Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to
submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via
the NSF FastLane system.
Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to
this program 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:
http://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
nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to
identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on
the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance
with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal
processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay
processing.
Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to
this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in
accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the
Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text
of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website
and on the NSF website at: (
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide).
To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click
on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1:
Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter
the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF
prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov
Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse,
telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from
nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and
submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate
submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane
system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional
information on collaborative proposals.
Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will
check for required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant
Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG
requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited;
Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending
Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and
Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing,
FastLane will not accept the proposal.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this
program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation
instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the
proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that
states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable
FastLane to accept your proposal.
Proposal Cover Sheet
When preparing the cover page in FastLane, highlight the program solicitation
number for Ocean Acidification on the pull down list and click on the "Select"
button. Your proposal will automatically be assigned to the correct managing
division on the Cover Sheet. (Grants.gov users: The program solicitation number
will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page.)
The proposal title should begin with "Ocean
Acidification:".
Observational Networks, Long Term Sites, and Research
Centers
Where appropriate, investigators are encouraged to work in association with
existing projects, observational networks, long-term ecological research (LTER)
sites or research centers, or testing and evaluation facilities, whether
supported by NSF or other agencies, such as USEPA, USGS, USDA or NOAA.
Collaborations with international researchers are also encouraged; however,
international partners are expected to seek support from their respective
funding organizations.
Principal Investigators are advised to obtain letters of commitment that
affirm such collaborative activities. The project description should make clear
how the proposed work differs from and augments activities already supported.
Inclusion of Data Management Plan Required. Data Management
Plans must describe how metadata and data collected as part of the project will
be disseminated to the broader community, as well as plans for longer term
archiving of these data. Principal Investigators that propose to collaborate
with data centers or networks are advised to obtain letters of commitment that
affirm the collaboration. Where possible, all PIs are strongly encouraged to use
existing data centers and data portals to archive and disseminate their data.
All data collected by projects funded through this solicitation must be freely
and openly available to any interested investigator as soon as practical, but no
later than 12 months following collection. See the
NSF Grant
Proposal Guide for page limitations and additional guidance.
Budget Preparation Instructions: Research Platforms and Facilities
Requests
Budgets should be prepared in compliance with guidelines in the
GPG or
NSF
Grants.gov Application Guide. Budgets should include all costs charged to
the project for platforms and facilities supporting the proposed research except
those facilities separately supported by NSF (e.g. UNOLS research vessels,
research aircraft, or field equipment). For research involving UNOLS vessels, a
UNOLS ship request should be appended to proposals. Likewise, research
involving polar regions should follow established guidelines for requesting
logistical support, as discussed in the relevant proposal solicitations (for
Antarctic Sciences, see
NSF 13-527; for
Arctic Sciences, see
NSF
10-597). Principal investigators are responsible for filing the appropriate
requests for major research platforms; a copy of the request must be attached as
supplementary document to the proposal.
Investigators should anticipate and budget for funds to attend an annual PI
meeting for ocean acidification researchers. Inclusion of junior scientists
and postdoctoral researchers in these meetings is encouraged. The venue for
these meeting is likely to shift from the west coast to the east coast on
alternate years.
Conflicts of Interest Table Required
Proposals must include, in the single copy documents section, a table
containing a single alphabetized list of the full names (lastname, firstname)
and institutional affiliations of all people with conflicts of interest for all
senior personnel (PI and co-PIs) and any named personnel whose salary is
requested in the project budget. Conflicts to be identified are (1) Ph.D. thesis
advisors or advisees, (2) collaborators or co-authors, including postdoctoral
researchers, for the past 48 months, and (3) any other individuals with whom, or
institutions with which, the senior personnel (PI, co-PIs, and any named
personnel) have financial ties, including advisory committees (please specify
type). For each entry on the list, please specify the type of conflict.
B. Budgetary
Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing
is prohibited
C. Due Dates
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of
preparation and submission via FastLane are available at:
-
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 solicitation should be
referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this
funding opportunity.
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. Further instructions
regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at:
-
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register
to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's
organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website.
Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov
Applicant Resources webpage:
-
In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical
guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user
support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email:
support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact
Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov.
Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to
the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have
been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit
the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and
agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit
the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to
the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW
PROCEDURES
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for
acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals
are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF
Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as
ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular
fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program
Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to
suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review
the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These
suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the
Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional.
Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the
proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits
before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review
recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and
award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as
Exhibit
III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is
available on the NSF website at:
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the
fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in
These strategies are integrated in the program planning
and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission
is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and
education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and
activities.
One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission 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 variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities
and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that
are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which 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.
A. Merit Review Principles and
Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse
portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in
understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and
education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review
process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a
proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's
mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other
purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent
merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when
preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and
evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not
to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF
is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence
in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to
advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving
societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research
itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research
projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to,
the project. The project activities may be based on previously established
and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well
justified.
Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based
on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the
effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If
the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is
not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these
activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the
individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts
outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are
expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the
funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals,
specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in
place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review
criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better
understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board
approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ
additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain
programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below.
Both
criteria are to be given
full consideration during the review
and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by
itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria.
(
GPG
Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in
development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are
strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including
GPG
Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the
proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they
will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is
successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and
the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end,
reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion
encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses
the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific,
desired societal outcomes.
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
What is the potential for the proposed activity to
Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different
fields (Intellectual Merit); and
Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative,
original, or potentially transformative concepts?
Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned,
well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a
mechanism to assess success?
How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the
proposed activities?
Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home
organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the
activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through
activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF
values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to
achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not
limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and
underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased
public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology;
improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse,
globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia,
industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic
competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research
and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data
Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as
appropriate.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed
by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel 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.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of
appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant
Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for
award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals
have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time
interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is
later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program
Officer's 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 Officer. In addition,
the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline
funding.
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 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.B. 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
(GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other
NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter.
Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative
Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the
applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically
signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to
the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone
(703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important
information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF
Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available
electronically on the NSF Website at
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants),
the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant
Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period.
(Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports).
Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to
submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general
public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the
project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future
funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and
co-PIs on a given award. 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 Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project
reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project
participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific
products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov
constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate
and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted
using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically
for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be
posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other
important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the
NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available
electronically on the NSF Website at
VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time
of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of
contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
David L. Garrison, Program Director, Biological Oceanography, telephone:
(703) 292-7588, email:
dgarriso@nsf.gov
Candace O. Major, Program Director, Marine Geology & Geophysics,
telephone: (703) 292-7597, email:
cmajor@nsf.gov
Donald Rice, Program Director, Chemical Oceanography, telephone: (703)
292-7708, email:
drice@nsf.gov
Irwin Forseth, Program Director, Organism-Environment Interactions,
telephone: (703) 292-7862, email:
iforseth@nsf.gov
Lori Stevens, Program Director, Evolutionary Processes, telephone: (703)
292-2994, email:
losteven@nsf.gov
Charles Amsler, Program Manager, Antarctic Organisms and Ecosystems,
telephone: (703) 292-2461, email:
camsler@nsf.gov
Henrietta Edmonds, Program Director, Arctic Natural Sciences, telephone:
(703) 292-8029, email:
hedmonds@nsf.gov
Anna Manyak, Science Assistant, Chemical Oceanography, telephone: (703)
292-8474, email:
amanyak@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives
(AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of
submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail:
support@grants.gov.
IX. OTHER INFORMATION
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF
Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding
opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly
encouraged. In addition, "My NSF" is an information-delivery system designed to
keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF
funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award
policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF
Grants Conferences.
Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new
publications are issued that match their identified interests. "My NSF" also is
available on NSF's website at
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal
government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed
via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency
created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC
1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of
science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by
supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering.
It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000
colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science
organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation
accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for
basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education
and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition,
the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and
postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does
support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic
vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports
cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in
international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at
every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with
disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter
II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of
proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals
with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs,
employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and
(800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703)
292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in
the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements
for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of
NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
|
|
4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 |
- For General Information(NSF Information
Center):
|
(703) 292-5111 |
- TDD (for the hearing-impaired):
|
(703) 292-5090 |
- To Order Publications or Forms:
|
|
|
Send an e-mail to: |
nsfpubs@nsf.gov |
|
or telephone: |
(703) 292-7827 |
|
|
(703) 292-5111 |
|
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; and 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 proposer
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 or other entities needing
information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application
review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; 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," 69 Federal
Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and
NSF-51,
"Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May
12, 2004). 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 Office of Management
and Budget (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 the burden estimate and any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General
Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
The National Science Foundation (NSF),
Guillermo Gonzalo Sánchez Achutegui
