NSF 15-567: Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL)

Program Solicitation NSF 15-567

		National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences      Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering      Division of Information & Intelligent Systems Directorate for Geosciences      Division of Polar Programs Directorate for Education & Human Resources      Division of Human Resource Development
		National Endowment for the Humanities

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

     September 15, 2015

     September 15, Annually Thereafter

Important Information And Revision Notes

This revision of the DEL solicitation includes the following changes:

• A new partnership with the Directorate for Education and Human Resources to support DEL proposals that have PIs from institutions of higher education that are eligible for support from the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) or that involve scholarly training and research engagement of student and faculty at TCUP-eligible institutions.
• A new funding mechanism for collaborative proposals with the NSF Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUP) program.
• An increase in direct costs for DEL Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DDRIGs) from $12,000 to $15,000.

This solicitation includes information for Senior, Fellowship, and DDRIG proposals. The applicant should read the sections relevant to the type of proposal submitted.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 16-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 25, 2016.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL)
data, infrastructure and computational methods

Synopsis of Program:

This funding partnership between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) supports projects to develop and advance knowledge concerning endangered human languages. Made urgent by the imminent death of roughly half of the approximately 7000 currently used languages, this effort aims to exploit advances in information technology to build computational infrastructure for endangered language research. The program supports projects that contribute to data management and archiving, and to the development of the next generation of researchers. Funding can support fieldwork and other activities relevant to the digital recording, documenting, and archiving of endangered languages, including the preparation of lexicons, grammars, text samples, and databases. Funding will be available in the form of one- to three-year senior research grants as well as fellowships from six to twelve months and doctoral dissertation research improvement grants for up to 24 months.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Colleen Fitzgerald - NSF Contact, telephone: (703) 292-4381, email: cfitzger@nsf.gov

• Mary Downs - NEH Contact, Senior Program Officer, Preservation & Access, National Endowment for the Humanities, telephone: (202) 606-8456, email: mdowns@neh.gov

• Jane Aikin - NEH Contact, Director, Division of Research Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities, telephone: (202) 606-8212, email: jaikin@neh.gov

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

• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Fellowship or Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 26 to 30

26 - 30 including up to 12 Fellowships

Anticipated Funding Amount: $4,500,000

Approximately $4.5 million (approximately $3.5 million from NSF and $1 million from NEH), this is the total for awards to be made annually pending availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
• Unaffiliated Individuals: Scientists, engineers or educators in the U.S. who are U.S. citizens.
• Tribal organizations and other American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian serving organizations.

Who May Serve as PI:

For SENIOR RESEARCH GRANTS: No eligibility limit.

For FELLOWSHIPS: U.S. citizens are eligible to apply for fellowships. Foreign nationals who have been living in the United States or its jurisdictions for at least the three years prior to the proposal deadline are also eligible to apply for fellowships. Applicants can be affiliated with an institution or be an unaffiliated individual. Applicants need not have advanced degrees. Individuals currently enrolled in a degree-granting program are ineligible to apply. Applicants who have satisfied all the requirements for a degree and are awaiting its conferral are eligible for DEL Fellowships; but such applicants need a letter from the dean of the conferring school or their department chair attesting to the applicant’s status as of the DEL deadline listed in this solicitation. This signed letter should be uploaded in FastLane as a “Supplementary Document”.

For DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS: The PI must be the advisor of the doctoral student or a faculty member at the U.S. university where the doctoral student is enrolled. The doctoral student will be the Co-PI.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

SENIOR RESEARCH GRANTS and FELLOWSHIPS: One proposal per cycle per prospective PI for senior research grants and fellowships.

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS: There is no limitation on the number of times that a graduate advisor may be the principal investigator on a DDRIG proposal submitted to the DEL Program, either during a specific competition or over the course of her/his career.

However, doctoral students are limited to two DDRIG submissions in the course of their graduate careers.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. 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.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  NEH does not reimburse grantee U.S. academic institutions for the indirect costs associated with fellowship research.

• Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

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

       September 15, 2015

       September 15, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

Roughly half of the world's seven thousand languages are endangered and risk extinction. These endangered languages constitute an irreplaceable treasure, not only for the communities who speak them, but also for scientists and scholars.

• The great variety of these languages represents a vast, largely unmapped terrain on which linguists, anthropologists, and cognitive scientists can chart the full capabilities and limits of the human mind.
• Each endangered language embodies unique local knowledge of the cultures and natural systems in the region in which it is spoken.
• These languages are among the few sources of evidence for filling in the record of the human past.

Since the discipline of linguistics is a responsibility both of the National Science Foundation and of the National Endowment for the Humanities, addressing the imminent loss of linguistic knowledge is a major concern and a priority for both agencies.

Recent advances in information technology can facilitate prompt and coordinated fieldwork. These advances make it possible not only to document endangered languages before they fall silent, but also to integrate and analyze that body of knowledge in unprecedented ways. Computerization of speech and universal Internet access is transforming the practice of linguistics in the area of endangered languages.

• Linguists will be able to work from the same data sets rather than from informally collected data.
• The data will be searchable in a large variety of ways. For example, finding all occurrences of a particular phoneme in a database will become feasible.
• he recorded sounds of a language will be available. Linguists will be able to check written transcriptions; they will be able to focus more attention on such matters as intonation in syntax.
• Interoperable digital repositories will be created.
• Interoperability will drive the development of a unified ontology for linguistics, eventually replacing inconsistent descriptive terminologies.

The endangered languages belong to highly divergent language families, which often present the most extreme cases of language differentiation.

• This wider range of data will enable linguists to achieve much greater time depth, for example, in using the comparative method to reconstruct proto-languages.
• It will enable linguists to test more precisely claims about linguistic universals and about what humans can learn.
• It will enable computer scientists to test known computational methods and statistical computational tools, and to develop new ones.

A coordinated, sustained, and technologically sophisticated interagency initiative by these U.S. partner agencies is intended to complement efforts already underway elsewhere in the world sponsored by organizations in the UK (http://www.hrelp.org/) as well as by UNESCO (http://en.unesco.org/).

II. Program Description

Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL) is a joint funding program of the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities to develop and advance scientific and scholarly knowledge concerning endangered human languages. Made urgent by the imminent death of roughly half of the approximately 7000 currently used human languages, DEL seeks not only to acquire scientific data that will soon be unobtainable, but to integrate, systematize, and make the resulting linguistic findings widely available by exploiting advances in information technology.

Principal Investigators (PIs) and Applicants for Fellowships (Applicants) may propose projects involving one or more of the following three emphasis areas:

1. Language Description

to conduct fieldwork to record in digital audio and video format one or more endangered languages; to carry out the early stages of language documentation including transcription and annotation; to carry out later stages of documentation including the preparation of lexicons, grammars, text samples, and databases; to conduct initial analysis of findings in the light of current linguistic theory.

2. Infrastructure

to digitize and otherwise preserve and provide wider access to such documentary materials, including previously collected materials and those concerned with languages which have recently lost all fluent speakers and are related to currently endangered languages; to create other infrastructures, including workshops and conferences to make the problem of endangered languages more widely understood and more effectively addressed.

3. Computational Methods

to further develop standards and databases to make this documentation of a certain language or languages widely available in consistent, archivable, interoperable, and Web-based formats; to develop computational tools for endangered languages, which present an additional challenge for statistical tools (taggers, grammar induction tools, parsers, etc.) since they do not have the large corpora for training and testing the models used to develop those tools; to develop new approaches to building computational tools for endangered languages, based on deeper knowledge of linguistics, language typology and families, which require collaboration between theoretical and field linguists and computational linguists (computer scientists).

Accomplishing the goals of the DEL program may require multidisciplinary research teams and comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches across the sciences, engineering, education, and humanities, as appropriate. Interdisciplinary research combining the expertise of scientists expands the rewards of language documentation. In each emphasis area, DEL encourages collaboration across academic disciplines and /or communities. For example, a DEL project might pair linguists with computer scientists, geographers, anthropologists, educators and others as appropriate. Examples of community collaborations might include scholars working in well-defined partnerships with native speaker communities. DEL also encourages investigators to include in their projects innovative plans for training native speakers in descriptive linguistics and new technologies which support the documentation of endangered languages. The DEL program is also interested in contributing to a new generation of scholars through targeted supplements, which support both graduate and undergraduate research experience. DEL gives high priority to projects that involve actually recording in digital audio and video format endangered languages before they become extinct.

