[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26039-26062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12379]


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

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.
    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 350.

[[Page 26040]]

    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 and 
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related 
activities, including international activities, 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.
    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   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Maximum               
                                         Deadline for transmittal of        Estimated      award       Project  
         Funding priority                       applications                number of   amount (per     period  
                                                                              awards       year)*      (months) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Research Information     July 10, 1998.........................            1     $400,000           60
 Dissemination and Utilization to                                                                               
 Promote Independent Living.                                                                                    
Supported Living and Choice for    July 10, 1998.........................            1      400,000          60 
 Persons with Mental Retardation.                                                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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)).                   

Improving Research Information Dissemination and Utilization to 
Promote Independent Living Selection Criteria

    The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate 
applications for a project on improving research information 
dissemination and utilization to promote independent living under the 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program.
    (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 one or more disabled populations (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 (8 points).
    (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 (4 points).
    (ii) 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 (4 points).
    (d) Design of demonstration activities (13 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
demonstration 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 demonstration activities build 
on previous research, testing, or practices (3 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities 
include the use of proper methodological tools and theoretically sound 
procedures to determine the effectiveness of the strategy or approach 
(2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities 
include innovative and effective strategies or approaches (4 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities are 
likely to contribute to current knowledge and practice and be a 
substantial addition to the state-of-the-art (2 points).
    (v) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities can 
be applied and replicated in other settings (2 points).
    (e) Design of dissemination activities (13 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

[[Page 26041]]

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 (3 points).
    (v) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will be 
accessible to individuals with disabilities (2 points).
    (f) Design of utilization activities (12 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 factors:
    (i) 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 (4 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the utilization strategies are likely to 
be effective (4 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the information or technology is likely 
to be of use in other settings (4 points).
    (g) Design of technical assistance activities (8 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 (2 
points).
    (ii) The extent to which the information to be provided through 
technical assistance covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject 
matter (2 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 (2 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the technical assistance is accessible to 
individuals with disabilities (2 points).
    (h) 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 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 
(3 points).
    (ii) The adequacy of the plan of operation to provide for using 
resources, equipment, and personnel to achieve each objective (3 
points).
    (i) Collaboration (3 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).
    (iii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
that commit to collaborate with the applicant have the capacity to 
carry out collaborative activities (1 point).
    (j) 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).
    (k) 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).
    (l) 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 (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 (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 key personnel have up-to-date knowledge 
from research or effective practice in the subject area covered in the 
priority (1 point).
    (m) 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 facilities, equipment, and other 
resources are appropriately accessible to individuals with disabilities 
who may use the

[[Page 26042]]

facilities, equipment, and other resources of the project (2 points 
total).

Supported Living and Choice for Persons With Mental Retardation 
Selection Criteria

    The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate 
applications for a project on supported living and choice for persons 
with mental retardation under the Disability and Rehabilitation 
Research Project and Centers Program.
    (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 training activities (13 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 (4 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed training methods are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (3 points).
    (iii) 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 
(4 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed training materials and 
methods are accessible to individuals with disabilities (2 points).
    (d) Design of dissemination activities (24 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 (7 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the methods for dissemination are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (7 points).
    (iii) 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 (7 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will be 
accessible to individuals with disabilities (3 points).
    (e) Design of utilization activities (8 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 factors:
    (i) The extent to which the utilization strategies are likely to be 
effective (8 points).
    (f) Design of technical assistance activities (10 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 (3 
points).
    (ii) The extent to which the information to be provided through 
technical assistance covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject 
matter (2 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 (3 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the technical assistance is accessible to 
individuals with disabilities (2 points).
    (g) 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 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 
(3 points).
    (ii) The adequacy of the plan of operation to provide for using 
resources, equipment, and personnel to achieve each objective (3 
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 (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).
    (j) Plan of evaluation (7 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of evaluation.

[[Page 26043]]

    (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).
    (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 (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 (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 key personnel have up-to-date knowledge 
from research or effective practice in the subject area covered in the 
priority (1 point).
    (l) 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 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).

     Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1998--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, CFDA No. 84-133B    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Maximum               
                                         Deadline for transmittal of        Estimated      award       Project  
         Funding priority                       applications                number of   amount (per     period  
                                                                              awards       year)*      (months) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Conditions of Spinal     July 10, 1998.........................            1     $800,000           60
 Cord Injuries.                                                                                                 
Neuromuscular Diseases...........  July 10, 1998.........................            1      650,000           60
Multiple Sclerosis...............  July 10, 1998.........................            1      700,000           60
Community Integration for Persons  July 10, 1998.........................            1      800,000          60 
 with Traumatic 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 RRTCs on secondary conditions of spinal cord injuries, 
neuromuscular diseases, multiple sclerosis, and community integration 
for persons with traumatic brain injury under the Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program.
    (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);

[[Page 26044]]

    (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).
    (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).

[[Page 26045]]

    (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 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 the following:
    (1) A one-page abstract;
    (2) 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 for RRTC applications 
and 75 pages for Project applications, 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
    (3) 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 
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, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    (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 three 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: Additional Materials.
    Estimated Public Reporting Burden.
    Assurances--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
    Certifications 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 80-0014 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 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

[[Page 26046]]

for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-2742. Internet: 
Donna__N<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d8d7ded5dcf9dcdd97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc9d929b9099bc9998d29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>
    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: May 4, 1998.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix

Applications 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 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 26047]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.025



[[Page 26048]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.026



[[Page 26049]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.027



[[Page 26050]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.028



[[Page 26051]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.029



[[Page 26052]]

    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. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.030


[[Page 26053]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.031



[[Page 26054]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.032



[[Page 26055]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.033



[[Page 26056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.034



[[Page 26057]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.035



[[Page 26058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.036



[[Page 26059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.037



[[Page 26060]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.038



[[Page 26061]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.039



[[Page 26062]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11MY98.040



[FR Doc. 98-12379 Filed 5-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>