Print

Archived funding opportunity

This document has been archived. The latest version is NSF 13-568.

NSF 05-607: Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants in the Directorate for Biological Sciences (DDIG)

Program Solicitation

Document Information

Document History

Download the solicitation (PDF, 2.1mb)
View the program page

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY NSF 08-564

Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants in the Directorate for Biological Sciences (DDIG)

Program Solicitation
NSF 05-607
Replaces Document NSF 02-173

NSF Logo

National Science Foundation
Directorate for Biological Sciences
      Division of Environmental Biology
      Division of Integrative Organismal Biology



Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

    November 18, 2005

November 17, 2006

    November 16, 2007

Revisions And Updates

Major Changes to the Solicitation:

  1. Change in Program Participation: In the Division of Integrative Organismal Biology, the Environmental and Structural Systems Cluster will end participation in this competition. As a consequence, doctoral research in the areas of ecological and evolutionary physiology will generally not be eligible for Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants.
  1. New Supplementary Document Required: A statement labeled "Context for Improvement" is required as a Supplementary Document, not to exceed one page. This statement should contain a description of the research in the context of the student’s full Ph.D. project, and should detail how the NSF funding will substantially improve the project. This statement should also include an explanation of the relation of the student’s work to that of the advisor, including an explanation of how the funding requested for the proposed work will depart from funding for the advisor's own research.
  1. Changes to the Project Summary: The Project Summary is no longer limited to 200 words, but is now subject to the general requirements specified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide.
  1. Eligibility Requirements Clarified: Requirements for student eligibility have been clarified by the following additions (in italics):

  • A student must have advanced to candidacy for a Ph.D. degree before the submission deadline.

  • The proposal must contain, as a Supplementary Document, a statement limited to the following wording: “This student has advanced to candidacy for a Ph.D. degree.” This statement must be signed and dated by the department chairperson, graduate dean or similar administration official.

  1. Proposals with International Collaborations: Proposals involving collaboration with international scientists and students are encouraged. However, proposals with such collaborations are no longer allowed an additional page in the Project Description. Also, budgets for such proposals may no longer request support above the $12,000 upper limit.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants in the Directorate for Biological Sciences (DDIG)

Synopsis of Program:

The National Science Foundation awards Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants in selected areas of the biological sciences. These grants provide partial support of doctoral dissertation research to improve the overall quality of research. Allowed are costs for doctoral candidates to conduct research in specialized facilities or field settings away from the home campus, to participate in scientific meetings, and to provide opportunities for greater diversity in collecting and creativity in analyzing data than would otherwise be possible using only locally available resources.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

  • 47.074 --- Biological Sciences

Eligibility Information

  • Organization Limit: U.S. institutions and organizations that are eligible for awards from the National Science Foundation, including colleges, universities, and other nonprofit research organizations such as botanical gardens, marine and freshwater institutes, and natural history museums may submit proposals. The NSF encourages collaborations with scientists at foreign organizations; however, primary support for any foreign participants' activities must be secured through their own national sources.
  • PI Eligibility Limit: A student must have advanced to candidacy for a Ph.D. degree before the submission deadline to be eligible to submit a proposal. A statement that the student has advanced to candidacy for a Ph.D., signed and dated by the department chairperson, graduate dean, or similar administrative official is required (see "Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions"). The proposal must be submitted through regular organizational channels by the dissertation advisor(s) on behalf of a graduate student who is at the point of initiating or is already conducting dissertation research. The student must be enrolled at a U.S. institution, but need not be a U.S. citizen. Organizations should limit applications to outstanding dissertation proposals with unusual financial requirements that cannot be met otherwise. Preference may be given to projects that are underway and for which feasibility is demonstrated.
  • Limit on Number of Proposals: An organization may submit only one proposal per student in a given year. A student may receive only one DDIG award.

Award Information

  • Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant
  • Estimated Number of Awards: 120
  • Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,300,000 - Approximately $1.3 million annually, pending availability of funds.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
  • Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains information that deviates from the standard Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
B. Budgetary Information
  • Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required by NSF.
  • Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Indirect costs not allowed.
  • Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
C. Due Dates
  • Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
      November 18, 2005
      November 17, 2006
      November 16, 2007

Proposal Review Information

  • Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria apply.

Award Administration Information

  • Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.
  • Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

The National Science Foundation awards Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants in selected areas of the biological sciences. These grants provide partial support of doctoral dissertation research to improve the overall quality of research. Allowed are costs for doctoral candidates to conduct research in specialized facilities or field settings away from the home campus, to participate in scientific meetings, and to provide opportunities for greater diversity in collecting and creativity in analyzing data than would otherwise be possible using only locally available resources.

II. Program Description

Proposals whose focus falls within the scope of any cluster in the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) or in the scientific area of animal behavior supported by the Behavioral Systems Cluster in the Division of Integrative Organismal Biology (IOB) are eligible. Please note that DEB programs generally do not support research in marine ecology. The duration and grant amount are flexible but must be justified by the scope of work and documented in the proposal. Grants are typically awarded for periods up to 24 months and for amounts up to $12,000.

These awards are intended to provide supplemental funds for items not normally available from the student's university or other sources. They are not intended to provide the total costs of a student's dissertation research. Allowable items include travel to specialized facilities or field research locations and professional meetings, use of specialized research equipment, purchase of supplies and services not otherwise available, fees for computerized or other forms of data, and rental of environmental chambers or other research facilities.

Funds may be requested for research assistants in special circumstances and with special justification. Two primary examples of circumstances where such assistance may be requested include: 1) cases where simultaneous observation or data-recording is critical, yet impossible without assistance; and 2) cases where safety requires the presence of another person. These are only examples for illustration, and other types of situations will be considered if carefully justified in the proposal.

Funds may not be used for stipends, tuition, textbooks, journals, allowances for dependents, publication costs, dissertation preparation or reproduction, or indirect costs. The budget justification must explain why and how the requested funds are supplemental to funding from the university or other sources.

While the Foundation provides support for doctoral dissertation research, the awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation.

For purposes of this competition, NSF will not support research on the etiology, diagnosis, treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality, or malfunction. Studies of animal models for such conditions, the design and testing of drugs or other procedures for their treatment are also not eligible for support. For this competition, NSF does not support technical assistance, pilot plant efforts, research requiring security classification, the development of products for commercial marketing, or market research for a particular project or invention.

III. Eligibility Information

A student must have advanced to candidacy for a Ph.D. degree before the submission deadline to be eligible to submit a proposal. A statement that the student has advanced to candidacy for a Ph.D., signed and dated by the department chairperson, graduate dean, or similar administrative official, is required (see "Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions"). The proposal must be submitted through regular university channels by the dissertation advisor(s) on behalf of a graduate student who is at the point of initiating or is already conducting dissertation research. The student must be enrolled at a U.S. institution, but need not be a U.S. citizen. Organizations should limit proposals to outstanding dissertation proposals with unusual financial requirements that cannot be met otherwise. Preference may be given to projects that are underway and for which feasibility is demonstrated. An organization may submit only one proposal per student in a given year. A student may receive only one DDIG award.

IV. Award Information

Under this solicitation, proposals may be submitted for amounts up to $12,000. NSF expects to fund 120 standard 24-month awards depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds. The duration and grant amount are flexible but must be justified by the scope of the work and documented in the proposal. Approximately $1,300,000 is available annually, pending availability of funds. The anticipated date of awards: June.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Instructions:

Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement/solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF Website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

The following instructions for Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants supplement the GPG Guidelines. Information about all Principal Investigators / Project Directors, Co-PIs / Co-PDs, and the student should be provided.

1. Cover Page

  • Begin the Project Title on the Cover Page with "DISSERTATION RESEARCH:" followed by a brief title of the dissertation research project.

  • List the primary dissertation advisor as the "PI / PD" and list the student and other advisors as "CO-PI / CO-PD".

2. Project Description

  • This section is limited to 8 single-spaced pages including figures and tables.

  • The main body of the proposal should present in sufficient detail to permit evaluation: a description of the overall dissertation project including its design and scientific significance, progress to date, and what new data would be collected with the grant, including its design and analysis, that would otherwise not be gathered.

  • The "Results from Prior NSF Support" section is not required.

3. Budget Justification

In the Budget Justification explain the need for each budget item requested in the context of the proposed research project and why the institution cannot provide it. For instance, a request for per diem allowance for time away from a home base to conduct research should be carefully justified in terms of only those living costs in excess of those in the vicinity of the home campus or institution. A proposal may be returned if justification for budget items is missing or insufficient.

4. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

  • Scan all Special Information and Supplementary Documentation and transfer as PDF in the "Supplementary Docs" form of FastLane. YOU MUST INCLUDE A STATEMENT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING WORDING: "THIS STUDENT HAS ADVANCED TO CANDIDACY FOR A Ph.D. DEGREE". This statement must be signed and dated by the department chairperson, graduate dean or similar administration official. Candidacy must be achieved before the submission deadline. If the institution does not grant candidacy or where candidacy is conferred near the completion of the degree period, an explanation, signed by one of the officials noted above, must be provided.

