8818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 37 / Thursday, February 26, 2009 / Notices 

Title of Collection: Request for 

Proposals. 

OMB Approval Number: 3145–0080. 

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 

2009. 

Type of Request: Intent to seek 

approval to extend an information 

collection for three years. 

Proposed Project: The Federal 

Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 

15.2—‘‘Solicitation and Receipt of 

Proposals and Information’’ prescribes 

policies and procedures for preparing 

and issuing Requests for Proposals. The 

FAR System has been developed in 

accordance with the requirement of the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

Act of 1974, as amended. The NSF Act 

of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1870, 

Sec. II, states that NSF has the authority 

to: 

(c) Enter into contracts or other 

arrangements, or modifications thereof, 

for the carrying on, by organizations or 

individuals in the United States and 

foreign countries, including other 

government agencies of the United 

States and of foreign countries, of such 

scientific or engineering activities as the 

Foundation deems necessary to carry 

out the purposes of this Act, and, at the 

request of the Secretary of Defense, 

specific scientific or engineering 

activities in connection with matters 

relating to international cooperation or 

national security, and, when deemed 

appropriate by the Foundation, such 

contracts or other arrangements or 

modifications thereof, may be entered 

into without legal consideration, 

without performance or other bonds and 

without regard to section 5 of title 41, 

U.S.C. 

Use of the Information: Request for 

Proposals (RFP) is used to competitively 

solicit proposals in response to NSF 

need for services. Impact will be on 

those individuals or organizations who 

elect to submit proposals in response to 

the RFP. Information gathered will be 

evaluated in light of NSF procurement 

requirements to determine who will be 

awarded a contract. 

Estimate of Burden: The Foundation 

estimates that, on average, 558 hours per 

respondent will be required to complete 

the RFP. 

Respondents: Individuals; business or 

other for-profit; not-for-profit 

institutions; Federal government; state, 

local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 75. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 41,850 hours. 

Dated: February 20, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–4072 Filed 2–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Responsible Conduct of Research 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

requirement for students and 

postdoctoral researchers involved in 

NSF proposals to be educated in the 

responsible and ethical conduct of 

research (RCR). 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is soliciting public 

comment on the agency’s proposed 

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: Ethical 

and responsible conduct of research is 

critical for excellence, as well as public 

trust, in science and engineering. 

Consequently, education in the 

responsible and ethical conduct of 

research 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. 

Information about the workshop, as well 

as additional resources, are available at: 

http://www.nae.edu/nae/

engethicscen.nsf/weblinks/NKAL7LHM86?OpenDocument. A brief notice 

about the workshop’s main themes is 

forthcoming in The Bridge, Volume 39, 

Number 1—Spring 2009, which will be 

available online in mid-March at: http:// 

www.nae.edu/nae/

bridgecom.nsf?OpenDatabase. NSF is 

adding ‘‘the responsible and ethical 

conduct of research’’ as a Representative 

Activity in the listing of Broader 

Impacts Representative Activities 

available electronically at 

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broader

impacts.pdf. 

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=NSF&sel_org=NSF&from=fund) and 

to promote the development and 

implementation of effective practices 

through its education and training 

programs. The agency will also continue 

to explore other mechanisms to support 

the academic community’s efforts in 

providing training in the responsible 

and ethical conduct of research. 

Proposed Implementation Plan: 

Effective October 1, 2009, NSF will 

require that at the time of proposal 

submission to NSF, a proposing 

institution’s Authorized Organizational 

Representative must 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, institutions are 

advised that they are subject to review 

upon request. NSF 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 online digital library 

containing research findings, 

pedagogical materials, and promising 

practices regarding the ethical and 

responsible conduct of research in 

science and engineering. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 37 / Thursday, February 26, 2009 / Notices 8819 

development and evolution of the 

digital library 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 the responsible and ethical conduct 

of research. 

Invitation to Comment: The 

Foundation welcomes public comment 

on any aspect of the proposed 

Implementation Plan. Issues that 

responders may wish to address 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• 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. 

Comments: Comments regarding 

NSF’s proposed implementation should 

be e-mailed to RCRinput@nsf.gov by 

March 31, 2009. Please include your 

comments in the body of the e-mail and 

in an attachment. Include your name, 

title, organization, postal address, 

telephone number, and e-mail address 

in your message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the NSF’s 

implementation of the America 

COMPETES Act, contact Jean Feldman; 

Head, Policy Office, Division of 

Institution & Award Support; National 

Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Blvd.; 

Arlington, VA 22230; e-mail: 

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

8243; fax: (703) 292–9171. 

Dated: February 23, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–4100 Filed 2–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Federal Regulatory Review 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget, Executive Office of the 

President. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) is 

developing a set of recommendations to 

the President for a new Executive Order 

on Federal Regulatory Review, and 

invites public comments on how to 

improve the process and principles 

governing regulation. 

DATES: Comments must be in writing 

and received by March 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of 

the following methods: 

• E-mail: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 395–7245. 

• Mail: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Records 

Management Center, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attn: Mabel 

Echols, Room 10102, NEOB, 725 17th 

Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20503. We 

are still experiencing delays in the 

regular mail, including first class and 

express mail. To ensure that your 

comments are received on time, we 

recommend that comments be 

electronically submitted. 

All comments submitted in response 

to this notice will be made available to 

the public on OMB’s Web site. For this 

reason, please do not include in your 

comments information of a confidential 

nature, such as sensitive personal 

information or proprietary information. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to OMB, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mabel Echols, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Records 

Management Center, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10102, 

NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: 

(202) 395–6880. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For well 

over two decades, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) at OMB has reviewed Federal 

regulations. The purposes of such 

review have been to ensure consistency 

with Presidential priorities, to 

coordinate regulatory policy, and to 

offer a dispassionate and analytical 

’’second opinion’’ on agency actions. 

In a recent Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, published in the Federal 

Register [74 FR 5977], the President 

directed the Director of OMB to produce 

a set of recommendations for a new 

Executive Order on Federal regulatory 

review. Among other things, he stated 

that the recommendations should offer 

suggestions for the following: 

• The relationship between OIRA and 

the agencies; 

• Disclosure and transparency; 

• Encouraging public participation in 

agency regulatory processes; 

• The role of cost-benefit analysis; 

• The role of distributional 

considerations, fairness, and concern for 

the interests of future generations; 

• Methods of ensuring that regulatory 

review does not produce undue delay; 

• The role of the behavioral sciences 

in formulating regulatory policy; and 

• The best tools for achieving public 

goals through the regulatory process. 

Executive Orders are not subject to 

notice and comment procedures, and as 

a general rule, public comment is not 

formally sought before they are issued. 

In this case, however, there has been an 

unusually high level of public interest, 

and because of the evident importance 

and fundamental nature of the relevant 

issues, the Director of OMB invites 

public comments on the principles and 

procedures governing regulatory review. 

These comments will be read and 

considered seriously even though no 

responses will be given. 

This public process is not intended to, 

and does not, create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law or in equity by any party against the 

United States, its departments, agencies, 

or entities, its officers, employees, or 

agents, or any other person. 

Kevin F. Neyland, 

Acting Administrator, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E9–4080 Filed 2–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Notice of Meeting of the Industry Trade 

Advisory Committee on Small and 

Minority Business (ITAC–11) 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice of a partially opened 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Industry Trade Advisory 

Committee on Small and Minority 

Business (ITAC–11) will hold a meeting 

on Monday, March 23, 2009, from 9 a.m. 

to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be closed 

to the public from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

and opened to the public from 1 p.m. to 

3:30 p.m. 

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for 

March 23, 2009, unless otherwise 

notified.