Proposed projects may range from a single investigator working for six months to a team of investigators working for three years.

Documentation is a key complement to language revitalization efforts, but DEL does not support projects to revive or expand the actual use of endangered languages. Tribal groups interested in the full range of language revitalization activities should contact the Native Language Program of the Administration for Native Americans in the Administration for Children & Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana/programs/native-language-preservation-maintenance).

However, the DEL program does encourage investigators from TCUP-eligible institutions to submit either

• Senior proposals
• Collaborative proposals from consortia of TCUP-eligible institutions and partnering universities with educational or research ties to TCUP-eligible institutions’ faculty or students (see “eligibility information” for definition of qualifying TCUP institutions). While one TCUP-eligible institution may be identified to take the lead on organizational activities, each institution will independently manage its award.

Examples of collaborations with TCUP-eligible institutions may include:

• Building TCU institutions' research and scholarly training capacity in documentary and descriptive linguistics, computational methodology, archiving and preservation;
• Attracting, retraining, and supporting TCU students in independent research endeavors;
• Non-TCU institutions providing research training to enable the successful transition of TCU students to major research universities.

Roles of the Partner Agencies

All DEL proposals will be accepted and processed by means of either the NSF FastLane system or Grants.gov. All DEL proposals will receive ad hoc and then panel review within the NSF review process. Reviewers will be chosen jointly by NSF and NEH staff. Proposers will be asked to address, and reviewers asked to apply, the two NSF merit review criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

The estimated number of awards to be funded by NSF and NEH is 26 to 30. All the fellowships will be funded by NEH (up to 12) and two to four senior research grants will also be funded and administered by NEH. Proposers of the projects identified for NEH funding will be instructed on how to submit documentation to NEH in order to process the award and their proposal will be withdrawn from FastLane by NSF. All other DEL awards will be funded and administered by NSF.

III. Award Information

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. However, it is expected that approximately $4.5 million in funding will be available annually (approximately $3.5 million from NSF and $1 million from NEH).

At least half of the available funding will be awarded to projects involving fieldwork.

Funding will be available not only in the form of senior research standard and continuing grants, but also as fellowships, doctoral dissertation research improvement grants, and supplements which support both graduate and undergraduate research experience.

Award Size and Duration

Senior Research Projects: Approximately 8-12 Standard or Continuing Grants ranging from $12,000 to $150,000 per year for one to three years.

DDRIGs: Approximately 6, duration of up to 24 months with a maximum of $15,000 in direct costs. Indirect costs are in addition to this maximum direct cost limitation and are subject to the awardee's current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate.

Fellowships: Up to 12, $4,200 per month for awards lasting from six to twelve months; the maximum stipend is $50,400 for a twelve-month tenure period.

Special Fellowship Conditions

A Fellowship award of $4,200 per month will support a six-to twelve-month full-time individual tenure. Proposers should request tenure periods that suit their schedules and the needs of their projects. A request for a shorter tenure period will not improve chances of receiving an award. The earliest that Fellows may begin their fellowship tenure is June 1 of the award year. The latest that Fellows may begin their fellowship tenure is 15 months later on September 1. Recipients must complete their fellowship tenure within two years of the beginning of the fellowship tenure. An award recipient must work full-time on the project and may not accept a teaching assignment or undertake any other major activity.

Time devoted to the project may be divided into no more than two separate periods of no less than three months each.

Fellowship proposals may be submitted not only by individuals but also by two persons working together on a single project. Both of them must be eligible to submit proposals for fellowships under this program solicitation; see Section IV of this solicitation for eligibility information. In dual proposals, both the unifying purpose of the project and contributions to be made by each proposer must be clear. Awards will not be made for parallel but unintegrated projects. All fellowships will be awarded to individuals, so two persons working together on a single project must each submit a separate proposal.

Fellowships awarded under this program are not intended to support pre-Ph.D. course work or completion of a degree.

All fellowships will be awarded and administered by the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Special Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant Conditions

As part of its effort to encourage and support projects that explicitly integrate education and basic research, the DEL Program provides support to enhance and improve the dissertation projects conducted by doctoral students enrolled in U.S. universities in DEL and associated fields.

This solicitation provides instructions for preparing proposals for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRIG) awards to the DEL Program. It replaces instructions that had been included in the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (SBE-DDRIG) solicitation (NSF 11-547) and the DEL solicitation (NSF 14-580).

All DDRIG proposals recommended for funding by the DEL Program must clearly demonstrate how the proposed research will contribute to the advancement of the basic science of language and DEL.

DDRIGs are not intended to provide the full costs of a student's doctoral dissertation research. DDRIGs recommended by the DEL Program will not exceed $15,000 in allowable direct costs over the duration of the award. Indirect costs are in addition to this maximum direct cost limitation and are subject to the awardee's current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate. Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted and may only include costs directly associated with the conduct of dissertation research.

DDRIGs provide funding for research costs not normally covered by the student's university. Examples of the kinds of expenses that may be included in a DDRIG proposal budget are the following:

• Costs associated with travel and related expenses to conduct research at field sites, archives, specialized collections, and/or facilities away from the student's campus.
• Costs for data-collection activities, including the conduct of experiments, surveys and/or questionnaires.
• Costs for securing data and for archiving data.
• Costs for equipment necessary for the conduct of the project that will be devoted to the project over the duration of the award. (Note that any equipment purchased with NSF funds becomes property of the awardee organization.)
• Costs for payments to research subjects and/or language informants
• Costs for materials and supplies required for the conduct of the project.
• Costs for travel to one domestic professional meeting to present preliminary research results and obtain feedback to further improve the project. (Note budgetary limitations specified below in Section V.B of this solicitation. Note also that the DEL Program will not recommend a DDRIG solely to provide support to share research results at conferences.)

Costs that cannot be reimbursed by DDRIGs include the following:

• A stipend or salary for the doctoral student or advisor. (Note that salaries or payments for work by other individuals whose assistance may be essential to the conduct of the project may be permitted when there is sound justification for such expenses.)
• Costs for tuition, textbooks, or other items not directly related to the conduct of dissertation research.
• Publication costs for articles based on the dissertation, except when the university's degree requirements permit the substitution of published research results for a free-standing dissertation.
• Costs for travel of the dissertation advisor(s) to the field site and/or professional meetings.

DDRIGs may be for one or two years in duration. The dissertation does not have to be completed during that time period, but costs associated with research activities to be reimbursed with DDRIG funds must be incurred while the award is active.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
• Unaffiliated Individuals: Scientists, engineers or educators in the U.S. who are U.S. citizens.
• Tribal organizations and other American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian serving organizations.

Who May Serve as PI:

For SENIOR RESEARCH GRANTS: No eligibility limit.

For FELLOWSHIPS: U.S. citizens are eligible to apply for fellowships. Foreign nationals who have been living in the United States or its jurisdictions for at least the three years prior to the proposal deadline are also eligible to apply for fellowships. Applicants can be affiliated with an institution or be an unaffiliated individual. Applicants need not have advanced degrees. Individuals currently enrolled in a degree-granting program are ineligible to apply. Applicants who have satisfied all the requirements for a degree and are awaiting its conferral are eligible for DEL Fellowships; but such applicants need a letter from the dean of the conferring school or their department chair attesting to the applicant’s status as of the DEL deadline listed in this solicitation. This signed letter should be uploaded in FastLane as a “Supplementary Document”.

For DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS: The PI must be the advisor of the doctoral student or a faculty member at the U.S. university where the doctoral student is enrolled. The doctoral student will be the Co-PI.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

SENIOR RESEARCH GRANTS and FELLOWSHIPS: One proposal per cycle per prospective PI for senior research grants and fellowships.

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS: There is no limitation on the number of times that a graduate advisor may be the principal investigator on a DDRIG proposal submitted to the DEL Program, either during a specific competition or over the course of her/his career.

However, doctoral students are limited to two DDRIG submissions in the course of their graduate careers.

Additional Eligibility Info:

Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions: Executive Order 13021 defines Tribal Colleges and Universities ("tribal colleges") as those institutions cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), and other institutions that qualify for funding under the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as well as Navajo Community College as authorized in the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978, Public Law 95-471, Title II (25 U.S.C. 640a note). The term "Alaska Native-serving institution" means an institution of higher education that is an eligible institution under section 1058(b) of the Higher Education Act; and that, at the time of submission, has an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 20 percent Alaska Native students. The term "Native Hawaiian-serving institution" means an institution of higher education that is an eligible institution under section 1058(b) of the Higher Education Act; and that, at the time of submission, has an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian students.

For DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS, proposals may only be from Ph.D. granting universities and colleges accredited in, and having a campus located in the U.S.

For-profit organizations are not eligible to apply to this program. However, personnel in for-profit organizations may participate as co-investigators.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

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: 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 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: (https://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.5 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See Chapter II.C.2 of the GPG for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions.

NOTE: The following information supplements the GPG standard proposal preparation guidelines.

Proposal Preparation Instructions for DEL Senior Research Proposals and Fellowships

Title: The Title of the proposed project should identify the specific language(s) it concerns by using the three-letter ISO codes, if possible. See http://www.ethnologue.com/codes/. Do not use more than three ISO codes. The title should describe the project in a concise, informative way so that a scientifically or technically literate reader could understand what the project is about.

Project Summary: The Summary of the proposed project should restate the Project Title, including the language code(s), and identify the most general family(ies) to which the specific language(s) belong. Also, indicate if the genetic affiliation of the language is in question. See http://multitree.org/.

The Project Summary must consist of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity. The overview should briefly describe the proposed project goals and objectives, and the research question or hypothesis to be addressed. In addition to the Data Management Plan required of all NSF proposal submissions, the Project Summary overview should also designate the location where the data will be archived.

Project Description: The Project Description must not exceed 15 pages. Included within this limit is a maximum of five pages detailing the results of work supported in the past five years by NSF or NEH, if any. Also included should be brief sample materials (i.e., entries, records, or database results for specific queries) that illustrate the content and presentation of any final product.

In general, the Project Description should indicate the work to be undertaken, the methodologies to be employed, the schedule according to which the work will be carried out, and the roles and qualifications of the project participants. The two NSF merit review criteria should be addressed explicitly and separately.

In addressing the intellectual merit criterion, including the relevant considerations in Section VI.A. (below), discuss also the degree of endangerment of the language(s) to be documented and the urgency of the need for documentation. Describe the level, quality, and accessibility of any existing documentation of the language(s). Discuss any special linguistic, historical, cognitive, cultural, or social significance of the language(s).

The Project Description should discuss plans for archiving recordings, field notes, and processed documentary materials in a stable environment. Simply placing materials on a CD or a Web site will not in and of itself guarantee sustainable archiving. In discussing methods to be employed in recording, documenting, and archiving the endangered language(s), include reference to current statements of best practices. Discuss aspects of the project that will ensure interoperability with related materials.

In addressing the broader impacts criterion, including the relevant considerations in Section VI. A. (below), also discuss collaboration and other arrangements made with the speaker community. Discussion may include reference to the training of native speakers in the practice of linguistics and to the production of resources useful to the community of native speakers.

Discuss any intellectual property issues that might affect the availability of the materials.

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

Data Management Plan (DMP): All proposals must include as a supplementary document a plan for data management and sharing the products of research. The data management plan to be submitted with a proposal must be no longer than two (2) pages in length and must be included as a supplementary document.

In preparing their DMP, applicants should address all five of the points specified in Chapter II, Section C.2.j of the Grant Proposal Guide and the comparable section of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

The DMP should provide evidence that the applicant has contacted a trusted repository to arrange for long-term archiving of documentation generated by the DEL project. The language archive selected by a DEL project must have a long-term institutional commitment to data preservation and access. While the DEL Program does not sponsor or have an official arrangement with any language archive, these services are provided by DELAMAN member archives (http://www.delaman.org) and by institutions holding the Data Seal of Approval (http://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/). Regular data backup should be an integral part of the DMP, but this is not to be equated with archiving in a trusted repository. Backing up data on hard drives, servers, optical media, and cloud based services does not constitute archiving.

The DMP should include a time-line for completion of archiving activities. It is expected that archiving should be completed prior to the submission of the final project report.

Applicants should include a letter of support from the archive indicating their willingness to archive project materials and outlining any specific arrangements which have been made. This statement must be uploaded under “Other Supplementary Documents”.

Language documentation is of little value if it cannot be accessed. To that extent the DEL Program expects that the vast majority of data generated by the DEL project will be publically accessible with minimal restrictions for non-commercial, educational purposes. (Restrictions on commercial use are acceptable.) The DMP should indicate how archived materials will be accessible to the public. Any restrictions to be placed on access should be clearly indicated. If the applicant expects access to some materials to be restricted to certain user groups, the DMP should indicate the criteria delineating such user groups and provide an estimate of the percentage of materials which will be so restricted. If time limits are to be placed on access to materials, the DMP should indicate the period of time after which access restrictions will be removed.

Statement of Consultation: Include an explicit statement that care has been taken to consult with the relevant parties in the speech communities where the research is to be conducted. The PI should ensure that appropriate permissions for the proposed research have been requested. This statement must be uploaded under “Other Supplementary Documents”.

NOTE: In addition to the above documents, a file with up to two pages of examples of interlinear glossing, dictionary format, questionnaires, task protocols, etc. may also be included under "Other Supplementary Documents".

Proposal Preparation Instructions for DDRIGs

An outstanding dissertation proposal will clearly specify the research questions and hypotheses, the data relevant to answering those research questions, the theoretical framework being used and the methods of analysis. It will provide a brief literature review and a clear work plan. It will also address the NSF review criterion of broader impacts.

Title: The DDRIG proposal title should begin with “Doctoral Dissertation Research” followed by a substantive subtitle, which should describe the project in a concise, informative way so that a scientifically or technically literate reader could understand what the project is about. The title should identify the specific language(s) it concerns by using the three-letter ISO codes, if possible. See http://www.ethnologue.com/codes/. Do not use more than three ISO codes.

Cover Page: DDRIGs focus on providing support for the dissertation research of a doctoral student. The student's advisor or another faculty member at the university where the student is enrolled must serve as the principal investigator (PI) of the proposal, however. The student must be listed as a Co-principal investigator (Co-PI). In cases when a student is working closely with multiple faculty members, an additional faculty member may be added as another Co-PI. (Note that identification of an individual as a PI or Co-PI means that they will have administrative responsibility for an award based on the proposal.)

Project Summary and Project Description: The DEL Program allows 10 single-spaced pages for the DDRIG Project Description; otherwise follow the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) for other general proposal preparation guidelines. As with any proposal, the one page Project Summary must provide an Overview and address in separate, labeled paragraphs the "Intellectual Merit" and the "Broader Impacts" as per the GPG.

As specified in Chapter II, Section C.2.d of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide and in the comparable section of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, the project description should be a clear statement of the work to be undertaken. Applicants should note that the project description must contain a separate section within the narrative that discusses the broader impacts of the proposed activities.

To be competitive for funding by the DEL Program, the project description should provide clear descriptions of relevant literature and theoretical frameworks within which the project is set, a complete description of the research methods that will be used, and discussion of the expected intellectual merit and broader impacts that may result from the project.

Although a discussion of the results from prior NSF support are required for most proposals, if the PI and/or any senior Co-PI have had NSF funding within the last five years, results from prior support do not need to be provided for the PI or any other senior personnel for a DDRIG.

Biographical Sketches: For DDRIG proposals, biographical sketches should be submitted for both the student and the dissertation advisor(s) and should conform to the GPG specifications. In addition, the biographical sketch for the student should also include a statement about the student’s current academic status and degree progress; a separate letter concerning the student's academic status may be uploaded under "Other Supplementary Documents" but is not required. Do not submit transcripts or letters of reference.

