On June 8, 2026, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research issued NOT-OD-26-086, a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting public comment on a proposed policy that would cap the number of Research Project Grants (RPGs) an individual can hold simultaneously as Principal Investigator (PI) or Multi-Principal Investigator (MPI). The comment period closed August 3, 2026. As of this writing, NIH has not announced a final policy — the RFI is a pre-decisional input-gathering step, not an adopted rule, and research administrators should not treat any of the figures below as settled.
What NOT-OD-26-086 actually proposes
The notice asks for feedback on an outline for a possible cap on simultaneous RPGs per investigator, rather than a fully specified regulation. NIH frames the goal as broadening the base of funded investigators and countering what it characterizes as diminishing marginal scientific returns as grant funding concentrates in fewer PIs’ hands. The notice explicitly invites comment on three candidate cap levels rather than proposing a single number:
- Cap of 4 simultaneous RPGs — NIH estimates this would free roughly $1.28 billion, potentially supporting about 1,900 additional PIs.
- Cap of 3 simultaneous RPGs — estimated to free roughly $2.04 billion, potentially supporting about 3,020 additional PIs.
- Cap of 2 simultaneous RPGs — estimated to free roughly $3.53 billion, potentially supporting about 5,230 additional PIs.
These dollar and PI-count figures are NIH’s own projections included in the notice to illustrate the tradeoffs at each threshold — not a commitment to any particular number, and not a statement that any cap will be adopted at all.
What NIH is asking commenters to weigh in on
Per the notice, NIH grouped its request for feedback into three areas:
- Policy merits — the pros and cons of instituting any grant cap at all, including effects on scientific productivity, lab continuity, and training capacity.
- Optimal threshold — whether a cap, if adopted, should be set at 2, 3, or 4 simultaneous RPGs.
- Implementation strategies — the practical strengths and weaknesses of different ways to put a cap into effect, including how it would interact with Multi-PI awards, career-stage exceptions, and existing mechanisms like administrative supplements.
NIH situates the RFI within its broader Unified Funding Strategy, alongside other recent extramural-policy moves, and frames the goal as strengthening mentoring capacity and supporting early- and mid-career investigators specifically.
Why this matters for research administration now
Even though nothing is final, sponsored-programs offices, department chairs, and PIs with large, multi-award portfolios have reason to track this closely:
- Portfolio review. Institutions with PIs who currently hold more than 2–4 simultaneous RPGs (a status not uncommon at large research-intensive institutions, particularly for senior investigators running multiple R01s, a P01, or program-project components) may want to inventory how many faculty would be affected under each threshold, purely as contingency planning — not because any cap has been adopted.
- Succession and mentoring planning. If NIH does move toward a cap, one stated goal is to push more funding toward early- and mid-career PIs; research offices that already track mentee-to-mentor grant transitions have a head start.
- Distinguishing this from the 2025 indirect-cost dispute. This RFI is a separate policy track from NIH’s 2025 attempt to cap Facilities & Administrative (indirect cost) reimbursement rates, which CASRAI covered in detail (see NIH’s 15% Indirect Cost Cap: What It Meant and How the Fight Ended and NIH Indirect Cost Policy). The RPG-per-PI proposal caps the number of awards a person can lead, not the reimbursement rate on any given award — the two should not be conflated when briefing leadership.
Open questions the RFI does not resolve
NIH’s notice raises implementation questions it explicitly asks commenters to help answer, rather than pre-answering them. Based on the notice text, these include (among others) how a cap would treat Multi-PI awards where an individual is not the contact PI, whether any cap would apply prospectively only or affect currently active awards, whether administrative supplements and non-RPG mechanisms would count toward the limit, and whether there would be exceptions for large multi-component awards such as P01s. None of these has a published answer as of this notice’s comment deadline.
What happens next
NOT-OD-26-086 was a comment-gathering RFI, not a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a mandated response, and NIH gave no committed timeline in the notice for issuing a follow-up decision or draft policy. Research offices should watch the NIH Grants Policy Statement and the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts for any follow-up notice before assuming a cap — at any threshold, or at all — will actually take effect. This page will be treated as background on the RFI stage only; any subsequent CASRAI coverage of a finalized policy will be published separately once NIH actually issues one.
Frequently asked questions
Has NIH finalized a cap on simultaneous grants per PI?
No. NOT-OD-26-086 is a Request for Information seeking public comment on a proposed policy outline. The comment period closed August 3, 2026, but NIH had not announced a final decision or effective date as of that deadline.
What cap levels is NIH considering?
The notice asks for feedback on three candidate thresholds — 2, 3, or 4 simultaneous Research Project Grants per Principal Investigator or Multi-Principal Investigator — without committing to any one of them.
Is this the same as NIH’s indirect cost rate cap?
No. This RFI concerns how many grants one PI can lead at the same time. It is unrelated to NIH’s separate, contested 2025 proposal to cap Facilities & Administrative (indirect cost) reimbursement rates at 15%.
Where can I read the original notice?
The full text is published on the NIH Office of Extramural Research’s notice site as NOT-OD-26-086.
