**INSTRUMENTATION**

**FOR MATERIALS[\
RESEARCH\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}**

***Program Announcement and Guidelines***

**Proposal Deadline: January 29, 1999**

**NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION**

**NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION**

**ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA**

**PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT AND GUIDELINES**

**Instrumentation for Materials Research Program**

**Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences**

**Division of Materials Research**

**BACKGROUND, GOALS, AND SCOPE OF PROGRAM**

Observation and discovery of new phenomena are at the very heart of our
scientific enterprise. The Instrumentation for Materials Research (IMR)
program in the Division of Materials Research (DMR) is designed to
provide advanced capability for discovery, observation,
characterization, fabrication and testing to the nation\'s scientists
and engineers who are endeavoring to conduct research and educational
activities in all areas normally supported by DMR. The Division supports
a wide range of programs addressing fundamental phenomena in materials,
materials synthesis and processing, structure and composition,
properties and performance, and materials education. DMR plays a
significant role in various NSF-wide interdisciplinary initiatives and
programs. Consult the NSF \"Guide to Programs,\" NSF 99-4 (October 1998)
for more information.

The IMR program considers proposals for (1) the ***development*** of
major new instruments which (a) demonstrate the potential to
significantly extend current capability and (b) have broad application
in materials research and education; and (2) the ***acquisition*** of
major new research instruments which will provide new capability and/or
advance current capability.

The IMR program normally considers proposals for single instruments or a
single system. If more than one instrument is requested, the proposal
*must* indicate their relative priority, and give explanations and
scientific justification for each item requested. A proposal listing
assorted instruments without a focused research program will not be
reviewed.

Proposers requesting instruments for multidisciplinary use involving
more than one Program or Division within NSF are encouraged to discuss
their plans with the appropriate Program Officers prior to submission
(see section on\"Other NSF Programs for Research or Educational
Instrumentation\"). Multidisciplinary instrumentation proposals must
only be submitted to one NSF Division, with a cover letter describing
the multidisciplinary nature of the proposal. Proposals which are
multidisciplinary in nature will be co-reviewed by the appropriate
Division(s) within NSF. Proposals submitted to IMR for instrumentation
that are under active review elsewhere in the Foundation are considered
inappropriate and will not be reviewed.

The IMR program accepts proposals submitted in accordance with the
general guidelines described in \"Grant Proposal Guide,\" (GPG) NSF 99-2
(October 1998), (a) from individuals seeking to purchase or develop
instruments which have a total cost of more than \$100,000, or (b) from
interdisciplinary groups seeking support for major shared instruments to
be purchased or developed. Proposals from individuals or groups seeking
instruments costing less than \$50,000 will be assigned to the
appropriate disciplinary program for review. Because of the high cost
and complexity of major instruments, proposals for shared instruments
are strongly encouraged.

Funding for the IMR program is subject to change annually. It is
expected that the support for IMR awards in FY99 will be at the same
level as in FY98, pending the availability of funds. The program awarded
\$6.9 million for support of instrumentation in FY98. Approximate annual
award sizes have ranged from \$50,000 to \$300,000 over the past several
years. In past years, approximately 30 new awards were made annually.
Typical award durations are one or two years for instrument acquisition,
and up to five years for instrument development.

Discussion of your proposal with the IMR Program Director prior to
submission is encouraged.

**PROPOSAL FORMAT AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION**

Proposals must be prepared following requirements described in Chapter
II of the GPG, NSF 99-2 . The GPG, as well as many other NSF
publications, can be obtained from the NSF World Wide Web home page at
the following Universal Resource Locator (URL): http://www.nsf.gov.
Paper copies of the GPG can be obtained at no cost from:

> NSF Publication Clearinghouse
>
> P.O. Box 218
>
> Jessup, MD 20794-0218
>
> Phone: 301-947-2722
>
> Email: pubs@nsf.gov

**Proposals must be submitted electronically** using the NSF FastLane
system for electronic proposal submission and review, available through
the World Wide Web at the FastLane Web site
(http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov), and must reference this document (NSF
99-24). In order to use NSF FastLane to submit a proposal, you must have
the following software: Netscape Navigator 3.0 or above, or Microsoft
Internet Explorer 4.0 or above; Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or above; and a
PDF File Converter. To access the FastLane Proposal Preparation
application, your institution needs to be a registered FastLane
institution. A list of registered institutions and the FastLane
registration form are located on the FastLane Web site. Information
regarding the FastLane system and instructions for electronic submission
are available through the World Wide Web at the FastLane home page
(http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov). Additional questions concerning FastLane
should be sent via e-mail to Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
FastLane at mpsfl@nsf.gov.

**When to submit**: The deadline for FastLane submission of IMR
proposals **in fiscal year 1999 is 5:00 PM (submitter's local time)
January 29, 1999.** Proposals received later will not be reviewed. The
signed (paper) cover sheet (NSF Form 1207) must be forwarded to the
following address and received by NSF within five working days following
proposal submission.

> National Science Foundation
>
> DIS-FastLane Cover Sheet
>
> 4201 Wilson Blvd.
>
> Arlington, VA 22230

**What to submit**: IMR proposals must adhere to the NSF GPG 99-2
guidelines for proposal preparation and submission. Instrumentation and
equipment proposals should follow the format of research proposals. Each
potential major user should describe the project(s) for which the
equipment will be used. These descriptions should be succinct, not
necessarily as detailed as in an individual research proposal, and
should emphasize the intrinsic merit of the activity and the importance
of the equipment to it. A brief summary will suffice for auxiliary
users. The Project Summary must include a brief description of the
proposed instrument and the new scientific and educational capability it
will provide, a statement of the potential impact it will have on the
research and education/training of students, and the potential impact it
is expected to have on one or more fields of scientific research,
education, or infrastracture.

You may suggest the names and affiliations of six to eight individuals,
including women and members of underrepresented groups, who have
expertise in the proposed activities and requested instrumentation, who
are not collaborators, and who could provide an unbiased evaluation if
requested to review your proposal. The names of individuals who should
*not* be used as reviewers may also be included. This information must
be sent via the FastLane System using the \"List of Suggested
Reviewers\" selection within the Proposal Preparation function.

Special attention should be given to the following *required*
*supplemental* information which is essential for the review and
decision making process. Proposals which do not include this information
will not be reviewed.

**1.** ***Title**.* The IMR proposal title should be brief and may not
include abbreviations. It should begin with \"Acquisition of \-\--\" or
\"Development of \-\--.\" For example: \"Development of a Scanning
Tunneling Microscope for Materials Research at Low Temperatures.\" The
title must not refer to any specific supplier or include model numbers,
and not exceed 15 words.

**2.** ***Project Description**.* The Project Description must clearly
justify the instrument requested in terms of the scientific research and
educational activities that are being proposed. The new measurement
capability that the new instrument will provide should be clearly
described. Refer to the GPG guidelines for more guidance. The following
items are required *as part of the Project Description* (limited to 15
pages):

**A. Instrument Development/Construction Projects:**

If **development/construction** of a new instrument is proposed, the
design must provide sufficient detail for reviewers to assess its
feasibility. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the potential impact
that the proposed instrument will have on research and the
education/training of students. A brief statement of the anticipated
impact of the proposed project is required. The following must be
provided:

i\. An analysis of the need and broad applicability of the proposed
instrument, including potential uses and users in the field of materials
research and education;

ii\. A description of specific initial research plans for the
instrument, and plans for long-range future usage;

iii\. Plans for the construction of the instrument;

iv\. A description of preliminary work completed;

v\. An analysis of potential problems/issues, and proposed solutions;

vi\. An estimated timeline for completion within the requested duration
of support;

vii\. A plan to evaluate the performance of the instrument; and

viii\. A description of industrial or national laboratory collaborations
or links during the development stages and subsequent to
development/construction completion, if appropriate;

