[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 64 (Monday, April 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16532-16554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8166]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[CFDA Nos.: 84.133B and 84.133E]
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research,
Notice Inviting Applications for a New Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center and New Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers for
Fiscal Year 1999
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.
These programs support 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, and 86; and Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers--34 CFR Part 350, particularly Rehabilitation Research and
Training Centers in Subpart C and Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers in Subpart D.
Program Title: Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
(RRTCs).
CFDA Number: 84.133B.
Purpose of Program: RRTCs conduct coordinated and advanced programs
or research on disability and rehabilitation that will produce new
knowledge that will improve rehabilitation methods and service delivery
systems, alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, and promote
maximum social and economic independence for individuals with
disabilities. RRTCs provide training to service providers at the pre-
service, in-service training, undergraduate, and graduate levels, to
improve the quality and effectiveness of rehabilitation services. They
also provide advanced research training to individuals with
disabilities and those from minority backgrounds engaged in research on
disability and rehabilitation. RRTCs serve as national and regional
technical assistance resources and provide training for service
providers, individuals with disabilities and families and
representatives, and rehabilitation researchers.
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.
Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1999 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers CFDA No.84-133B-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for Estimated Maximum award
Funding priority transmittal of number of amount (per Project period
applications awards year)* (months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehabilitation for Persons with Traumatic 6/03/99 1 $650,000 60
Brain Injury...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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)).
RRTC Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection
criteria to evaluate applications for an RRTC on Rehabilitation for
Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury under the RRTC program. (See
section 350.54)
(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
[[Page 16533]]
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.
(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).
(h) 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).
(i) 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).
(j) 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:
[[Page 16534]]
(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).
(k) 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).
(l) 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).
Program Title: Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs).
CFDA Number: 84.133E.
Purpose of Program: RERCs conduct research, demonstration, and
training activities regarding rehabilitation technology--including
rehabilitation engineering, assistive technology devices, and assistive
technology services, in order to enhance the opportunities to better
meet the needs of, and address the barriers confronted by, individuals
with disabilities in all aspects of their lives.
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.
Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1999, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, CFDA No. 84-133E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for Estimated Maximum award
Funding priority transmittal of number of amount (per Project period
applications awards year)* (months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.133E-1 Universal Design and the Built 6/03/99 1 $675,000 60
Environment....................................
84.133E-7 Telecommunications Access............. 6/03/99 1 675,000 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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)).
RERC Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection
criteria to evaluate applications for RERCs on Universal Design and the
Built Environment, and Telecommunications Access under the RERC
program. (See section 350.54)
(a) Importance of the problem (8 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 rehabilitation service providers (2 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 an application to
the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal Register.
(2) In determining the application's responsiveness 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 (20 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 (3 points).
(ii) The extent to which the methodology of each proposed research
activity is meritorious, including consideration of the extent to
which--
[[Page 16535]]
(A) The proposed design includes a comprehensive and informed
review of the current literature, demonstrating knowledge of the state-
of-the-art (3 points);
(B) Each research hypothesis is theoretically sound and based on
current knowledge (3 points);
(C) Each sample population is appropriate and of sufficient size (3
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 (2 points).
(d) Design of development activities (20 points total).
(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of
development activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the
objectives of the project.
(2)(i) 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:
(ii) The extent to which the plan for development, clinical
testing, and evaluation of new devices and technology is likely to
yield significant products or techniques, including consideration of
the extent to which--
(A) The proposed project will use the most effective and
appropriate technology available in developing the new device or
technique (3 points);
(B) The proposed development is based on a sound conceptual model
that demonstrates an awareness of the state-of-the-art in technology (4
points);
(C) The new device or technique will be developed and tested in an
appropriate environment (3 points);
(D) The new device or technique is likely to be cost-effective and
useful (3 points);
(E) The new device or technique has the potential for commercial or
private manufacture, marketing, and distribution of the product (4
points); and
(F) The proposed development efforts include adequate quality
controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products (3 points).
(e) Design of training activities (4 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 factor: The extent to which the type, extent,
and quality of the proposed clinical and laboratory research
experience, including the opportunity to participate in advanced-level
research, are likely to develop highly qualified researchers (4
points).
(f) Design of dissemination activities (7 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 (2
points); and
(B) If appropriate, is based on new knowledge derived from research
activities of the project (2 points).
(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 information to be disseminated will
be accessible to individuals with disabilities (1 point).
(g) Design of utilization activities (2 points total).
(1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of
utilization 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 factor: The extent to which the potential new
users of the information or technology have a practical use for the
information and are likely to adopt the practices or use the
information or technology, including new devices (2 points).
(h) Design of technical assistance activities (2 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 factor: The extent to which the methods for
providing technical assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity,
and duration (2 points).
(i) Plan of operation (4 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 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).
(j) Collaboration (4 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 agencies, organizations, or institutions
demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant (2 points).
(ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions
that commit to collaborate with the applicant have the capacity to
carry out collaborative activities (2 points).
(k) 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).
(l) Plan of evaluation (9 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: 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--
(i) Are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and
expected impacts on the target population (5 points); and
(ii) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate
(4 points).
(m) Project staff (9 points total).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project staff.
[[Page 16536]]
(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).
(n) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (4 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 (2 points).
(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 (1
point).
(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 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)).
The Secretary strongly recommends the following:
(a) A one-page abstract;
(b) An Application Narrative (i.e., Part III that addresses the
selection criteria that will be used by reviewers in evaluating
individual proposals) of no more than 125 pages double-spaced (no more
than 3 lines per vertical inch) 8\1/2\ x 11'' pages (on one side
only) with one inch margins (top, bottom, and sides). The application
narrative page limit recommendation 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; and
(c) A font no smaller than a 12-point font and an average character
density no greater than 14 characters per inch.
Instructions for Transmittal of Applications
(a) If an applicant wants to apply for a grant, the applicant
must--
(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, DC 20202-4725, or
(2) Hand deliver the original and two copies of the application by
4:30 p.m. [Washington, DC 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.
(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.)
Certification of Eligibility for Federal Assistance in Certain
Programs (ED Form 80-0016).
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL (if
applicable) and instructions; and Disclosure 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,
Department of Education, 400 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
[[Page 16537]]
Education, 400 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) 205-9136. Internet: Donna__Nangle@ed.gov
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 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: March 30, 1999.
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.
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 rate of 15%.
An applicant for an RERC is limited 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-U
[[Page 16538]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.001
[[Page 16539]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.002
[[Page 16540]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.003
[[Page 16541]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.004
[[Page 16542]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.005
[[Page 16543]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.006
[[Page 16544]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.007
[[Page 16545]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.008
[[Page 16546]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.009
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
[[Page 16547]]
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 to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project 1820-0027, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (CFDA No. 84.133B)
34 CFR Part 350.
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (CFDA No. 84.133E) 34
CFR Part 350.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U
[[Page 16548]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.010
[[Page 16549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.011
[[Page 16550]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.012
[[Page 16551]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.013
[[Page 16552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.014
[[Page 16553]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.015
[[Page 16554]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.016
[FR Doc. 99-8166 Filed 4-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