Special Information and Supplementary Documents

Letters of Collaboration: If the research project includes a significant component requiring the involvement of another institution (either within the US or abroad), it is recommended that the proposal include a letter (or letters) testifying to local institutional sponsorship from the student’s extramural sponsor. This letter can be included under “Other Supplementary Documents”. The content of the letter(s) should be limited to a description of the committed facilities or resources (which may include advising by the extramural sponsor). Letters of recommendation are not allowed.

Data Management Plan: All proposals must include as a supplementary document a plan for data management and sharing the products of research. The data management plan to be submitted with a proposal must be no longer than two (2) pages in length and must be included as a supplementary document.

In preparing their data management plans, applicants should address all five of the points specified in Chapter II, Section C.2.j of the Grant Proposal Guide and the comparable section of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

The DMP should provide evidence that the applicant has contacted a trusted repository to arrange for long-term archiving of documentation generated by the DEL project. While the DEL Program does not sponsor or have an official arrangement with any language archive, these services are provided by DELAMAN member archives (delaman.org) and by institutions holding the Data Seal of Approval (datasealofapproval.org). While regular data backup should be an integral part of the DMP, this is not to be equated with archiving in a trusted repository. Backing up data on hard drives, servers, optical media, and cloud based services does not constitute archiving. Crucially, the language archive selected by a DEL project must have a long-term institutional commitment to data preservation and access.

The DMP should include a time-line for completion of archiving activities. It is expected that archiving should be completed prior to the submission of the final project report.

Applicants should include a letter of support from the archive indicating their willingness to archive project materials and outlining any specific arrangements which have been made. This letter must be uploaded under “Other Supplementary Documents”.

Language documentation is of little value if it cannot be accessed. To that extent the DEL Program expects that the vast majority of data generated by the DEL project will be publically accessible with minimal restrictions for non-commercial, educational purposes. (Restrictions on commercial use are acceptable.) The DMP should indicate how archived materials will be accessible to the public. Any restrictions to be placed on access should be clearly indicated. If the applicant expects access to some materials to be restricted to certain user groups, the DMP should indicate the criteria delineating such user groups and provide an estimate of the percentage of materials which will be so restricted. If time limits are to be placed on access to materials, the DMP should indicate the period of time after which access restrictions will be removed.

Statement of Consultation: Include an explicit statement that care has been taken to consult with the relevant parties in the speech communities about the nature and results of the research to be conducted. The PI should ensure that the process of seeking appropriate permissions has been initiated. This statement must be uploaded under “Other Supplementary Documents”.

Signed Statement from the Principal Investigator: The advisor or other faculty member serving as the principal investigator (PI) of the proposal is required to submit a signed statement affirming that the student will be able to undertake the proposed research soon after a DDRIG award is made. In addition, the PI must affirm that she/he has read the proposal and believes that it makes a strong case for support of the dissertation research project.

The following template must be used to prepare this statement, with changes permitted only to provide information where there are blank lines in the template. Additional text is not permitted. The statement must be signed by the PI. (In very unusual cases, an electronic signature or equivalent may be permitted, but replacement of a real signature with a PI's real equivalent is permitted only with prior written approval from a DEL Program officer.)

Required template for a statement signed by the PI

To: NSF Documenting Endangered Languages Program

From: __________________________________________
                           [Insert name of the PI]

By signing below, I affirm that the doctoral student is at a stage in her/his graduate program that makes it very likely that the student will be able to undertake the dissertation research described in this proposal soon after a DDRIG award is made.

I affirm that I have read this proposal, and I believe that this proposal makes a strong case for NSF support for this project.

Signed: _________________________________________
                          [Insert PI's signature]

University: ______________________________________
                         [Insert university name]

Date: ________________________________________
             [Insert date that the statement is signed by the PI]

Letters of Collaboration: Brief statements (whether written as letters or as free-standing e-mail messages) from individuals and/or organizations that will work with the doctoral student and/or provide in-kind support for the proposed project may be included as supplementary documents. Such letters are not needed from the student's university administration or from other individuals at that university.

