Notice2026-10684
Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education; Committee Renewal
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 29, 2026
Effective
June 26, 2026
Issuing agencies
National Science Foundation
Abstract
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is renewing the committee for Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 103 (Friday, May 29, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32115-32116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10684]
[[Page 32115]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education; Committee Renewal
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Committee Management Renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is renewing the
committee for Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education.
DATES: NSF approves the continuation of this committee on 4/20/2026.
Effective date for renewal is June 26, 2026. For more information,
please contact Crystal Robinson, NSF, at (703) 292-8687.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Robinson, Committee Management
Officer, NSF, at (703) 292-8687, or by mail to National Science
Foundation, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NSF management officials having
responsibility for the advisory committee listed below have determined
that renewing this committee for another two years is necessary and in
the public interest in connection with the performance of duties
imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42
U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This determination follows consultation with the
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
Committee
Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education, #57
Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew,
reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory
committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services
Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat)
and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest
determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat
with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition,
pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same
consultation process and document in writing the same determination of
need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee
that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee.
Information on the following factors for the committee is provided to
the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the committee is in the
public interest:
1. Annual budget: $633,000.
a. Federal personnel on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis: 5.0
FTE.
b. Other Federal internal costs: $4,000.
c. Proposed payments to members: $619,000.
d. Proposed number of members: 4,000.
e. Reimbursable costs: $10,000.
2. If applicable, the total dollar value of grants expected to be
recommended during the fiscal year: $103,357,582.
3. Criteria for selecting members to ensure the committee has the
necessary.
Committee members are selected based on their scientific and
technical expertise, professional experience, and ability to provide
informed, objective advice on proposals within the Integrative Graduate
Education, Research Training proposals and Graduate Research
Fellowships Applications. Membership is drawn from a broad range of
disciplines to ensure representation of the scientific areas
encompassed by the committee's review portfolio. The committee which
can consists of up to 4,000 members held over 108 meetings. The subject
matter and volume of proposals to be reviewed determines the number of
members participating in any given meeting. Every effort is made to
ensure balanced membership, including representation across scientific
disciplines, institutions, and geographic regions. Members are selected
to provide complementary perspectives and the depth of technical
expertise necessary to conduct thorough and credible proposal reviews.
The committee members are anticipated to be comprised of Special
Government Employees (SGEs) with a small percentage of Regular
Government Employees (RGEs) when subject matter expertise requires.
4. List of all other Federal advisory committees of the agency:
84684 Advisory Committee for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships
1172 Alan T. Waterman Award Committee
13883 Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee
1173 Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering
1186 Proposal Review Panel for Astronomical Sciences
10751 Proposal Review Panel for Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
10747 Proposal Review Panel for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
10743 Proposal Review Panel for Biological Infrastructure
1189 Proposal Review Panel for Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental,
and Transport Systems
1191 Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry
1194 Proposal Review Panel for Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing
Innovation
1207 Proposal Review Panel for Computer and Network Systems
1192 Proposal Review Panel for Computing & Communication Foundations
1185 Proposal Review Panel for Cyberinfrastructure
1569 Proposal Review Panel for Earth Sciences
1196 Proposal Review Panel for Electrical, Communications, and Cyber
Systems
44011 Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers in Biological
Sciences
173 Proposal Review Panel for Engineering Education and Centers
10744 Proposal Review Panel for Environmental Biology
1756 Proposal Review Panel for Geosciences
34558 Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers and
Multidisciplinary Activities
1200 Proposal Review Panel for Information and Intelligent Systems
84685 Proposal Review Panel for Innovation and Technology Ecosystems
2469 Proposal Review Panel for Integrative Activities
10745 Proposal Review Panel for Integrative Organismal Systems
10749 Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering
1203 Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research
1204 Proposal Review Panel for Mathematical Sciences
10746 Proposal Review Panel for Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
10752 Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences
1208 Proposal Review Panel for Physics
1209 Proposal Review Panel for Polar Programs
59 Proposal Review Panel for Research on Learning in Formal and
Informal Settings
10748 Proposal Review Panel for Social and Economic Sciences
1766 Proposal Review Panel for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
84683 Proposal Review Panel for Translational Impacts
1214 Proposal Review Panel for Undergraduate Education
5. Justification that the information or advice provided by the
Federal advisory committee or subcommittee is not
[[Page 32116]]
available from another Federal advisory committee, another Federal
Government source, or any other more cost-effective and less burdensome
source.
Panel review can provide judgments about the comparative merits
within a group of proposals or within a single complex or
multidisciplinary proposal. Panel discussion is more appropriate in
cases such as the selection of graduate research traineeships than is
ad hoc mail review. This advisory committee conducts meetings to
provide technical expertise relevant to the proposals being reviewed.
In order to conduct thorough review of proposals the committee members
must select members that have a wide range of scientific and technical
expertise.
6. If the consultation is a committee renewal, a summary of the
previous accomplishments of the committee and the reasons it needs to
continue.
Committees review, evaluate, and provide written assessments of
thousands of research and training proposals and applications to
support program officer recommendations in allocating funds. Committees
have been instrumental in identifying submissions that will advance
cutting-edge research, training and workforce development initiatives
that address national needs, strengthen U.S. STEM leadership, and
advance fundamental and applied research. Past committees have
recognized that addressing the grand challenges in science and
engineering requires interdisciplinary and convergent approaches, as
well as broad professional training, and have identified submissions
that will enable NSF to address these challenges, especially in high-
priority areas, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology,
quantum information science, semiconductors and microelectronics and
advanced manufacturing and materials science. Committees have also
identified critical gaps in research priorities, and they have
supported NSF's discovery of STEM talent who will achieve high levels
of success in their future academic and professional careers. Convening
interdisciplinary research and education expertise for review is
critical to efforts to break down disciplinary silos and to ensure the
appropriate integration of research and education. Finally, one example
of how these committees have helped identify opportunities to advance
cutting-edge research, training and workforce development initiatives
includes that our panel meetings have identified opportunities to
strengthen STEM graduate education and graduate education research by
identifying gaps in the NSF portfolio, e.g., the STEM graduate
education community's growing readiness to pursue more systemic
interventions and analyses that resulted in expanded opportunities in
the Innovations in Graduate Education (IGE) program.
7. Explanation of why the committee/subcommittee is essential to
the conduct of agency business.
The Proposal Review Panel for Graduate Education committee #57 is
essential to the conduct of agency business as they align with the
agency's usage of the merit review process and criteria in keeping with
42 U.S. Code Sec. 1862s, which outlines that ``the Foundation's
intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria are appropriate for
evaluating grant proposals'' and directs the Foundation to ``maintain
the intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria, among other
specific criteria as appropriate, as the basis for evaluating grant
proposals in the merit review process.'' NSF's mission, as described in
the 1950 NSF act, is ``to promote the progress of science, advance
national health, prosperity, and welfare, and secure the national
defense. This is achieved by investing in research to expand knowledge
in science, engineering, and education, and by increasing the capacity
of the U.S. to conduct and benefit from such research. Merit review
panels under this FACA committee serves as the basis for the gold
standard merit review to support the most compelling research to
advance the NSF mission.
This public interest determination documents that renewing the
committee is essential to the conduct of agency business and that the
information to be obtained is not already available through another
advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.
Dated: May 26, 2026.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2026-10684 Filed 5-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 29, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.