1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

[ICR No. 1142.11] 1820-0583 - OSERS Peer Review Data Form

Revised 06/23/2014

A. Justification 

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify

any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a hard 

copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing 

the collection of information, or you may provide a valid URL link or paste the 

applicable section. Please limit pasted text to no longer than 3 pages. Specify the review 

type of the collection (new, revision, extension, reinstatement with change, reinstatement 

without change). If revised, briefly specify the changes. If a rulemaking is involved, 

make note of the sections or changed sections, if applicable.

The collection of data is necessary to support the process of procuring and updating the 

personal information of individuals who review proposals submitted for grant funding. 

Field experts are used to evaluate the proposals and data collection supports the Peer 

Review System (PRS) database used by OSERS program staff to identify potential 

reviewers. 

OSERS Peer Reviewer Data Form is used to support the peer review process panel 

assignments and to update individual peer reviewer personal information in the (PRS) 

database. This information is requested when an individual is asked to serve as a peer 

reviewer and/or updated biannually by persons who previously served as peer reviewers. 

The information is used by OSERS staff and the peer review contractor to identify

potential reviewers who would be appropriate to review specific types of grant 

applications for funding; provide background information on each potential reviewer; and 

provide information on any reasonable accommodations that might be required by the 

individual.

The changes to the data form include adding two check boxes that will allow first-time 

respondents and repeat reviewers to complete the entire form or simply update contact 

information. This alleviates the need for a separate form, currently in use, to update 

reviewer contact information. Also, to promote electronic submission, all the fields were 

made “fillable” through the use of text or check boxes. 

There are legal requirements that necessitate this collection. For reviewers used to 

evaluate applications submitted under Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities 
2

Education Improvement Act, the law indicates that "peer review panels" shall include, "to 

the extent practicable, parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, 

and persons from diverse backgrounds" (20 USC 1400 §682 (a)(1)(A) and (C)(2)(A)(ii)). 

Since all field experts captured in the PRS are shared by program staff, all potential 

reviewers are asked to complete the data form.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a 

new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received 

from the current collection.

The information is used by OSERS staff and the peer review contractor to:

 Identify potential reviewers who would be appropriate to review specific types of 

grant applications for funding;

 Provide background information on each potential reviewer; and 

 Provide information on any reasonable accommodations that might be required by 

the individual.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms 

of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the 

basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any

consideration given to using technology to reduce burden.

The peer reviewers currently receive the form from logistics contractors in a packet of

competition materials emailed to them prior to serving on a peer review panel or 

electronically in association with a biannual update request. 

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information 

already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 

above.

OSERS is making a concerted effort to restrict duplicate requests for the information on 

this form at various stages of the review process by encouraging the logistics contractors 

to use the information from the completed form to pre-populate the requested information 

on subsequent forms requiring reviewers signatures or feedback. 

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe 

any methods used to minimize burden. A small entity may be (1) a small business which 

is deemed to be one that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in 

its field of operation; (2) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field; or (3) a small 

government jurisdiction, which is a government of a city, county, town, township, school 

district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000.
3

This collection of information does not involve small business or entities.

6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not 

conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to 

reducing burden.

If this information is not collected, there will not be a systematic process for recruiting 

well-qualified reviewers, identifying them for specific panel reviews and updating their 

contact information. At any time, approximately 30% of the reviewer files contain data 

that are out-of-date, such as old addresses, employers and phone numbers. Without a 

mechanism to populate the PRS database with reviewer’s data, individual staff members 

would be asked to provide suggestions. This is both ineffective and inefficient.

Our experience is that essential contact information needs to be updated at least every

two years to capture reviewers that were not used in recent competitions. Our existing 

database is to be updated biennially. As soon as this data collection is approved, the plan 

is to begin the process of asking respondents to update their data. 

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be 

conducted in a manner:

 requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

 requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in 

fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

 requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

 requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, 

grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

 in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable 

results than can be generalized to the universe of study;

 requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and 

approved by OMB;

 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in 

statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are 

consistent with the pledge, or that unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other 

agencies for compatible confidential use; or

 requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential 

information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect 

the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
4

There are no circumstances which would cause information collection to be conducted in any 

of the manners stipulated.

8. As applicable, state that the Department has published the 60 and 30 Federal Register 

notices as required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information 

collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in 

response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these 

comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the 

availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, 

disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, 

disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or 

those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years – even if the 

collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be 

circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These 

circumstances should be explained.

The collection will publish both 30/60-day Federal Register notices for public comments. 

This collection will be conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 

1320.5.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than 

remuneration of contractors or grantees with meaningful justification.

We pay each reviewer honorarium and cover any travel cost if required.

10. 10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for 

the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If personally identifiable 

information (PII) is being collected, a Privacy Act statement should be included on the 

instrument. Please provide a citation for the Systems of Record Notice and the date a 

Privacy Impact Assessment was completed as indicated on the IC Data Form. A 

confidentiality statement with a legal citation that authorizes the pledge of confidentiality

should be provided. Requests for this information are in accordance with the following 

ED and OMB policies: Privacy Act of 1974, OMB Circular A-108 – Privacy Act 

Implementation – Guidelines and Responsibilities, OMB Circular A-130 Appendix I –

Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals, OMB M03-22 – OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the E-Government 

Act of 2002, OMB M-06-15 – Safeguarding Personally Identifiable Information, OM:6-

104 – Privacy Act of 1974 (Collection, Use and Protection of Personally Identifiable 

Information). If the collection is subject to the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act statement is 

deemed sufficient with respect to confidentiality. If there is no expectation of 
5

confidentiality, simply state that the Department makes no pledge about the 

confidentially of the data.

Respondents will receive a written statement that will accompany the OSERS Peer 

Reviewer Data Form detailing assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents in 

line with agency policy. The Privacy Notice is located at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/notices/privacy/index.html.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual 

behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered 

private. The justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the 

questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be 

given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to 

obtain their consent.

There are no questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement 

should:

 Indicate the number of respondents by affected public type (federal government, 

individuals or households, private sector – businesses or other for-profit, private 

sector – not-for-profit institutions, farms, state, local or tribal governments), 

frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden 

was estimated, including identification of burden type: recordkeeping, reporting or 

third party disclosure. All narrative should be included in item 12. Unless directed to 

do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to 

base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential 

respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary

widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of 

estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates 

should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

 If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden 

estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in the ROCIS IC Burden 

Analysis Table. (The table should at minimum include Respondent types, IC activity, 

Respondent and Responses, Hours/Response, and Total Hours)

 Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for 

collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. 

The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection 

activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 

14.

The burden to the respondents annually would be approximately 450 hours. This 

estimate is based on each 1800 of respondents (40% of the 4500 names in the database) 

annually spending 15 minutes to complete the form. 
6

The changes to the data form include adding two check boxes that will allow first-time 

respondents and repeat reviewers to complete the entire form or simply update contact 

information. This alleviates the need for a separate form, currently in use, to update 

reviewer contact information. The prefix “Dr.” was added as an identifier. The request 

to list educational degree and expertise were separated. Examples of expertise were 

expanded for clarity. Also, to promote electronic submission and efficiency, all the fields 

were made “fillable” through the use of text or check boxes. 

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers 

resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden 

shown in Items 12 and 14.)

 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up 

cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation 

and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into 

account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the 

information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors 

including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital 

equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. 

Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting 

information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, 

drilling and testing equipment; and acquiring and maintaining record storage 

facilities.

 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost 

burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out 

information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In 

developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents 

(fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and 

use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking 

containing the information collection, as appropriate.

 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or 

portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory

compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for 

reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government or (4) as 

part of customary and usual business or private practices. Also, these estimates should 

not include the hourly costs (i.e., the monetization of the hours) captured above in 

Item 12

Total Annualized Capital/Startup Cost:

Total Annual Costs (O&M): 

Total Annualized Costs Requested:

None
7

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a 

description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of 

hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), 

and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of 

information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a 

single table.

The annualized cost to the Federal government is through payments to the peer review 

support contractors for the following data collection activities.

Labor Hours Rate Total

Review Assistant (Logistics) 110 $23.00 $2,530.00 

Review Manager (Logistics) 60 $35.00 $2,100.00 

Systems Engineer (Peer Reviewer 

System) 40 $60.00 $2,400.00 

Systems Analyst (Peer Reviewer 

System) 15 $65.00 $975.00 

Total Direct Labor $8,005.00 

Fringe $799.87 

Overhead $733.22 

G&A and fixed fee $1,252.77 

Subtotal $10,790.86 

Other Direct Costs

Materials $3,600.00 

G&A and fixed fee $576.00 

Subtotal $4,176.00 

Grand Total $14,966.86 

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments. Generally, adjustments in 

burden result from re-estimating burden and/or from economic phenomenon outside of an 

agency’s control (e.g., correcting a burden estimate or an organic increase in the size of 

the reporting universe). Program changes result from a deliberate action that materially 

changes a collection of information and generally are result of new statute or an agency

action (e.g., changing a form, revising regulations, redefining the respondent universe, 

etc.). Burden changes should be disaggregated by type of change (i.e., adjustment, 

program change due to new statute, and/or program change due to agency discretion), 

type of collection (new, revision, extension, reinstatement with change, reinstatement 

without change) and include totals for changes in burden hours, responses and costs (if 

applicable).
8

A adjustment was made to more accurately reflect the estimated number of respondents 

OSERS Peer Reviewer Data form. 

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for 

tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. 

Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of 

the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

The results of this data collection will not be published.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the 

information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date for OMB approval of the data collection is displayed and can 

continue to be displayed on the form.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the Certification of 

Paperwork Reduction Act.

There are no exceptions noted in the certification statement.