A two part study was conducted to determine if the peer review system of proposals to the National Science Foundation (NSF) operates fairly and if changes are warranted. Part I (reported in ED 167376) extensively described the peer review process and indicated that it is indeed equitable. Phase II, summarized, investigated the issue further by addressing three major questions: (1) Do program directors bias the peer-review process by their selection of reviewers? (2) Is a system of "blind" reviewing feasible and practicable? and (3) If so, would the results differ from those of conventional review procedures? In an effort to answer these three questions, independent reviewers selected by the Committee on Science and Public Policy (COSPUP) of the National Academy of Science replicated the NSF's peer-review procedures. Section I summarizes the design and discusses the difficulties involved in blinding a proposal. Sections II an III compare the results of NSF reviewers with those of COSPUP on non-blinded and blinded proposals, respectively, and indicate that no major difference exists between the results of the two groups of raters. Section III also discusses the difficulties associated with blind reviewing. Section V lists and discusses 12 recommendations for changes in the NSF peer review process. (DC)