  • A statement labeled Context for Improvement is required as a Supplementary Document, not to exceed one page. This statement must include a description of the research in the context of the student’s full Ph.D. project, and should detail how the NSF funding will substantially improve the project. This description should also include an explanation of the relation of the student’s work to that of the advisor, including an explanation of how the funding requested for the proposed work will depart from funding for the advisor's own research.

  • While letters of collaboration or agreement to provide access to facilities are allowed as supplementary documents, no letters of general recommendation are permitted.

Proposers cannot submit similar dissertation proposals simultaneously to programs in both the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) and the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE). Where proposals submitted to BIO involve an affiliation with a foreign research institution, OISE and BIO program officers will coordinate a single review. Proposers should include documentation of that affiliation as a Supplementary Document.

Proposals received after the deadline, or proposals that do not comply with guidelines specified in this solicitation and the relevant portions of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide will be returned unreviewed.

Proposers are reminded to identify the program announcement/solicitation number (05-607) in the program announcement/solicitation block on the proposal Cover Sheet. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is not required by NSF in proposals submitted under this Program Solicitation.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Indirect costs not allowed.

Other Budgetary Limitations: Up to $12,000 for 24 months.

C. Due Dates

Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

    November 18, 2005
    November 17, 2006
    November 16, 2007
For electronic submission of proposals, the proposal MUST be submitted on the deadline by 5:00 PM, submitter's time.

D. FastLane Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this announcement/solicitation through the FastLane system. Detailed instructions for proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program announcement/solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this announcement/solicitation.

Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Proposers are no longer required to provide a paper copy of the signed Proposal Cover Sheet to NSF. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov

VI. Proposal Review Information

A. NSF Proposal Review Process

Reviews of proposals submitted to NSF are solicited from peers with expertise in the substantive area of the proposed research or education project. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. NSF invites the proposer to suggest, at the time of submission, the names of appropriate or inappropriate reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts with the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from non-academic institutions, minority-serving institutions, or adjacent disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal.

The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127, Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making funding decisions.

In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January 2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators (PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.

Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.

The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed below (see the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information). The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which he/she is qualified to make judgments.

    What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
    How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
    What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
    How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

    Integration of Research and Education
    One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.
    Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
    Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard

All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be reviewed by Panel Review, in some cases supplemented by Mail Review .

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Director. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

NSF is striving to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the closing date of an announcement/solicitation, or the date of proposal receipt, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program Division administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See section VI.A. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (NSF-GC-1); * or Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreement awards are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC). Electronic mail notification is the preferred way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have electronic mail capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of Grants and Agreements.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/. Paper copies of these documents may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpm. The GPM is also for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO for subscription information is (202) 512-1800. The GPM may be ordered through the GPO Website at http://www.gpo.gov.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.

The Principal Investigator shall provide a summary, in the "Special Requirements" section of the final report, of all permits, licenses or other necessary approvals associated with specimen collection. The information should include the names of all permits/licenses/necessary approvals, the granting authority, date acquired, duration, and the purpose of the permit/license/approval.

Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to submit a final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports delays NSF review and processing of pending proposals for the PI and all Co-PIs. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. This system permits electronic submission and updating of project reports, including information on project participants (individual and organizational), activities and findings, publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.

VIII. Contacts For Additional Information

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

Students doing international research, having a formal affiliation with a foreign research institution, may contact the appropriate program in NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering.

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

IX. Other Programs Of Interest

The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and education in science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF Guide to Programs is available electronically at https://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gp. General descriptions of NSF programs, research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are provided in each chapter.

Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific proposal requirements. To obtain additional information about these requirements, contact the appropriate NSF program offices. Any changes in NSF's fiscal year programs occurring after press time for the Guide to Programs will be announced in the NSF E-Bulletin, which is updated daily on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/home/ebulletin, and in individual program announcements/solicitations. Subscribers can also sign up for NSF's MyNSF News Service (https://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/) to be notified of new funding opportunities that become available.

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. Awardees are wholly responsible for conducting their project activities and preparing the results for publication. Thus, the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation.

NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit eligibility.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. See the GPG Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

а

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to applicant institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies needing information as part of the review process or in order to coordinate programs; and to another Federal agency, court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230.

OMB control number: 3145-0058.

Top