This document is a formal response jointly submitted by the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities (APLU), and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Financial Assistance Regulations concerning Conflict of Interest (COI) and Conflict of Commitment (COC) policy requirements. The associations express strong support for efforts that promote the integrity and unbiased nature of federally funded research but raise serious concerns about the NPRM’s approach. Primarily, they argue that the proposal to require institutions to develop a separate, stand-alone COC policy is unnecessary and duplicative, given that DOE already addresses these concerns through current and pending (other) support disclosure mechanisms, as outlined by existing federal guidance such as NSPM-33 and the Common Disclosure Forms developed in coordination with other agencies. Imposing a separate policy would not align with harmonization goals, would add significant and unjustified administrative burdens, especially on smaller institutions, and offers no clear benefit over current practices.
Additionally, the associations criticize DOE’s departure from its Interim COI Policy, which is closely modeled on the Public Health Service (PHS) regulations and facilitates cross-agency consistency and reduced administrative burden. They contend that the NPRM introduces substantive differences that would force institutions to establish new, DOE-specific COI policies and processes, eroding harmonization efforts and complicating compliance for researchers who work with multiple funding agencies. The response provides detailed commentary on specific provisions and definitions within the NPRM, urging DOE to adopt standardized language from federal guidance documents and to remove or modify requirements that are either overly broad, unnecessary, or impractical to implement. The associations conclude that the most effective path would be for DOE to retain and finalize the Interim Policy with suggested improvements, thereby ensuring regulatory consistency, minimizing institutional burden, and continuing to address both COI and COC concerns through mechanisms that are already robust and understood across the research community.
