Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

Title of Proposed Collection: National Science Foundation Proposal

Evaluation Process.

In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the National Science Foundation

(NSF) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. Such a

notice was published at Federal Register 42371, dated August 14, 1996.

No public comments were received.

The materials are now being sent to OMB for review. Send any

written comments to Desk Officer: OMB No. 3145-0060, OIRA, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments should be

received by November 18, 1996.

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.

Proposed project. Proposal Evaluation Process. The missions of the

NSF are to: increase the Nation's base of scientific and engineering

knowledge and strengthen its ability to support research in all areas

of science and engineering; promote innovative science and engineering

education programs that can better prepare the Nation to meet the

challenges of the future; and promote international cooperation in

science and engineering. The Foundation is also committed to ensuring

the Nation's supply of scientists, engineers, and science educators. In

its role as leading Federal supporter of science and engineering, NSF

also has an important role in national policy planning.

The Foundation fulfills this responsibility by initiating and

supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the

scientific and engineering disciplines. This support is made primarily

through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to

approximately 2,800 colleges, universities, academic consortia,

nonprofit institutions, and small businesses.

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 one-fourth are reviewed by mail

reviewers alone. Another one-forth are reviewed exclusively by panels

of reviewers who gather, usually in Washington, to discuss their advice

as well as to deliver it. The remaining one-half 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.

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) Research performance

competence; (2) Intrinsic merit of the research; (3) Utility or

relevance of the research; and (4) Effect of the research on the

infrastructure of science and engineering.

The information collected on reviewer background questionnaires is

used by managers to maintain an automated data base of reviewers for

the many disciplines represented by the proposals submitted to the

Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, ethnicity is used in

meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to congressional and

other queries into equity issues. These data are also used in the

design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the

participation on various groups in science, engineering, and education.

Confidentiality. Verbatim but anonymous copies of reviews are sent

to the principal investigators/project directors. Subject to this NSF

policy and applicable laws, including the Freedom of Information Act,

reviewers' comments will be given maximum protection from disclosure.

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 race, ethnicity, disability, and gender.

This information is also protected by the Privacy Act.

Burden on the Public. The Foundation 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 seven reviews.

Dated: October 15, 1996.

Herman G. Fleming,

Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 96-26842 Filed 10-18-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M