**B. Instrument Acquisition Projects:**

> If purchase of a **new** instrument is proposed, the specific model
> chosen must be technically justified and a comparison of its expected
> performance with competing available instruments must be provided. If
> replacement of an instrument is requested, the scientific rationale
> for replacement must be given. The following information must be
> provided for evaluation:
>
> A technical description of the proposed instrument in sufficient
> detail for reviewers to evaluate the essential need and
> appropriateness of the instrument for the research and educational
> activities proposed; and a paragraph indicating whether the the
> instrument will be used for new research project(s) or existing
> research project(s).
>
> A discussion of the research project(s) for which the instrument will
> be used in sufficient detail for reviewers to evaluate its scientific
> merit. For shared instruments, no more than four or five *major*
> research projects, (projects utilizing 20% or more of the instrument
> time) may be described in succinct form, emphasizing the intrinsic
> scientific and educational merit of the activities and the importance
> of the equipment to them. A brief summary of all additional projects,
> i.e., those involving less than 20% of the instrument time, is
> sufficient.
>
> If the instrument is to be used for existing research projects, a
> discussion of the new capability the proposed instrument will provide,
> and how the new instrument will significantly impact the project. If
> comparable equipment to that requested is already at the proposing
> organizations, an explanation why it cannot be used must be provided.
> This includes comparable government-owned equipment that is on-site.

• A discussion of plans for supporting the research and educational
activities.

**3.** The following items must be included following the Project
Description as indicated by GPG:

> A. ***Biographical sketches***. Required for all senior personnel
> involved (maximum of five) with the project, major users, and
> technical personnel responsible for instrument development and/or
> major instrument operation and maintenance.
>
> B. ***Budget page and budget justification***. As required by Proposal
> Section F of the GPG, the budget sheet (NSF Form 1030) must include
> the *total cost* of the proposed project or instrument, the itemized
> cost of each instrument component, and the proposed level of
> cost-sharing from *all* non-Federal sources. A full budget
> justification is required, according to the guidelines in the GPG**.
> The IMR program requires cost sharing.** Reviewers will be asked to
> comment on the appropriateness of the level of matching, **since this
> is a factor in making funding decisions.** The amount of cost sharing
> must be entered on line M of the NSF Budget Form 1030. The
> institutional contribution may be negotiated if the proposal receives
> strong endorsement for support. Competitive proposals have averaged
> between 40%-50% cost-sharing in the program for several years.
> Manufacturers discounts, existing equipment, and other sources of
> Federal funds are not eligible as cost-sharing. The costs of space
> renovation, installation, shipping charges, state and local taxes,
> maintenance contracts, technical personnel, and operation of
> commercial instruments are not ordinarily supported. Assumption of
> these costs and/or part of the capital costs by the submitting
> institution may be considered as an indication of its commitment to
> the proposed project
>
> Personnel, materials, supplies and shop costs may be requested for
> instrument development and construction projects and will be
> considered for support if appropriate for the project and documented
> in the proposal. Requests for personnel support must be justified: the
> proposal must include a description of the responsibilities of all
> personnel on the budget, and a clearly articulated rationale for the
> funds requested. The budget justification must include a timeline if
> salaries are requested for more than one year.
>
> C. ***Maintenance, Operation, and Use Plans**.* A description of the
> operational plans for the maintenance, operation, and shared use of
> the instrument is required, including: (i) biographical sketch of the
> person(s) who will have overall responsibility for maintenance and
> operation, and a brief statement of qualifications; (ii) description
> of the physical facility, including floor plans and other appropriate
> information, where the equipment will be located; (iii) annual budget
> for operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment, specifying
> source(s) of funds; (iv) plans for the allocation of time on the
> instrument and the criteria used for allocation; (v) an estimate of
> the fraction of time the instrument will be used by the various local
> and other potential users must be indicated; and (vi) a detailed plan
> of how use charges will be assessed (if applicable).

# PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of merit review by experts in
the research and educational community by appropriate mechanisms, which
may include ad *hoc* mail review, panel review, or a combination of mail
and panel review. In addition to the NSF merit review criteria, other
factors will be considered, including the potential scientific and
educational impact, the appropriateness of the instrumentation, and the
potential impact on the academic infrastructure.

NSF merit review criteria:

**What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity?**

The following are suggested questions that the reviewers will be
requested to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets this
criterion. Each reviewer will address only those questions that are
relevant to the proposal and for which the reviewer is qualified to make
judgments.

How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and
understanding within its own field and across different fields? How well
qualified is the proposer (individuals or team) to conduct the project?
If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative
and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed
activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

**What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?**

The following are suggested questions that the reviewers will be
requested to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets this
criterion. Each reviewer will address only those questions that are
relevant to the proposal and for which the reviewer is qualified to make
judgments.

How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while
promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed
activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g.,
gender, ethnicity, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the
infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities,
instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be
disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological
understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to
society?

## Integration of Research and Education

One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster
integration of research and education through the programs, projects and
activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These
institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may
concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and
students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education
with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the
diversity of learner perspectives. PIs should address this issue in
their proposal to provide reviewers with the information necessary to
respond fully to both NSF merit review criteria as well as additional
criteria specific to the IMR Program. NSF staff will give it careful
consideration in making funding decisions.

## Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens
-- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with
disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and
engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems
it central to the programs, projects, and activites it considers and
supports. Principal Investigators should address this issue in their
proposal to provide reviewers with the information necessary to respond
fully to both NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will give it careful
consideration in making funding decisions.

## Additional Criteria Specific to this Activity

The following specific criteria will be used in the evaluation of IMR
proposals:

> 1\. *Research merit and educational impact.* Assessment of the
> quality, innovation, and potential for success of the research and
> potential educational impact of the instrument. The potential of the
> research to lead to fundamental advances, new discoveries, and/or
> technological developments.
>
> 2\. *Performance competence*. The capability/experience of the
> investigator(s) or senior personnel responsible, the technical
> soundness of the proposed approach, and commitment of institutional as
> well as other resources and adequacy of infrastructure.
>
> 3\. *Essential need for the instrument.* The utility, impact or
> potential impact that the instrument will have on the proposed
> research and/or training/educational activities, or on a field of
> research.
>
> 4\. *Impact on Infrastructure*. How the instrument will contribute to
> broader long-range goals of the institution, fields of science, and
> education.
>
> 5\. *The ability of the applicants to operate and maintain the
> instrument*. Evaluation of the qualifications of the person(s)
> responsible for the instrument, allocation of time on the instrument,
> and provisions for operation and long-term maintenance of the
> instrument over its expected lifetime.

6.  *Appropriateness of development plans*. For instrument
    development/construction, an assessment of feasibility, costs and
    schedule for completion, and plans for integration and use of the
    instrument in the research and educational activities described
    subsequent to the completion of the development/construction phase.

NSF staff will also consider the following factors in recommending
instrumentation awards under this program: (1) the ability of the
institution to provide an appropriate amount of matching funds, and the
short and long-term commitment of the institution to the project; (2)
the relevance of the proposed instrumentation to the research and
educational activities and potential toward achieving national goals of
strategic importance; (3) for instrument development proposals, the
expected impact on all sectors of the materials research community and
potential for enhancing linkages between sectors; and (4) the diversity
of participants, program balance and geographic distribution.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and signed
by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential
documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the
reviewers, will be sent to the proposer.

**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 Division administering the program.
Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewers,
will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator.

**B. Grant Award Conditions**

An NSF grant consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any
special provisions applicable to the grant 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) Grants awarded as a
result of this announcement will be administered in accordance with the
terms and conditions of NSF GC-1 (October 1998), Grant General
Conditions or FDP-III (7/1/97), Federal Demonstration Partnership
General Terms and Conditions. Copies of these documents are available on
http://www.nsf.gov under \"Grants and Awards;\" and (5) any NSF
brochure, program guide, announcement or other NSF issuance that may be
incorporated by reference in the award letter. Electronic mail
notification is the preferred way to transmit NSF grants to
organizations that are eligible to receive electronic mail capabilities
and have requested such notification from the Division of Grants and
Agreements.

-   These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Web site at:
    http://www.nsf.gov. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF
    Publications Clearinghouse, telephone 301.947.2722 or by e-mail from
    pubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions is contained in
the NSF *Grant Policy Manual* (GPM) Chapter II, (NSF 95-26) available
electronically on the NSF Web site. The GPM is also available in paper
copy by subscrition from the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The GPM may be ordered through
the GPO Web site at: http://www.gpo.gov.

**C. Reporting Requirements**

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

Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI is also required to
submit a final project report. Approximately 30 days before expiration,
NSF will send a notice to remind the PI of the requirement to file the
final project report. Failure to provide final project reports delays
NSF review and processing of pending proposals for that PI. PIs should
examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure
availability of required data.

NSF has implemented a new electronic project reporting system, available
through FastLane, which permits electronic submission and updating of
project reports, including information on: project participants
(individual and organizational); activities and findings; publications;
and, other specific products and contributions.

Effective October 1, 1998: PIs are required to use the new reporting
format for annual and final project reports; and all PIs supported by
the Divisions within the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate
must submit reports electronically via FastLane. For those PIs who
cannot access FastLane, paper copies of the new report formats may be
obtained from the NSF Clearing House as specified above.

**D. New Awardee Information**

If the submitting organization has never received an NSF award, it is
recommended that the organization's appropriate administrative officials
become familiar with the policies and procedures in the NSF *Grant
Policy Manual* which are applicable to most NSF awards. The
\"Prospective New Awardee Guide (NSF 97-100)\" includes information on:
Administration and Management; Accounting Systems Requirements and
Auditing; and Payments to Organizations with Awards. This information
will assist an organization in preparing documents that NSF requires to
conduct administrative and financial reviews of an organization. The
guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability
requirements associated with Federal awards. This document is available
electronically on NSF's Web site at:
http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/cpo/oversite/guide/htm.

**CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION**

General inquiries should be made to the Instrumentation for Materials
Research Program, Dr. Norbert M. Bikales, Program Director, Room 1065,
Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, Arlington,
VA 22230, telephone 703.306.1817, e-mail: nbikales@nsf.gov. For
questions related to the use of FastLane, contact: Florence Rabanal, MPS
FastLane Project Coordinator, 703-306-1998, e-mail:frabanal@nsf.gov.

**OTHER NSF PROGRAMS FOR RESEARCH OR EDUCATIONAL INSTRUMENTATION**

Related NSF programs for research instrumentation and instrument
development are listed below. In NSF divisions that have no separate
instrumentation program, needs are provided for in regular research
grant programs.

NSF 98-10 Chemistry Research Instrumentation and Facilities

NSF 98-16 Major Research Instrumentation

NSF 98-54 Small Business Innovation Research

NSF 98-153 Small Business Technology Transfer

NSF 97-29\* Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement

NSF 97-146\* Computer Information Science & Engineering Research
Infrastructure

NSF 96-11\* Improvements in Facilities, Communications, and Equipment at
Biological Field Stations and Marine

Laboratories

NSF 96-50 Earth Sciences Instrumentation and Facilities

NSF 96-90\* Instrument Development for Biological Research

NSF 96-91\* Multi-User Biological Equipment and Instrumentation
Resources

NSF 96-113\* Instrumentation Grants for Research in Computer and
Information Sciences and Engineering

NSF 95-13 Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science Instrumentation

\* Only available electronically

# ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

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

NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers, and
educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities, and
persons with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In
accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no
person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or
disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving financial assistance from NSF (unless otherwise
specified in the eligibility requirements for a particular program).

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities
(FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable
persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including
student research assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects.

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
regarding NSF programs, employment, or general information. TDD may be
accessed at 703.306.0090 or through FIRS on 1.800.877.8339.

# 

# PRIVACY ACT and PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

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

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate and any other
aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden, to:

> Mary Lou Higgs
>
> Acting Reports Clearance Officer
>
> Information Dissemination Branch
>
> Division of Administrative Services
>
> National Science Foundation
>
> Arlington, VA 22230

# YEAR 2000 REMINDER

In accordance with Important Notice No. 120 dated June 27, 1997,
Subject: Year 2000 Computer Problem, NSF awardees are reminded of their
responsibility to take appropriate actions to ensure that the NSF
activity being supported is not adversely affected by the Year 2000
problem. Potentially affected items include, but are not limited to:
computer systems, data bases, and equipment. The National Science
Foundation should be notified if an awardee concludes that the Year 2000
will have a significant impact on its ability to carry out an NSF funded
activity. Information concerning Year 2000 activities can be found on
the NSF Web Site at http://www.nsf.gov/oirm/y2k/start.htm.

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## CFDA \# 47.049

**OMB No. 3145-0058**

**P.T. 34**

**K.W. 1009000**

**NSF 99-24 (Replaces NSF 99-108; electronic dissemination only).**

**October 28, 1998**