FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

NSF - 1208 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Proposal Review Panel for Physics	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	1208
Original Establishment Date	11/17/1992	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Deputy Division Director
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Dr.
Current Charter Date	6/28/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Michael
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/28/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Cavagnero
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(703) 292-7927
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	703-292-9452
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	mcavagne@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	8/16/1990
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	No
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	Panels were held to review proposals in all the programmatic areas supported by the Physics Division. The program areas included Elementary Particle Physics, Particle Astrophysics, Plasma Physics, Nuclear Physics, Gravitational Physics, Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, Physics of Living Systems, Quantum Information Science, and Integrative Activities in Physics. Special emphasis panels were also held to review proposals received through the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) solicitation, and both the preliminary proposals and then invited full proposals in response to the Physics Frontiers Centers solicitation. Site visit reviews were held by several programs to provide additional in-depth reviews of complex proposals. Site Visit reviews were also conducted to review ongoing progress or major milestones for Physics Frontiers Centers and other Centers supported by the Division, as well as selected midscale projects and Facilities. These reviews provide important input and advice to the NSF concerning these centers and projects and are critical to the oversight of these complex activities.
How is membership balanced?*	The membership of all review panels was selected to include individuals with scientific expertise in physics research, familiarity with the training process for young scientists, and, in the case of the technical reviews, advanced technical expertise in areas of construction, environmental impact, safety, and project management. Members were also selected to have a broad range of experience and viewpoints, including women and members of under-represented minorities, a mixture of junior and senior scientists, a variety of large and small institutions, and a geographical distribution from across the Nation.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The Division of Physics has deadline dates for each of the program areas and conducts at least one panel review a year per program upon receipt of proposals in the Division. In addition, at least one panel is generally convened each year for the REU and any other NSF-wide initiatives being held within that fiscal year.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	Proposals submitted to the Division programs, as well as those reviewed as part of NSF-wide activities, typically represent complex projects that require a broad range of expertise in physics research and education that no one person has. In addition, panel review in combination with mail review is used to provide better judgment regarding the merits of a proposal. Site visits constitute the most critical component of oversight of large-scale projects such as centers and facilities operations, which by their very nature require a breadth of input to reliably cover all aspects of the activity.
Why close or partially close meetings?	Proposals include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and personal information about individuals associated with the proposals. Closing a meeting maintains this confidentiality.
Recommendation Remarks	None

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	NA
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	653
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	289
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$732,017,232.00
Cost Savings Comment	The use of panelists to review proposals for the Agency is an invaluable asset. The cost of obtaining the expertise, insight, and information received by the Division using alternative methods, such as hiring the expertise as full or part-time employees, would be extremely high.	Grants Review Comment	The panelists/advisory committee members provided information on the merit of the proposal, which includes an overall rating.The number of proposals above include pre-proposals submitted to NSF for review. The pre-proposals are not included in the number of grants recommend or dollar value of grants recommended for approval.
Number Of Recommendations*	658	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	This is the approximate number of recommendations made in FY2024.	Access Agency Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	100.00%	Access Committee Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	The word implement is not applicable to grant review panels. All recommendations are considered by the agency.	Access GSA FACA Website	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	Not applicable. Please see answer directly above.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Although panelists may not receive direct feedback, each committee member may use the NSF Fastlane, a public web-based program, which provides information on awards made by the agency to determine the outcome of proposals reviewed by panel.	Narrative Description*	The NSF mission is set out in the NSF Act of 1950 authorizes and directs the Agency to initiate and support: basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process; and science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering. The involvement of knowledgeable peers from outside the Foundation in the review of proposals is the keystone of NSF's proposal review system. Their judgments of the extents to which proposals address the merit review criteria are vital for informing NSF staff and influencing funding recommendations.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/19/2025 11:02 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Basic Science Physics

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports