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 - 1186 - Proposal Review Panel for Astronomical Sciences - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Proposal Review Panel for Astronomical Sciences	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	1186
Original Establishment Date	11/17/1988	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
Current Charter Date	6/28/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	James
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/28/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Neff
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(703) 292-8820
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	703/292-9034
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	jneff@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	11/29/1990
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?*	Panel deliberations resulted in the review and ranking of proposals in areas of special emphasis in the Division of Astronomical Sciences. This advice aided AST Program Managers in their funding decisions. Proposals were reviewed in the following programs: Astronomy & Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG), National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), CAREER, The Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (AAPF), Advanced Technology and Instrumentation Program (ATI), Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program (REU), Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Green Bank Observatory (GBO), NSF’s National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory (NOIRLab).
How is membership balanced?*	The makeup of the individual panels was well balanced. Represented were women and minorities, and large and small institutions. Consideration was also given to the geographic areas represented. Expertise was available in terms of subject matter and research experience in the subdisciplines.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	Each grant program in the Division of Astronomical Sciences has an annual deadline. This results in panel meetings for each program to review and rank the proposals. Periodic reviews are also held as part of the oversight and management of the national observatories.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	Because of the complex nature of many of these proposals, the give-and-take discussion about each of the proposals which results from panel meetings is necessary for a thorough review. No other source is available to us that has the required combination of expertise and experience.
Why close or partially close meetings?	Proposals reviewed included information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.
Recommendation Remarks	N/A

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	Yes
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	Yes
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	1,110
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	213
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$132,243,917.00
Cost Savings Comment	NA	Grants Review Comment	The panelists provide information on the merit of the proposals, which include an overall rating.
Number Of Recommendations*	1,124	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	Please note that the number of recommendation is for the fiscal year.	Access Agency Website	Yes
% 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 for award are considered by the Agency.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% 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 the panel.	Narrative Description*	The NSF mission is set out in the NSF Act of 1950 and 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 judgements of the extent 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 11:04 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Applied Science Applied Sciences Basic Science Basic Sciences Computer Technology Information Technology Education Education Environment Environmental Issues Science and Technology Science and Technology

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports