of the Library of Congress, 101 

Independence Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20559. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate 

Register of Copyrights and Director of 

Policy and International Affairs, by 

email at kacl@loc.gov or by telephone at 

202–707–1027; or Jason Okai, Counsel 

for Policy and International Affairs, by 

email at jokai@loc.gov or by telephone 

at 202–707–9444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the request of Congress, the 

Copyright Office is reviewing: (1) how 

the current copyright legal system 

affects and supports visual artists; and 

(2) how a federal resale royalty right for 

visual artists would affect current and 

future practices of groups or individuals 

involved in the creation, licensing, sale, 

exhibition, dissemination, and 

preservation of works of visual art. The 

Office published a general Notice of 

Inquiry on September 19, 2012 seeking 

comments from the public. The Notice 

provided background on the Office’s 

previous review of this issue in its 

December 1992 report titled Droit De 

Suite: The Artist’s Resale Royalty 2 (the 

‘‘1992 Report’’) as well as recent 

international developments. After 

extending the deadline for the public to 

submit comments until December 5, 

2012, the Office received fifty-nine 

comments from various interested 

parties. The comments raised a variety 

of issues, including purely legal matters 

as well as specific experiences and 

perspectives of individual artists, 

corporate entities, and collecting 

societies. All comments, along with the 

Notice of Inquiry, are available at 

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ 

resaleroyalty/. The Office now 

announces a public hearing to receive 

further input on issues raised in the 

comments. The agenda and the process 

for submitting requests to participate in 

or observe the public hearing is 

available on the Copyright Office Web 

site. 

Subjects of Public Hearing 

The public hearing will cover the 

following topics: (1) The changing legal 

landscape; (2) portability of the 

secondary art market; (3) effect on the 

primary art market and the incentive to 

create new works; (4) first sale and the 

free alienability of property; (5) visual 

artists and sales of works; (6) the Equity 

for Visual Artists Act; (7) effect on 

museums; and (8) constitutional 

concerns. Each of these topics is 

explained in more detail below. 

1. The changing legal landscape. In 

its 1992 Report, the Copyright Office did 

not recommend adoption of a resale 

royalty right in U.S. law.3 That report, 

however, also noted that Congress might 

wish to reexamine whether the United 

States should implement a resale royalty 

law if the European Union harmonized 

its resale royalty law.4 In response to the 

September 19, 2012 Notice of Inquiry, 

several commenters stated that China, 

which has established itself as a major 

art market, is also considering a resale 

royalty right in pending domestic 

legislation. Many commenters also 

noted that even though the European 

Union harmonized its resale royalty law 

through its Droit de Suite Directive of 

2001 (the ‘‘EU Directive’’), nothing has 

changed substantively in the United 

States since the Copyright Office’s 1992 

Report and there is therefore no need to 

consider adopting a resale royalty now. 

Have there been changes in the 

worldwide legal landscape, art market, 

or business practices since the Office’s 

1992 Report that support or undermine 

implementation of a resale royalty? 

2. Portability of the Secondary Art 

Market. Some commenters expressed 

concern that if the United States adopts 

a resale royalty right, a substantial 

portion of the U.S. art market will shift 

to markets where no resale royalty exists 

currently. Conversely, some 

commenters cited figures showing that 

the German, United Kingdom, and 

French markets actually grew after the 

EU Directive was implemented, while in 

the United States and Switzerland, 

where there is no resale right, the 

markets declined. 

What factors, other than 

implementation of a resale royalty right, 

affect the portability of the art market? 

What are the experiences in countries 

following the implementation of a resale 

royalty where one did not exist 

previously? For example, if China 

implements a resale royalty, how would 

this impact the worldwide market? 

3. Effect on the Primary Art Market 

and the Incentive to Create New Works. 

Some commenters addressed whether a 

resale royalty fosters creativity for 

young artists, contributes to the 

financial sustainability of visual artists, 

motivates artists to produce more 

artistic works, and enhances an artist’s 

reputation thereby generating more 

primary and secondary sales. Some 

comments stated that the existence of a 

resale royalty would not incentivize 

artists to create and that the royalty only 

would benefit a very few artists who are 

already professionally and financially 

successful. 

The Office is interested in learning 

more about the effect of a federal resale 

royalty on the primary art market and 

whether it is an incentive for artists to 

create new work. Additionally, the 

Office would like further information on 

whether the payment of a resale royalty 

to artists’ heirs foster creativity and, if 

so, how. 

4. First Sale and the Free Alienability 

of Property. Some commenters 

suggested that a resale royalty is 

incompatible with the first sale doctrine 

set forth in 17 U.S.C. 109. These 

commenters argued that a resale royalty 

provides an ongoing property right each 

time an artwork is sold (subsequent to 

its initial sale), prevents buyers from 

acquiring unencumbered title to a work 

of art, and adds a layer of complexity to 

secondary transactions. Other 

commenters argued that a resale royalty 

does not conflict with the ability to 

freely transfer property because the 

royalty simply would require payment 

when a subsequent sale has been made 

and does not otherwise restrict the 

transfer or sale of a particular work of 

art. 

In light of these comments, the Office 

has the following questions: To what 

extent, if any, are the first sale doctrine 

and a resale royalty right incompatible? 

Would a resale royalty have a 

detrimental effect on the initial sale of 

the artwork? Should the right to claim 

royalties on secondary sales be waivable 

and, if so, what effect would that have 

on initial sales of artwork? 

5. Visual Artists and Sales of Works. 

Many commenters suggested that visual 

artists are at a great disadvantage in 

relation to creators of other copyrighted 

works because visual artists are not paid 

for the subsequent resale of their 

original works and do not enjoy a 

benefit proportional to the success of 

their work. Thus, these commenters 

cautioned that without a resale royalty, 

visual artists are excluded from the most 

significant profits that their works may 

generate following its creation. 

Commenters opposing a resale royalty 

noted that copyright law does not assure 

that each type of work will generate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices 

5H.R. 3688, 112th Cong. (2011); S. 2000, 112th 

Cong. (2011). 

similar levels of remuneration and it is 

not the role of copyright law to elevate 

one type of work over another. These 

commenters further claimed that any 

perceived inequities in the amount of 

remuneration for a particular category of 

work exists because of the 

characteristics of that type of work and 

the attendant methods of exploitation 

for those works. 

Thus, the Office is interested in 

whether there is such an inequity and, 

if so, to what extent, if any, a resale 

royalty will affect it. 

6. The Equity for Visual Artists Act. 

The Office received twenty-five 

comments that either cited to the 

Equality for Visual Artists Act 

(‘‘EVAA’’) 5 or commented directly on 

the proposed legislation. The Office is 

interested in hearing more about what 

provisions should or should not appear 

in any resale royalty legislation and, 

more specifically, views on the 

following EVAA provisions: 

a. Transaction Types. The current 

version of the EVAA applies only to live 

auction sales when the auction house 

meets certain eligibility requirements. 

Many comments noted that a resale 

royalty limited to certain live auction 

sales would not represent the majority 

of secondary art sales and would 

therefore fail to benefit a significant 

number of artists. Other commenters 

noted that, due to the high volume of 

transactions, it would simply be 

impractical to apply the right to 

additional types of sales such as online 

auctions, private sales, or gallery sales. 

The Office would like more information 

on the proper universe of sales to which 

the resale royalty should be applied. 

b. Scope. A few comments noted that 

some art buyers view art as more than 

paintings, sculptures, or photographs 

and therefore any definition of art for 

the purposes of establishing a resale 

right should be broader than that in the 

EVAA. The Office thus would like 

further input regarding what types of 

artwork should or should not be 

included in any potential legislation. 

c. Collection and Distribution of 

Royalties. Commenters stated that, 

generally, either a government agency or 

a designated collection society 

administers the resale royalty in most 

jurisdictions that have such a royalty 

law. These government agencies or 

collection societies identify qualifying 

sales, collect funds, deduct an 

administrative fee, and redistribute the 

monies to the artists. The collecting 

society scheme proposed in the EVAA 

would be different because the 

collecting society would not only collect 

the royalty and redistribute it to the 

artists, but it would also use royalty 

monies to fund an escrow account from 

which it would distribute grants to 

museums to purchase more art. The 

Office would appreciate more 

information on the pros and cons of 

such a structure. 

d. Duration. Many commenters favor 

keeping the term of the resale royalty 

right consistent with the term of 

copyright because such a term could 

easily be tracked and calculated and 

also allows for the royalty payments to 

an artist’s heirs. The Office would like 

to learn more about how to calculate a 

justifiable term for a resale royalty right. 

e. Threshold Value. The EVAA 

establishes that a resale royalty would 

only be paid on artwork sales of $10,000 

or more. Some comments noted that a 

$10,000 threshold amount would 

exclude many types of works, e.g., 

photographs and prints, but also many 

artists whose work is resold in the 

secondary market for less than $10,000. 

Other comments suggested that too low 

of a threshold would result in a 

situation where the cost of 

administrating some royalty payments 

would be higher than the cost of 

administering the payments. The Office 

is thus interested in learning more about 

whether there should be a minimum 

threshold before a resale royalty is owed 

and, if so, what that threshold should 

be. 

f. Payment. Based on a review of the 

comments, determining which entity 

should be responsible for payment of 

the royalty following the resale of a 

work is somewhat controversial. 

Jurisdictions that have a resale royalty 

differ on which party is responsible for 

paying the royalty. The EVAA provides 

that the party responsible for remitting 

the royalty to the collecting society 

would be the party responsible for 

receiving the ‘‘money or other 

consideration’’ from the sale. The Office 

would like further information on 

which party should be responsible for 

paying any resale royalty to the author. 

g. Royalty Rate. Some comments 

noted that the EVAA’s proposed 7% 

royalty would be one of the highest rates 

in the world. Many of the comments 

suggested a 5% royalty with or without 

a limit on total remuneration as the 

most consistent with worldwide 

practice. The Office would like more 

information on what a reasonable 

royalty rate could be and how to 

determine what is reasonable. 

7. Effect on Museums. Under the 

EVAA, museums are eligible to receive 

grants for purchasing art based on a 

portion of the resale royalty paid to the 

author. One comment noted that the 

EVAA may inadvertently undermine the 

ways in which museums acquire and 

deacession works as well as limit 

museums’ access to certain pricing 

information related to works or art. The 

Office is interested in learning more 

about the impact of these grants on 

museums’ purchasing behavior. 

8. Constitutional Concerns. Two 

companies submitted comments 

highlighting constitutional concerns 

over federal resale royalties. The Office 

is interested in hearing from parties 

wishing to elaborate on the arguments 

summarized below. 

a. Retroactivity and Due Process. One 

comment expressed concerns that if a 

resale royalty would apply retroactively 

to purchases already concluded it 

would benefit artists at the expense of 

buyers and collectors that already 

purchased the artwork without the 

requirement to pay a royalty on the 

secondary sale. In addition, the 

comment stated that while application 

of a royalty to new works may be 

permissible under the Copyright Clause 

of the U.S. Constitution, its retroactive 

application raises due process concerns. 

Thus, the Office would like to hear more 

regarding whether retroactive legislation 

would be barred by the Due Process 

Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

b. Takings. One comment noted that 

applying a resale royalty to pre-existing 

works may implicate the Takings Clause 

of the U.S. Constitution through a 

limitation on the free alienation of 

property and the transfer of the royalty 

payment from one individual to 

another. The Office would like to learn 

more about whether pre-existing works 

would implicate the Takings Clause. 

c. Prohibition Against Bills of 

Attainder. One comment noted that a 

federal resale royalty law such as the 

proposed EVAA may raise issues under 

the constitutional prohibition on bills of 

attainder because it specifies particular 

types of auctioneers that must pay the 

royalty. For example, the EVAA 

proposes that the royalty shall apply if 

the sale takes place in a public auction 

house that has annual sales in the 

previous year of over $25 million— 

excluding online and private sales. The 

Office is thus interested in more 

information on the relationship between 

the EVAA’s limitations and the 

constitutional prohibition on bills of 

attainder. 

Requests To Participate 

Requests to participate should be 

submitted online at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/resaleroyalty/. 

The requestor should also indicate, in 

order of preference, the sessions in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices 19329 

which the requestor wishes to 

participate. Depending upon the level of 

interest, the Copyright Office may not be 

able to seat every participant in every 

session he or she requests, so it is 

helpful to know which topics are most 

important to each participant. In 

addition, please note that while an 

organization may bring multiple 

representatives, only one person per 

organization may participate in a 

particular session. A different person 

from the same organization may, of 

course, participate in another session. 

Requestors who already have submitted 

a comment in response to the Office’s 

September 19, 2012 Notice of Inquiry, or 

who will be representing an 

organization that has submitted a 

comment, are asked to identify their 

comments on the request form. 

Requestors who have not submitted 

comments should include a brief 

summary of their views on the topics 

they wish to discuss directly on the 

request form. Nonparticipants who wish 

to attend and observe the discussion 

should note that seating is limited and, 

for nonparticipants, will be available on 

a first come, first served basis. 

Dated: March 25, 2013. 

Karyn A. Temple-Claggett, 

Associate Register of Copyrights and Director 

of Policy and International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07270 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Advisory Committee for Polar 

Programs; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as 

amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Advisory Committee for Polar 

Programs (1130). 

Date/Time: Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 

12:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. 

Place: National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, 

Room 555, Arlington, VA—THE 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

WILL ATTEND VIRTUALLY. 

Type Of Meeting: Open. 

Contact Person: Sue LaFratta, Office 

of Polar Programs (OPP). National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 

292–8030. 

Minutes: May be obtained from the 

contact person listed above. 

Purpose of Meeting: To advise NSF on 

the impact of its policies, programs, and 

activities on the polar research 

community, to provide advice to the 

Director of OPP on issues related to 

long-range planning. 

Agenda: Discussion of Committee of 

Visitors’ reports on Antarctic and Arctic 

programs. 

Dated: March 26, 2013. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07331 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Request for Information (RFI): 

Reducing Investigator’s Administrative 

Workload for Federally Funded 

Research 

Key Dates 

Release Date: March 25, 2013. 

Response Date: May 24, 2013. 

Issued by 

National Science Foundation (NSF). 

Purpose 

This RFI offers principal investigators 

with Federal research funding the 

opportunity to identify Federal agency 

and university requirements that 

contribute most to their administrative 

workload and to offer recommendations 

for reducing that workload. Members of 

the National Science Board’s Task Force 

on Administrative Burdens do not wish 

to increase your administrative 

workload with this request and you may 

choose to answer only those questions 

that are most pertinent to you. Your 

responses will provide vital input so 

that we can implement agency-level 

changes and offer recommendations to 

reduce unnecessary and redundant 

administrative requirements. 

Background 

Over the past decade two Federal 

Demonstration Partnership (FDP) 

Faculty Workload Surveys (2005 and 

2012) indicate that administrative 

burdens associated with Federal 

research funding are consuming roughly 

42% of an awardee’s available research 

time, a figure widely cited in numerous 

articles and reports. To help address 

these issues, the National Science Board 

(Board) recently created a Task Force on 

Administrative Burdens. The Task Force 

is charged with examining the burden 

imposed on Federally-supported 

researchers at U.S. colleges, universities, 

and non-profit institutions. Responses 

to this RFI will be considered as the 

Board develops recommendations to 

ensure investigators’ administrative 

workload is at an appropriate level. 

Request for Information 

The Task Force is seeking a response 

to the questions below. In your 

response, please reference the question 

number to which you are responding. 

Sources of Administrative Work and 

Recommendations for Reducing Work 

1. What specific requirements 

associated with your Federally-funded 

grants require you personally to do the 

greatest amount of administrative work? 

Where possible, please indicate whether 

the origin of that administrative work is 

a requirement at your institution, a 

Federal requirement, or a requirement 

from another institution. What 

recommendations would you offer that 

might help to reduce the level of work? 

2. Principal investigators responding 

to the FDP’s 2012 Faculty Workload 

Survey identified the following sources 

of administrative work, in addition to 

human subject protection and animal 

care treated below, as particularly 

burdensome for Federal grantees: 

D Grant progress report submissions; 

D Finances (e.g. managing budget-toactual expenses, equipment and 

supplies purchases, and other financial 

issues/requirements); 

D Personnel management, hiring, and 

employee evaluation, and visa issues; 

D Effort reporting; 

D Conflict of interest; 

D Responsible conduct of research; 

D Lab safety/security; 

D Data sharing; and, 

D Sub-contracts (e.g. overseeing: 

progress toward project goals and 

deadlines; budget expenditures, 

invoices, and other financial matters; 

and, compliance and safety/security 

issues). 

If not addressed in question 1, for any 

of the areas listed, do you believe that 

the associated requirements 

significantly increase the amount of 

administrative work you personally 

need to perform? Where possible 

please indicate whether the source of 

the required administrative work is a 

requirement at your institution, a 

Federal requirement, or a requirement 

from another institution. What 

recommendations would you offer 

that might help to reduce the level of 

work? 

3. Do you receive administrative 

support from your institution for 

Federal grants? If yes, for what specific 

preparation, reporting, and compliance 

requirements do you receive 

administrative support? Is the amount of 

support excellent, good, adequate, poor, 

or non-existent? Where does your 

administrative support come from 

within the institution (e.g. office of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES