Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards Under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]

[Notices]

[Pages 36298-36318]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 98-17583]

[[Page 36297]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Department of Education

_______________________________________________________________________

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, National

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice Inviting

Applications for New Awards Under the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/ Thursday, July 2, 1998 /

Notices

[[Page 36298]]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA Nos.: 84.133A and 84.133B]

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; National

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice Inviting

Applications for New Awards Under the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

Note To Applicants: This notice is a complete application

package. Together with the statute authorizing the programs and

applicable regulations governing the programs, including the

Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

this notice contains information, application forms, and

instructions needed to apply for a grant under these competitions.

On June 8, 1998 the Secretary published in separate parts two

notices of proposed priorities in the Federal Register. One notice

included two proposed priorities related to a burn data coordinating

project and collaborative research for traumatic brain injury (TBI)

model systems. (63 FR 31320-31321). The second notice included three

proposed priorities related to: employment opportunities for American

Indians; community integration for persons with mental retardation; and

policies affecting families of children with disabilities. (63 FR

31324-313290).

In order to provide applicants with a 60-day application period and

to ensure that these grants are awarded before the end of FY 1998,

NIDRR is inviting applications based on the proposed priorities

published on June 8, 1998. NIDRR will publish the final priorities as

soon as possible after the comment period closes on July 8, 1998.

Depending upon the comments that NIDRR receives, the final priorities

may include revisions to the proposed priorities. It is the policy of

the Department of Education not to solicit applications before the

publication of final priorities. However, in this case it is essential

to solicit applications on the basis of the proposed priorities in

order to allow applicants sufficient time to prepare applications of

appropriate quality to be funded. Applicants are advised to begin to

develop their applications based on the proposed priorities. If changes

are made in the final priorities, applicants will be given a chance to

revise or resubmit their applications.

As of the publication of this notice inviting applications, NIDRR

had received two substantive comments addressing the proposed

priorities. The first comment suggested revising the priority on

collaborative research for TBI model systems to address the needs of

individuals in correctional facilities. The second comment suggested

that applicants for the burn data coordinating project demonstrate an

understanding of burn care and the burn model systems database, and

possess the technology to respond to idiosyncratic hardware and

software needs and issues that each burn model system brings to the

common database. In the notice of final priorities, NIDRR will provide

its analysis of these comments and others that are received on or

before July 8, 1998.

The notice of proposed priority for collaborative research for TBI

model systems requires the applicants to collaborate with the current

TBI model systems grantees. The notice of final priority for

collaborative research for TBI model systems will include the names and

telephone numbers of the TBI model systems grantees.

This program supports the National Education Goal that calls for

all Americans to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete

in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of

citizenship.

The estimated funding levels in this notice do not bind the

Department of Education to make awards in any of these categories, or

to any specific number of awards or funding levels, unless otherwise

specified in statute.

Applicable Regulations: The Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81,

82, 85, 86, and 34 CFR part 350.

Program Title: Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program.

CFDA Numbers: 84.133A and 84.133B.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program is to plan related

activities, including international activities, to develop methods,

procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full

inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living,

family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals

with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe

disabilities. In addition, the purpose of the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program is to improve the

effectiveness of services authorized under the Act (34 CFR 350.2).

Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to apply for grants under

this program are States, public or private agencies, including for-

profit agencies, public or private organizations, including for-profit

organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes and

tribal organizations.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762.

Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1998 Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects, CFDA No. 84-133A

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deadline for Estimated Maximum award

Funding priority transmittal of number of amount (per Project period

applications awards year) \1\ (months)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burn Data Coordinating Project.................. 8/31/98 1 $125,000 48

Collaborative Research for Traumatic Brain

Injury Model Systems........................... 8/31/98 8-10 $300,000 48

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project

funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects--Burn Data

Coordinating Project

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection

criteria to evaluate applications for a Burn Data Coordinating Project

under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers

Program.

(a) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority (15

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the responsiveness of the application

to the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal

Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority, the Secretary considers the following

factors:

[[Page 36299]]

(i) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of

the absolute or competitive priority (9 points).

(ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are

likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority

(6 points).

(b) Design of technical assistance activities (20 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

technical assistance activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods for providing technical

assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (6

points).

(ii) The extent to which the information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject

matter (8 points).

(iii) The extent to which the technical assistance is appropriate

to the target population, including consideration of the knowledge

level of the target population, needs of the target population, and

format for providing information (6 points).

(c) Plan of operation (10 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the plan of operation, the

Secretary considers the adequacy of the plan of operation to achieve

the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget,

including clearly defined responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (10 points).

(d) Collaboration (16 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of collaboration, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant's proposed collaboration with

one or more agencies, organizations, or institutions is likely to be

effective in achieving the relevant proposed activities of the project

(8 points).

(ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant (4 points).

(iii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions

that commit to collaborate with the applicant have the capacity to

carry out collaborative activities (4 points).

(e) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and the reasonableness of

the proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the

proposed project activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for the project, including any

subcontracts, is adequately justified to support the proposed project

activities (2 points).

(f) Plan of evaluation (10 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the plan of evaluation, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for

periodic assessment of progress toward--

(A) Implementing the plan of operation (3 points); and

(B) Achieving the project's intended outcomes and expected impacts

(2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for

periodic assessment of a project's progress that is based on identified

performance measures that--

(A) Are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and

expected impacts on the target population (3 points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate

(2 points).

(g) Project staff (20 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the project staff, the Secretary

considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for

employment from persons who are members of groups that have

traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national

origin, gender, age, or disability (2 points).

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in disciplines required to conduct

all proposed activities (7 points).

(ii) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate

to accomplish all the proposed activities of the project (4 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about

the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas (7 points).

(h) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (5 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant's resources to implement the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and accessibility of resources, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant is committed to provide

adequate facilities, equipment, other resources, including

administrative support, and laboratories, if appropriate (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the facilities, equipment, and other

resources are appropriately accessible to individuals with disabilities

who may use the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the

project (2 points total).

Collaborative Research for Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection

criteria to evaluate applications for a Collaborative Research for

Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Project under the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program.

(a) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority (10

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the responsiveness of the application

to the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal

Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority, the Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of

the absolute or competitive priority (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are

likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority

(5 points).

(b) Design of research activities (30 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

research activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the

objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the research activities constitute a

coherent, sustained approach to research in the field, including a

substantial addition to the state-of-the-art (7 points).

(ii) The extent to which the methodology of each proposed research

activity is meritorious, including consideration of the extent to

which--

(A) The proposed design includes a comprehensive and informed

review of

[[Page 36300]]

the current literature, demonstrating knowledge of the state-of-the-art

(4 points);

(B) Each research hypothesis is theoretically sound and based on

current knowledge (4 points);

(C) Each sample population is appropriate and of sufficient size (4

points);

(D) The data collection and measurement techniques are appropriate

and likely to be effective (3 points); and

(E) The data analysis methods are appropriate (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which anticipated research results are likely

to satisfy the original hypotheses and could be used for planning

additional research, including generation of new hypotheses where

applicable (5 points).

(c) Design of dissemination activities (5 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

dissemination activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the

objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the materials to be disseminated are likely

to be effective and usable, including consideration of their quality,

clarity, variety, and format (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the materials and information to be

disseminated and the methods for dissemination are appropriate to the

target population, including consideration of the familiarity of the

target population with the subject matter, format of the information,

and subject matter (2 points).

(d) Plan of operation (6 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the plan of operation, the

Secretary considers the adequacy of the plan of operation to achieve

the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget,

including clearly defined responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (6 points).

(e) Collaboration (15 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of collaboration, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant's proposed collaboration with

one or more agencies, organizations, or institutions is likely to be

effective in achieving the relevant proposed activities of the project

(5 points).

(ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant (5 points).

(iii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions

that commit to collaborate with the applicant have the capacity to

carry out collaborative activities (5 points).

(f) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and the reasonableness of

the proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the

proposed project activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for the project, including any

subcontracts, is adequately justified to support the proposed project

activities (2 points).

(g) Plan of evaluation (10 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the plan of evaluation, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for

periodic assessment of progress toward--

(A) Implementing the plan of operation (3 points); and

(B) Achieving the project's intended outcomes and expected impacts

(2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for

periodic assessment of a project's progress that is based on identified

performance measures that--

(A) Are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and

expected impacts on the target population (3 points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate

(2 points).

(h) Project staff (15 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the project staff, the Secretary

considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for

employment from persons who are members of groups that have

traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national

origin, gender, age, or disability (2 points).

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in disciplines required to conduct

all proposed activities (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate

to accomplish all the proposed activities of the project (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about

the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas (5 points).

(i) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (5 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant's resources to implement the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and accessibility of resources, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant is committed to provide

adequate facilities, equipment, other resources, including

administrative support, and laboratories, if appropriate (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the facilities, equipment, and other

resources are appropriately accessible to individuals with disabilities

who may use the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the

project (2 points total).

Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1998 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, CFDA No. 84-133B

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deadline for Estimated Maximum award

Funding priority transmittal of number of amount (per Project period

applications awards year) \1\ (months)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employment Opportunities for American Indians... 8/31/98 1 $600,000 60

Community Integration for Persons with Mental

Retardation.................................... 8/31/98 1 700,000 60

Policies Affecting Families of Children with

Disabilities................................... 8/31/98 1 650,000 60

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project

funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

[[Page 36301]]

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection

criteria to evaluate applications for RRTCs on employment opportunities

for American Indians, community integration for persons with mental

retardation, and policies affecting families of children with

disabilities.

(a) Importance of the problem (9 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the importance of the problem.

(2) In determining the importance of the problem, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant clearly describes the need

and target population (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed activities address a

significant need of those who provide services to individuals with

disabilities (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will have beneficial

impact on the target population (3 points).

(b) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority (4 points

total).

(1) The Secretary considers the responsiveness of the application

to the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal

Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority, the Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of

the absolute or competitive priority (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are

likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority

(2 points).

(c) Design of research activities (35 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

research activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the

objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the research activities constitute a

coherent, sustained approach to research in the field, including a

substantial addition to the state-of-the-art (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which the methodology of each proposed research

activity is meritorious, including consideration of the extent to

which--

(A) The proposed design includes a comprehensive and informed

review of the current literature, demonstrating knowledge of the state-

of-the-art (5 points);

(B) Each research hypothesis is theoretically sound and based on

current knowledge (5 points);

(C) Each sample population is appropriate and of sufficient size (5

points);

(D) The data collection and measurement techniques are appropriate

and likely to be effective (5 points); and

(E) The data analysis methods are appropriate (5 points).

(iii) The extent to which anticipated research results are likely

to satisfy the original hypotheses and could be used for planning

additional research, including generation of new hypotheses where

applicable (5 points).

(d) Design of training activities (11 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

training activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the

objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed training materials are likely

to be effective, including consideration of their quality, clarity, and

variety (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed training methods are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed training content--

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter (1

point); and

(B) If relevant, is based on new knowledge derived from research

activities of the proposed project (1 point).

(iv) The extent to which the proposed training materials, methods,

and content are appropriate to the trainees, including consideration of

the skill level of the trainees and the subject matter of the materials

(2 points).

(v) The extent to which the proposed training materials and methods

are accessible to individuals with disabilities (1 point).

(vi) The extent to which the applicant is able to carry out the

training activities, either directly or through another entity (2

points).

(e) Design of dissemination activities (8 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

dissemination activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the

objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the content of the information to be

disseminated--

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter (1

point); and

(B) If appropriate, is based on new knowledge derived from research

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the materials to be disseminated are

likely to be effective and usable, including consideration of their

quality, clarity, variety, and format (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the methods for dissemination are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which the materials and information to be

disseminated and the methods for dissemination are appropriate to the

target population, including consideration of the familiarity of the

target population with the subject matter, format of the information,

and subject matter (1 point).

(v) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will be

accessible to individuals with disabilities (1 point).

(f) Design of technical assistance activities (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of

technical assistance activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods for providing technical

assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (1

point).

(ii) The extent to which the information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject

matter (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which the technical assistance is appropriate

to the target population, including consideration of the knowledge

level of the target population, needs of the target population, and

format for providing information (1 point).

(iv) The extent to which the technical assistance is accessible to

individuals with disabilities (1 point).

(g) Plan of operation (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of operation.

[[Page 36302]]

(2) In determining the quality of the plan of operation, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the plan of operation to achieve the objectives

of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly

defined responsibilities, and timelines for accomplishing project tasks

(2 points).

(ii) The adequacy of the plan of operation to provide for using

resources, equipment, and personnel to achieve each objective (2

points).

(f) Collaboration (2 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of collaboration, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant's proposed collaboration with

one or more agencies, organizations, or institutions is likely to be

effective in achieving the relevant proposed activities of the project

(1 point).

(ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant (1 point).

(g) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (3 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and the reasonableness of

the proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the

proposed project activities (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for the project, including any

subcontracts, is adequately justified to support the proposed project

activities (2 points).

(h) Plan of evaluation (7 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the plan of evaluation, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for

periodic assessment of progress toward--

(A) Implementing the plan of operation (1 point); and

(B) Achieving the project's intended outcomes and expected impacts

(1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of evaluation will be used to

improve the performance of the project through the feedback generated

by its periodic assessments (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for

periodic assessment of a project's progress that is based on identified

performance measures that--

(A) Are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and

expected impacts on the target population (2 points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate

(2 points).

(i) Project staff (9 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the project staff, the Secretary

considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for

employment from persons who are members of groups that have

traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national

origin, gender, age, or disability (1 point).

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in disciplines required to conduct

all proposed activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate

to accomplish all the proposed activities of the project (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about

the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which the project staff includes outstanding

scientists in the field (2 points).

(j) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (4 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant's resources to implement the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and accessibility of resources, the

Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant is committed to provide

adequate facilities, equipment, other resources, including

administrative support, and laboratories, if appropriate (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the applicant has appropriate access to

clinical populations and organizations representing individuals with

disabilities to support advanced clinical rehabilitation research (2

points).

(iii) The extent to which the facilities, equipment, and other

resources are appropriately accessible to individuals with disabilities

who may use the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the

project (1 point).

Instructions for Application Narrative

The Secretary strongly recommends that applicants:

(1) Include a one-page abstract in their application;

(2) Limit Part III--Application Narrative to no more than 125 pages

for RRTCs and 75 pages for projects;

(3) Use pages that are 8\1/2\ x 11'' (one side only) with one inch

margins (top, bottom, and sides);

(4) Double-space (no more than 3 lines per vertical inch) all

sections of text in the application narrative; and

(5) Use no smaller than a 12-point font, and an average character

density no greater than 14 characters per inch.

The recommended application narrative page limit does not apply to:

Part I--the electronically scannable form; Part II--the budget section

(including the narrative budget justification); and Part IV--the

assurances and certifications. Also, the one-page abstract, resume(s),

bibliography, or letters of support, while considered part of the

application, are not subject to the recommended page limitation.

Applicants should note that reviewers are not required to review any

information provided in addition to the application information listed

above.

The recommendations for double-spacing and font do not apply within

charts, tables, figures, and graphs, but the information presented in

those formats should be easily readable.

Instructions for Transmittal of Applications

(a) If an applicant wants to apply for a grant, the applicant

shall--

(1) Mail the original and two copies of the application on or

before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application

Control Center, Attention: (CFDA # [Applicant must insert number and

letter]), Washington, D.C. 20202-4725, or

(2) Hand deliver the original and two copies of the application by

4:30 p.m. [Washington, D.C. time] on or before the deadline date to:

U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention:

(CFDA # [Applicant must insert number and letter]), Room #3633,

Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, DC.

(b) An applicant must show one of the following as proof of

mailing:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the

U.S. Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial

carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.

(c) If an application is mailed through the U.S. Postal Service,

the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of

mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.

[[Page 36303]]

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

Notes: (1) The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a

dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an applicant should

check with its local post office.

(2) An applicant wishing to know that its application has been

received by the Department must include with the application a stamped

self-addressed postcard containing the CFDA number and title of this

program.

(3) The applicant must indicate on the envelope and--if not

provided by the Department--in Item 10 of the Application for Federal

Assistance (Standard Form 424) the CFDA number--and letter, if any--of

the competition under which the application is being submitted.

Application Forms and Instructions

The appendix to this application is divided into four parts. These

parts are organized in the same manner that the submitted application

should be organized. These parts are as follows:

PART I: Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424

(Rev. 4-88)) and instructions.

PART II: Budget Form--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form

524A) and instructions.

PART III: Application Narrative.

Additional Materials

Estimated Public Reporting Burden.

Assurances--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).

Certification Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension, and Other

Responsibility Matters: and Drug-Free Work-Place Requirements (ED Form

80-0013).

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and

Voluntary Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered Transactions (ED Form 80-0014)

and instructions. (Note: ED Form GCS-014 is intended for the use of

primary participants and should not be transmitted to the Department.)

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL (if

applicable) and instructions; and Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Continuation Sheet (Standard Form LLL-A).

An applicant may submit information on a photostatic copy of the

application and budget forms, the assurances, and the certifications.

However, the application form, the assurances, and the certifications

must each have an original signature. No grant may be awarded unless a

completed application form has been received.

For Applications Contact: The Grants and Contracts Service Team

(GCST), Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue S.W., Switzer

Building, 3317, Washington, D.C. 20202, or call (202) 205-8207.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may

call the TDD number at (202) 205-9860. The preferred method for

requesting information is to FAX your request to (202) 205-8717.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application

package in an alternate format by contacting the GCST. However, the

Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard

forms included in the application package.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., room 3418, Switzer Building,

Washington, D.C. 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880. Individuals who

use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD

number at (202) 205-2742. Internet: Donna2/3N[email protected]

Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an

alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer

diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding

paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or

portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the

following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If

you have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government

Printing Office at (202) 512-1530 or, toll free at 1-888-293-6498.

Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511

or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option

G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.

Note: The official version of this document is the document

published in the Federal Register.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-762.

Dated: June 26, 1998.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix--Application Forms and Instructions

Applicants are advised to reproduce and complete the application

forms in this section. Applicants are required to submit an original

and two copies of each application as provided in this section.

However, applicants are encouraged to submit an original and seven

copies of each application in order to facilitate the peer review

process and minimize copying errors.

Frequent Questions

1. Can I Get an Extension of the Due Date?

No! On rare occasions the Department of Education may extend a

closing date for all applicants. If that occurs, a notice of the

revised due date is published in the Federal Register. However,

there are no extensions or exceptions to the due date made for

individual applicants.

2. What Should be Included in the Application?

The application should include a project narrative, vitae of key

personnel, and a budget, as well as the Assurances forms included in

this package. Vitae of staff or consultants should include the

individual's title and role in the proposed project, and other

information that is specifically pertinent to this proposed project.

The budgets for both the first year and all subsequent project years

should be included.

If collaboration with another organization is involved in the

proposed activity, the application should include assurances of

participation by the other parties, including written agreements or

assurances of cooperation. It is not useful to include general

letters of support or endorsement in the application.

If the applicant proposes to use unique tests or other

measurement instruments that are not widely known in the field, it

would be helpful to include the instrument in the application.

Many applications contain voluminous appendices that are not

helpful and in many cases cannot even be mailed to the reviewers. It

is generally not helpful to include such things as brochures,

general capability statements of collaborating organizations, maps,

copies of publications, or descriptions of other projects completed

by the applicant.

3. What Format Should be Used for the Application?

NIDRR generally advises applicants that they may organize the

application to follow the selection criteria that will be used. The

specific review criteria vary according to the specific program and

are contained in this Consolidated Application Package.

[[Page 36304]]

4. May I Submit Applications to More Than One NIDRR Program

Competition or More Than One Application to a Program?

Yes, you may submit applications to any program for which they

are responsive to the program requirements. You may submit the same

application to as many competitions as you believe appropriate. You

may also submit more than one application in any given competition.

5. What is the Allowable Indirect Cost Rate?

The limits on indirect costs vary according to the program and

the type of application.

An applicant for an RRTC is limited to an indirect cost rate of

15 percent.

An applicant for a Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Project should limit indirect charges to the organization's approved

indirect cost rate. If the organization does not have an approved

indirect cost rate, the application should include an estimated

actual rate.

6. Can Profitmaking Businesses Apply for Grants?

Yes. However, for-profit organizations will not be able to

collect a fee or profit on the grant, and in some programs will be

required to share in the costs of the project.

7. Can Individuals Apply for Grants?

No. Only organizations are eligible to apply for grants under

NIDRR programs. However, individuals are the only entities eligible

to apply for fellowships.

8. Can NIDRR Staff Advise me Whether my Project is of Interest to

NIDRR or Likely to be Funded?

No. NIDRR staff can advise you of the requirements of the

program in which you propose to submit your application. However,

staff cannot advise you of whether your subject area or proposed

approach is likely to receive approval.

9. How Do I Assure That my Application Will be Referred to the Most

Appropriate Panel for Review?

Applicants should be sure that their applications are referred

to the correct competition by clearly including the competition

title and CFDA number, including alphabetical code, on the Standard

Form 424, and including a project title that describes the project.

10. How Soon After Submitting my Application Can I Find Out if it

Will be Funded?

The time from closing date to grant award date varies from

program to program. Generally speaking, NIDRR endeavors to have

awards made within five to six months of the closing date.

Unsuccessful applicants generally will be notified within that time

frame as well. For the purpose of estimating a project start date,

the applicant should estimate approximately six months from the

closing date, but no later than the following September 30.

11. Can I Call NIDRR to Find Out if my Application is Being Funded?

No. When NIDRR is able to release information on the status of

grant applications, it will notify applicants by letter. The results

of the peer review cannot be released except through this formal

notification.

12. If my Application is Successful, Can I Assume I Will Get the

Requested Budget Amount in Subsequent Years?

No. Funding in subsequent years is subject to availability of

funds and project performance.

13. Will all Approved Applications be Funded?

No. It often happens that the peer review panels approve for

funding more applications than NIDRR can fund within available

resources. Applicants who are approved but not funded are encouraged

to consider submitting similar applications in future competitions.

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

[[Page 36305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.000

[[Page 36306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.001

[[Page 36307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.002

[[Page 36308]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.003

[[Page 36309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.004

BILLING CODE 4001-01-C

[[Page 36310]]

Public reporting burden for these collections of information is

estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect

of these collections of information, including suggestions for

reducing this burden, to the: U.S. Department of Education,

Information Management and Compliance Division, Washington, D.C.

20202-4651; and Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction

Project 1820-0027, Washington, D.C. 20503. Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects (CFDA No. 84.133A) 34 CFR Part 350

Subpart B. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (CFDA No.

84.133B) 34 CFR Part 350 Subpart C.

Notice to All Applicants

Thank you for your interest in this program. The purpose of this

enclosure is to inform you about a new provision in the Department

of Education's General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies

to applicants for new grant awards under Department programs. This

provision is section 427 of GEPA, enacted as part of the Improving

America's Schools Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382).

To Whom Does This Provision Apply?

Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for new discretionary

grant awards under this program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR NEW AWARDS MUST

INCLUDE INFORMATION IN THEIR APPLICATION TO ADDRESS THIS NEW

PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM.

What Does This Provision Require?

Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than on

individual person) to include in its application a description of

the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access

to, and participation in, its federally assisted program for

students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special

needs.

This section allows applicants discretion in developing the

required description. The statute highlights six types of barriers

that can impede equitable access or participation that you may

address: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age.

Based on local circumstances, you can determine whether these or

other barriers may prevent your students, teachers, etc. from

equitable access or participation. Your description need not be

lengthy; you may provide a clear and succinct description of how you

plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your

circumstances. In addition, the information may be provided in a

single narrative, or, if appropriate, may be discussed in connection

with related topics in the application.

Section 427 is not intended to duplicate the requirement of

civil rights statutes, but rather to ensure that, in designing their

projects, applicants for Federal funds address equity concerns that

may affect the ability of certain potential beneficiaries to fully

participate in the project and to achieve to high standards.

Consistent with program requirements and its approved application,

an applicant may use the Federal funds awarded to its to eliminate

barriers it identifies.

What are Examples of How an Applicant Might Satisfy the Requirement

of This Provision?

The following examples may help illustrate how an applicant may

comply with section 427.

(1) An applicant that proposes to carryout an adult literacy

project serving, among others, adults with limited English

proficiency, might describe in its application how it intends to

distribute a brochure about the proposed project to such potential

participants in their native language.

(2) An applicant that proposes to develop instructional

materials for classroom use might describe how it will make the

materials available on audio tape or in braille for students who are

blind.

(3) An applicant that proposes to carry out a model science

program for secondary students and is concerned that girls may be

less likely than boys to enroll in the course, might indicate how it

intends to conduct ``outreach'' efforts to girls, to encourage their

enrollment.

We recognize that many applicants may already be implementing

effective steps to ensure equity of access and participation in

their grant programs, and we appreciate your cooperation in

responding to the requirements of this provision.

Estimated Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are

required to respond to a collection of information unless it

displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number

for this information collection is 1801-0004 (Exp. 8/31/98). The

time required to complete this information collection is estimated

to vary from 1 to 3 hours per response, with an average of 1.5

hours, including the time to review instructions, search existing

data resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete

and review the information collection. If you have any comments

concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for

improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education,

Washington, DC 20202-4651.

BILLING CODE 4001-01-P

[[Page 36311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.005

[[Page 36312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.006

[[Page 36313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.007

[[Page 36314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.008

[[Page 36315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.009

[[Page 36316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.010

[[Page 36317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JY98.011

BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

[[Page 36318]]

DUNS Number Instructions

D-U-N-S No.: Please provide the applicant's D-U-N-S Number. You

can obtain your D-U-N-S Number at no charge by calling 1-800-333-

0505 or by completing a D-U-N-S Number Request Form. The form can be

obtained via the Internet at the following URL:

http://www.dnb.com/dbis/aboutdb/intlduns.htm

The D-U-N-S Number is a unique nine-digit number that does not

convey any information about the recipient. A built in check digit

helps assure the accuracy of the D-U-N-S Number. The ninth digit of

each number is the check digit, which is mathematically related to

the other digits. It lets computer systems determine if a D-U-N-S

Number has been entered correctly.

Dun & Bradstreet, a global information services provider, has

assigned D-U-N-S numbers to over 43 million companies worldwide.

[FR Doc. 98-17583 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P