1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

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

authorizing the collection of information.

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 firsttime 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 

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

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 mailed to them prior to serving on a peer review

panel or electronically in association with a biannual update request. Based on 

changes to the data form, respondents will be able to receive, complete and 

submit the form electronically. 

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 pre-populate the contact information on subsequent 

forms requiring reviewers signatures or feedback. The current OMB approved 

form replaced four forms previously in use to collect data on potential peer 

reviewers. The new form will discontinue the use of one additional form that is 

currently used by reviewers to update their contact information. 

The new form will discontinue the use of one additional form that is used to 

update reviewer contact information with the addition of the two following 

checkbox statements: 

_First Submission

_Update to Previous Submission

 (Complete section 1 plus any section needing updates)
3

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 

8b of IC Data Part 2), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

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.

The initial extensive data collection was done in October - December 1997. 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;
4

 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.

There are no circumstances which would cause information collection to be 

conducted in any of the manners stipulated.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in 

the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, 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 published 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.

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

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

the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

Respondents will receive a written statement that will accompany the data form. 
5

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, frequency of response, annual hour 

burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. 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 item 16 of 

IC Data Part 1.

 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 470 hours. This 

estimate is based on each of 1,875 respondents (75% of the 2500 names in the 

database) annually spending 15 minutes to complete the form. 

The changes to the data form include adding two check boxes that will allow firsttime 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 and efficiency, all the fields were made “fillable” through the use of 

text or check boxes. 
6

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.

Total Annualized Capital/Startup Cost : 

Total Annual Costs (O&M) : 

____________________

Total Annualized Costs Requested : 

None

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.
7

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

review support contractor for the following data collection activities.

Labor

Review Assistant (Logistics) 110hrs@$18.50 $2,035.00

Review Manager (Logistics) 60hrs@$21.63 $1,297.80

Review Assistant (PRS/TRIM) 40hrs@$18.50 $740.00

Programmer Analyst (PRS/TRIM) 15hrs@$122.02 $1,830.30

Program Manager (PRS/TRIM) 5hrs@$$138.14 $690.70

Total Direct Labor $6,593.50

Fringe $799.87

Overhead $733.22

G&A and fixed fee $1,252.77

Subtotal $9,379.36

Other Direct Costs

Materials $3,600.00

G&A and fixed fee $576.00

Subtotal $4,176.00

Grand Total $13,555.36

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments to #16f of the IC Data 

Part 1 Form.

There are no program changes or adjustments. 

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.
8

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.