Letters of collaboration should focus on the willingness of the letter's author to collaborate or provide in-kind support for the project in ways that have been outlined in the project description. Collaboration letters should not argue for support of the project by articulating in greater detail what activities the collaborator will undertake and/or by elaborating reasons for endorsing the project. The inclusion of such prohibited content may result in the proposal being returned without review.

NOTE: In addition to the above documents, a file with up to two pages of examples of interlinear glossing, dictionary format, questionnaires, task protocols, etc. may also be included under "Other Supplementary Documents".

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

NEH does not reimburse grantee U.S. academic institutions for the indirect costs associated with fellowship research.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

SENIOR RESEARCH GRANTS: From $12,000 to $150,000 per year, for one to three years.

FELLOWSHIPS: A monthly stipend of $4,200 per month for awards lasting from six to twelve months. In the FastLane Budget under Section A. Senior Personnel, proposals for Fellowships only have to indicate the intended number of months of tenure of the Award in the "Calendar Months" box and the consequent total stipend at the rate of $4,200 per month in the "Funds Requested by Proposer" box, and then click on the "Calculate" button.

In the Budget Justification, proposals for Fellowships only have to enter (as appropriate): "The NEH Fellowship stipend is $4,200 per month."

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS: The maximum allowable budget is $15,000 in direct costs. Indirect costs are in addition to this maximum direct cost limitation and are subject to the awardee's current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate. The direct costs requested in a DDRIG proposal must be allowable costs that will improve the conduct of dissertation research. Student stipends, tuition expenses, assistantships, and the doctoral advisor's travel expenses are NOT eligible for support. Travel to one domestic conference to disseminate the results of research (and obtain constructive feedback prior to completion of the dissertation) may be included in the proposal, but DDRIGs recommended by the DEL Program should not have direct conference travel costs that exceed $1,000. DDRIGs will not be recommended solely to support travel to conferences to disseminate research results. Please see the full text of this solicitation for additional information on allowable and not allowable DDRIG expenses.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Since salaries or stipends for the doctoral student or their advisor(s) are not eligible for support, after the PI and Co-PI(s) are entered on the Cover Page, their names should be manually removed from the Senior Personnel Listing on the budget pages. This is to avoid construal as voluntary committed cost sharing which is not permitted.

C. Due Dates

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

       September 15, 2015

       September 15, Annually Thereafter

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions 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 solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

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: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical 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.

Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

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: https://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. 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 strategic objectives 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 must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation’s most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of 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:

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. 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?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. 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.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers will take into account how well the additional DEL specifics listed below were addressed in the proposal.

• Discussion on the degree of endangerment of the languages(s) to be documented and the urgency of the need for documentation
• Description of the level, quality, and accessibility of any existing documentation of the language(s)
• Discussion on any special linguistic, historical, cognitive, cultural, or social significance of the language(s)
• Discussion on collaborations and other arrangements made with the speaker community which may include reference to the training of native speakers in the practice of linguistics and to the production of resources useful to the community of native speakers.

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 evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. 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 strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

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. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform 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.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, 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.

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 notice, 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 notice; (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 notice. 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 https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

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 https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

Special Award Conditions:

NEH Award Conditions:

NEH award conditions related to awards to organizations and individuals are available electronically at: http://www.neh.gov/manage/index.html.

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 no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 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 https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

NEH has its own reporting requirements, which are outlined electronically at: http://www.neh.gov/manage/index.html.

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:

• Colleen Fitzgerald - NSF Contact, telephone: (703) 292-4381, email: cfitzger@nsf.gov

• Mary Downs - NEH Contact, Senior Program Officer, Preservation & Access, National Endowment for the Humanities, telephone: (202) 606-8456, email: mdowns@neh.gov

• Jane Aikin - NEH Contact, Director, Division of Research Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities, telephone: (202) 606-8212, email: jaikin@neh.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

• FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

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, "NSF Update" 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. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

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 https://www.nsf.gov Location: 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 To Locate NSF Employees: (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 3145-0023. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12 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