Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Anonymous
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the inclusion of language in the GFA that grants Tribes veto power over NSF proposals they deem to have an adverse impact. They argue that this requirement creates an unfunded administrative burden on Tribes and creates practical hurdles for researchers, while also contradicting certain executive policies.
Why does the GFA continue the relatively recent PAPPG policy (initiated in May 2024, in 24-1) of giving Tribes (now including Alaska Native Corporations) veto power over proposals to NSF that the Tribes deem to have an adverse impact Tribal "interests and resources" (which are not defined)? This seems to be counter to the Trump Administration's policy of not giving special treatment to any subset of Americans, and to the guidance in the "Gold Standard Science" Executive Order. As written in the GFA, before NSF can award funding, proponents must receive prior written approval from any Tribe that considers the proposed research to impact them. Think of the practical implications here. If a PI wanted to study salmon from the Yukon River in Alaska, for example, how many Tribes must the PI contact (and hear back from), given that there are 229 federally recognized Tribes in Alaska (and many more Alaska Native Corporations)? And this also places a significant and unfunded burden on Tribes to adjudicate all the proposals. Will NSF provide funding to Tribes to do this work? Please just eliminate this language, which didn't appear in the PAPPG until 2024 (v. 24-1). No other federal agency that funds research has any similar language on granting Tribes veto power over federal funding authority.