36298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA Nos.: 84.133A and 84.133B]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice

Inviting Applications for New Awards

Under the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program

for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

Note To Applicants: This notice is a

complete application package. Together with

the statute authorizing the programs and

applicable regulations governing the

programs, including the Education

Department General Administrative

Regulations (EDGAR), this notice contains

information, application forms, and

instructions needed to apply for a grant

under these competitions.

On June 8, 1998 the Secretary

published in separate parts two notices

of proposed priorities in the Federal

Register. One notice included two

proposed priorities related to a burn

data coordinating project and

collaborative research for traumatic

brain injury (TBI) model systems. (63 FR

31320–31321). The second notice

included three proposed priorities

related to: employment opportunities

for American Indians; community

integration for persons with mental

retardation; and policies affecting

families of children with disabilities.

(63 FR 31324–313290).

In order to provide applicants with a

60-day application period and to ensure

that these grants are awarded before the

end of FY 1998, NIDRR is inviting

applications based on the proposed

priorities published on June 8, 1998.

NIDRR will publish the final priorities

as soon as possible after the comment

period closes on July 8, 1998.

Depending upon the comments that

NIDRR receives, the final priorities may

include revisions to the proposed

priorities. It is the policy of the

Department of Education not to solicit

applications before the publication of

final priorities. However, in this case it

is essential to solicit applications on the

basis of the proposed priorities in order

to allow applicants sufficient time to

prepare applications of appropriate

quality to be funded. Applicants are

advised to begin to develop their

applications based on the proposed

priorities. If changes are made in the

final priorities, applicants will be given

a chance to revise or resubmit their

applications.

As of the publication of this notice

inviting applications, NIDRR had

received two substantive comments

addressing the proposed priorities. The

first comment suggested revising the

priority on collaborative research for

TBI model systems to address the needs

of individuals in correctional facilities.

The second comment suggested that

applicants for the burn data

coordinating project demonstrate an

understanding of burn care and the burn

model systems database, and possess

the technology to respond to

idiosyncratic hardware and software

needs and issues that each burn model

system brings to the common database.

In the notice of final priorities, NIDRR

will provide its analysis of these

comments and others that are received

on or before July 8, 1998.

The notice of proposed priority for

collaborative research for TBI model

systems requires the applicants to

collaborate with the current TBI model

systems grantees. The notice of final

priority for collaborative research for

TBI model systems will include the

names and telephone numbers of the

TBI model systems grantees.

This program supports the National

Education Goal that calls for all

Americans to possess the knowledge

and skills necessary to compete in a

global economy and exercise the rights

and responsibilities of citizenship.

The estimated funding levels in this

notice do not bind the Department of

Education to make awards in any of

these categories, or to any specific

number of awards or funding levels,

unless otherwise specified in statute.

Applicable Regulations: The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85,

86, and 34 CFR part 350.

Program Title: Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program.

CFDA Numbers: 84.133A and

84.133B.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of

the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program is

to plan related activities, including

international activities, to develop

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation

technology, that maximize the full

inclusion and integration into society,

employment, independent living, family

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with

disabilities, especially individuals with

the most severe disabilities. In addition,

the purpose of the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program is to improve the

effectiveness of services authorized

under the Act (34 CFR 350.2).

Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to

apply for grants under this program are

States, public or private agencies,

including for-profit agencies, public or

private organizations, including forprofit 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

Funding priority

Deadline for

transmittal of

applications

Estimated

number of

awards

Maximum

award amount

(per year) 1

Project period

(months)

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

Collaborative Research for Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems ................ 8/31/98 8–10 $300,000 48

1 Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Projects—Burn Data Coordinating

Project

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses

the following selection criteria to

evaluate applications for a Burn Data

Coordinating Project under the

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Project and Centers Program.

(a) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (15 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36299

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (9

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (6 points).

(b) Design of technical assistance

activities (20 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of technical

assistance activities is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives

of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods

for providing technical assistance are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and

duration (6 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the

relevant aspects of the subject matter (8

points).

(iii) The extent to which the technical

assistance is appropriate to the target

population, including consideration of

the knowledge level of the target

population, needs of the target

population, and format for providing

information (6 points).

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

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of operation, the Secretary

considers the adequacy of the plan of

operation to achieve the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including clearly defined

responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (10 points).

(d) Collaboration (16 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of

collaboration, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant’s

proposed collaboration with one or

more agencies, organizations, or

institutions is likely to be effective in

achieving the relevant proposed

activities of the project (8 points).

(ii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to

collaborate with the applicant (4

points).

(iii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions that

commit to collaborate with the

applicant have the capacity to carry out

collaborative activities (4 points).

(e) Adequacy and reasonableness of

the budget (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

the reasonableness of the proposed

budget, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are

reasonable in relation to the proposed

project activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for

the project, including any subcontracts,

is adequately justified to support the

proposed project activities (2 points).

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

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of evaluation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of progress toward—

(A) Implementing the plan of

operation (3 points); and

(B) Achieving the project’s intended

outcomes and expected impacts (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of a project’s progress that is

based on identified performance

measures that—

(A) Are clearly related to the intended

outcomes of the project and expected

impacts on the target population (3

points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or

qualitative, as appropriate (2 points).

(g) Project staff (20 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project staff, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the applicant

encourages applications for employment

from persons who are members of

groups that have traditionally been

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or disability

(2 points).

(3) In addition, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key

personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in

disciplines required to conduct all

proposed activities (7 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

commitment of staff time is adequate to

accomplish all the proposed activities of

the project (4 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key

personnel are knowledgeable about the

methodology and literature of pertinent

subject areas (7 points).

(h) Adequacy and accessibility of

resources (5 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant’s resources to implement the

proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

accessibility of resources, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

is committed to provide adequate

facilities, equipment, other resources,

including administrative support, and

laboratories, if appropriate (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the facilities,

equipment, and other resources are

appropriately accessible to individuals

with disabilities who may use the

facilities, equipment, and other

resources of the project (2 points total).

Collaborative Research for Traumatic

Brain Injury Model Systems

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses

the following selection criteria to

evaluate applications for a Collaborative

Research for Traumatic Brain Injury

Model Systems Project under the

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Project and Centers Program.

(a) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (10 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (5

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (5 points).

(b) Design of research activities (30

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of research

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the research

activities constitute a coherent,

sustained approach to research in the

field, including a substantial addition to

the state-of-the-art (7 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

methodology of each proposed research

activity is meritorious, including

consideration of the extent to which—

(A) The proposed design includes a

comprehensive and informed review of
36300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

the current literature, demonstrating

knowledge of the state-of-the-art (4

points);

(B) Each research hypothesis is

theoretically sound and based on

current knowledge (4 points);

(C) Each sample population is

appropriate and of sufficient size (4

points);

(D) The data collection and

measurement techniques are

appropriate and likely to be effective (3

points); and

(E) The data analysis methods are

appropriate (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which anticipated

research results are likely to satisfy the

original hypotheses and could be used

for planning additional research,

including generation of new hypotheses

where applicable (5 points).

(c) Design of dissemination activities

(5 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of dissemination

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the materials

to be disseminated are likely to be

effective and usable, including

consideration of their quality, clarity,

variety, and format (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the materials

and information to be disseminated and

the methods for dissemination are

appropriate to the target population,

including consideration of the

familiarity of the target population with

the subject matter, format of the

information, and subject matter (2

points).

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

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of operation, the Secretary

considers the adequacy of the plan of

operation to achieve the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including clearly defined

responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (6 points).

(e) Collaboration (15 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of

collaboration, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant’s

proposed collaboration with one or

more agencies, organizations, or

institutions is likely to be effective in

achieving the relevant proposed

activities of the project (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to

collaborate with the applicant (5

points).

(iii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions that

commit to collaborate with the

applicant have the capacity to carry out

collaborative activities (5 points).

(f) Adequacy and reasonableness of

the budget (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

the reasonableness of the proposed

budget, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are

reasonable in relation to the proposed

project activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for

the project, including any subcontracts,

is adequately justified to support the

proposed project activities (2 points).

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

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of evaluation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of progress toward—

(A) Implementing the plan of

operation (3 points); and

(B) Achieving the project’s intended

outcomes and expected impacts (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of a project’s progress that is

based on identified performance

measures that—

(A) Are clearly related to the intended

outcomes of the project and expected

impacts on the target population (3

points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or

qualitative, as appropriate (2 points).

(h) Project staff (15 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project staff, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the applicant

encourages applications for employment

from persons who are members of

groups that have traditionally been

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or disability

(2 points).

(3) In addition, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key

personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in

disciplines required to conduct all

proposed activities (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

commitment of staff time is adequate to

accomplish all the proposed activities of

the project (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key

personnel are knowledgeable about the

methodology and literature of pertinent

subject areas (5 points).

(i) Adequacy and accessibility of

resources (5 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant’s resources to implement the

proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

accessibility of resources, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

is committed to provide adequate

facilities, equipment, other resources,

including administrative support, and

laboratories, if appropriate (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the facilities,

equipment, and other resources are

appropriately accessible to individuals

with disabilities who may use the

facilities, equipment, and other

resources of the project (2 points total).

APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTERS, CFDA NO. 84–133B

Funding priority

Deadline for

transmittal of

applications

Estimated

number of

awards

Maximum

award amount

(per year) 1

Project period

(months)

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

Community Integration for Persons with Mental Retardation .......................... 8/31/98 1 700,000 60

Policies Affecting Families of Children with Disabilities ................................... 8/31/98 1 650,000 60

1 Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36301

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers

Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses

the following selection criteria to

evaluate applications for RRTCs on

employment opportunities for American

Indians, community integration for

persons with mental retardation, and

policies affecting families of children

with disabilities.

(a) Importance of the problem (9

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

importance of the problem.

(2) In determining the importance of

the problem, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

clearly describes the need and target

population (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

activities address a significant need of

those who provide services to

individuals with disabilities (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

project will have beneficial impact on

the target population (3 points).

(b) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (2 points).

(c) Design of research activities (35

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of research

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the research

activities constitute a coherent,

sustained approach to research in the

field, including a substantial addition to

the state-of-the-art (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

methodology of each proposed research

activity is meritorious, including

consideration of the extent to which—

(A) The proposed design includes a

comprehensive and informed review of

the current literature, demonstrating

knowledge of the state-of-the-art (5

points);

(B) Each research hypothesis is

theoretically sound and based on

current knowledge (5 points);

(C) Each sample population is

appropriate and of sufficient size (5

points);

(D) The data collection and

measurement techniques are

appropriate and likely to be effective (5

points); and

(E) The data analysis methods are

appropriate (5 points).

(iii) The extent to which anticipated

research results are likely to satisfy the

original hypotheses and could be used

for planning additional research,

including generation of new hypotheses

where applicable (5 points).

(d) Design of training activities (11

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of training activities

is likely to be effective in accomplishing

the objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed

training materials are likely to be

effective, including consideration of

their quality, clarity, and variety (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

training methods are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (2

points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

training content—

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects

of the subject matter (1 point); and

(B) If relevant, is based on new

knowledge derived from research

activities of the proposed project (1

point).

(iv) The extent to which the proposed

training materials, methods, and content

are appropriate to the trainees,

including consideration of the skill level

of the trainees and the subject matter of

the materials (2 points).

(v) The extent to which the proposed

training materials and methods are

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (1 point).

(vi) The extent to which the applicant

is able to carry out the training

activities, either directly or through

another entity (2 points).

(e) Design of dissemination activities

(8 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of dissemination

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the content of

the information to be disseminated—

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects

of the subject matter (1 point); and

(B) If appropriate, is based on new

knowledge derived from research

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the materials

to be disseminated are likely to be

effective and usable, including

consideration of their quality, clarity,

variety, and format (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the methods

for dissemination are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (2

points).

(iv) The extent to which the materials

and information to be disseminated and

the methods for dissemination are

appropriate to the target population,

including consideration of the

familiarity of the target population with

the subject matter, format of the

information, and subject matter (1

point).

(v) The extent to which the

information to be disseminated will be

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (1 point).

(f) Design of technical assistance

activities (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of technical

assistance activities is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives

of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods

for providing technical assistance are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and

duration (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the

information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the

relevant aspects of the subject matter (1

point).

(iii) The extent to which the technical

assistance is appropriate to the target

population, including consideration of

the knowledge level of the target

population, needs of the target

population, and format for providing

information (1 point).

(iv) The extent to which the technical

assistance is accessible to individuals

with disabilities (1 point).

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

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of operation.
36302 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of operation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to achieve the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including clearly defined

responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (2 points).

(ii) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to provide for using resources,

equipment, and personnel to achieve

each objective (2 points).

(f) Collaboration (2 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of

collaboration, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant’s

proposed collaboration with one or

more agencies, organizations, or

institutions is likely to be effective in

achieving the relevant proposed

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to

collaborate with the applicant (1 point).

(g) Adequacy and reasonableness of

the budget (3 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

the reasonableness of the proposed

budget, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are

reasonable in relation to the proposed

project activities (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for

the project, including any subcontracts,

is adequately justified to support the

proposed project activities (2 points).

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

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of evaluation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of progress toward—

(A) Implementing the plan of

operation (1 point); and

(B) Achieving the project’s intended

outcomes and expected impacts (1

point).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation will be used to improve the

performance of the project through the

feedback generated by its periodic

assessments (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of a project’s progress that is

based on identified performance

measures that—

(A) Are clearly related to the intended

outcomes of the project and expected

impacts on the target population (2

points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or

qualitative, as appropriate (2 points).

(i) Project staff (9 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project staff, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the applicant

encourages applications for employment

from persons who are members of

groups that have traditionally been

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or disability

(1 point).

(3) In addition, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key

personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in

disciplines required to conduct all

proposed activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

commitment of staff time is adequate to

accomplish all the proposed activities of

the project (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key

personnel are knowledgeable about the

methodology and literature of pertinent

subject areas (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which the project

staff includes outstanding scientists in

the field (2 points).

(j) Adequacy and accessibility of

resources (4 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant’s resources to implement the

proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

accessibility of resources, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

is committed to provide adequate

facilities, equipment, other resources,

including administrative support, and

laboratories, if appropriate (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the applicant

has appropriate access to clinical

populations and organizations

representing individuals with

disabilities to support advanced clinical

rehabilitation research (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the facilities,

equipment, and other resources are

appropriately accessible to individuals

with disabilities who may use the

facilities, equipment, and other

resources of the project (1 point).

Instructions for Application Narrative

The Secretary strongly recommends

that applicants:

(1) Include a one-page abstract in their

application;

(2) Limit Part III—Application

Narrative to no more than 125 pages for

RRTCs and 75 pages for projects;

(3) Use pages that are 81⁄2 x 11’’ (one

side only) with one inch margins (top,

bottom, and sides);

(4) Double-space (no more than 3

lines per vertical inch) all sections of

text in the application narrative; and

(5) Use no smaller than a 12-point

font, and an average character density

no greater than 14 characters per inch.

The recommended application

narrative page limit does not apply to:

Part I—the electronically scannable

form; Part II—the budget section

(including the narrative budget

justification); and Part IV—the

assurances and certifications. Also, the

one-page abstract, resume(s),

bibliography, or letters of support, while

considered part of the application, are

not subject to the recommended page

limitation. Applicants should note that

reviewers are not required to review any

information provided in addition to the

application information listed above.

The recommendations for doublespacing and font do not apply within

charts, tables, figures, and graphs, but

the information presented in those

formats should be easily readable.

Instructions for Transmittal of

Applications

(a) If an applicant wants to apply for

a grant, the applicant shall—

(1) Mail the original and two copies

of the application on or before the

deadline date to: U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Attention: (CFDA # [Applicant must

insert number and letter]), Washington,

D.C. 20202–4725, or

(2) Hand deliver the original and two

copies of the application by 4:30 p.m.

[Washington, D.C. time] on or before the

deadline date to: U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Attention: (CFDA # [Applicant must

insert number and letter]), Room #3633,

Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D

Streets, SW., Washington, DC.

(b) An applicant must show one of the

following as proof of mailing:

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

postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the

date of mailing stamped by the U.S.

Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or

receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing

acceptable to the Secretary.

(c) If an application is mailed through

the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary

does not accept either of the following

as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36303

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by

the U.S. Postal Service.

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

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before

relying on this method, an applicant should

check with its local post office.

(2) An applicant wishing to know that

its application has been received by the

Department must include with the

application a stamped self-addressed

postcard containing the CFDA number

and title of this program.

(3) The applicant must indicate on the

envelope and—if not provided by the

Department—in Item 10 of the

Application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424) the CFDA

number—and letter, if any—of the

competition under which the

application is being submitted.

Application Forms and Instructions

The appendix to this application is

divided into four parts. These parts are

organized in the same manner that the

submitted application should be

organized. These parts are as follows:

PART I: Application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424 (Rev. 4–88)) and

instructions.

PART II: Budget Form—Non-Construction

Programs (Standard Form 524A) and

instructions.

PART III: Application Narrative.

Additional Materials

Estimated Public Reporting Burden.

Assurances—Non-Construction

Programs (Standard Form 424B).

Certification Regarding Lobbying,

Debarment, Suspension, and Other

Responsibility Matters: and Drug-Free

Work-Place Requirements (ED Form 80–

0013).

Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered

Transactions (ED Form 80–0014) and

instructions. (Note: ED Form GCS–014

is intended for the use of primary

participants and should not be

transmitted to the Department.)

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

(Standard Form LLL (if applicable) and

instructions; and Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities Continuation Sheet (Standard

Form LLL–A).

An applicant may submit information

on a photostatic copy of the application

and budget forms, the assurances, and

the certifications. However, the

application form, the assurances, and

the certifications must each have an

original signature. No grant may be

awarded unless a completed application

form has been received.

For Applications Contact: The Grants

and Contracts Service Team (GCST),

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue S.W., Switzer

Building, 3317, Washington, D.C. 20202,

or call (202) 205–8207. Individuals who

use a telecommunications device for the

deaf (TDD) may call the TDD number at

(202) 205–9860. The preferred method

for requesting information is to FAX

your request to (202) 205–8717.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain a copy of the application package

in an alternate format by contacting the

GCST. However, the Department is not

able to reproduce in an alternate format

the standard forms included in the

application package.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.,

room 3418, Switzer Building,

Washington, D.C. 20202–2645.

Telephone: (202) 205–5880. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD

number at (202) 205–2742. Internet:

DonnaCNangle@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 at (202)

512–1530 or, toll free at 1–888–293–

6498.

Anyone may also view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option

G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins and

Press Releases.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

Dated: June 26, 1998.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix—Application Forms and

Instructions

Applicants are advised to reproduce and

complete the application forms in this

section. Applicants are required to submit an

original and two copies of each application

as provided in this section. However,

applicants are encouraged to submit an

original and seven copies of each application

in order to facilitate the peer review process

and minimize copying errors.

Frequent Questions

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

No! On rare occasions the Department of

Education may extend a closing date for all

applicants. If that occurs, a notice of the

revised due date is published in the Federal

Register. However, there are no extensions or

exceptions to the due date made for

individual applicants.

2. What Should be Included in the

Application?

The application should include a project

narrative, vitae of key personnel, and a

budget, as well as the Assurances forms

included in this package. Vitae of staff or

consultants should include the individual’s

title and role in the proposed project, and

other information that is specifically

pertinent to this proposed project. The

budgets for both the first year and all

subsequent project years should be included.

If collaboration with another organization

is involved in the proposed activity, the

application should include assurances of

participation by the other parties, including

written agreements or assurances of

cooperation. It is not useful to include

general letters of support or endorsement in

the application.

If the applicant proposes to use unique

tests or other measurement instruments that

are not widely known in the field, it would

be helpful to include the instrument in the

application.

Many applications contain voluminous

appendices that are not helpful and in many

cases cannot even be mailed to the reviewers.

It is generally not helpful to include such

things as brochures, general capability

statements of collaborating organizations,

maps, copies of publications, or descriptions

of other projects completed by the applicant.

3. What Format Should be Used for the

Application?

NIDRR generally advises applicants that

they may organize the application to follow

the selection criteria that will be used. The

specific review criteria vary according to the

specific program and are contained in this

Consolidated Application Package.
36304 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

4. May I Submit Applications to More Than

One NIDRR Program Competition or More

Than One Application to a Program?

Yes, you may submit applications to any

program for which they are responsive to the

program requirements. You may submit the

same application to as many competitions as

you believe appropriate. You may also

submit more than one application in any

given competition.

5. What is the Allowable Indirect Cost Rate?

The limits on indirect costs vary according

to the program and the type of application.

An applicant for an RRTC is limited to an

indirect cost rate of 15 percent.

An applicant for a Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project should limit

indirect charges to the organization’s

approved indirect cost rate. If the

organization does not have an approved

indirect cost rate, the application should

include an estimated actual rate.

6. Can Profitmaking Businesses Apply for

Grants?

Yes. However, for-profit organizations will

not be able to collect a fee or profit on the

grant, and in some programs will be required

to share in the costs of the project.

7. Can Individuals Apply for Grants?

No. Only organizations are eligible to apply

for grants under NIDRR programs. However,

individuals are the only entities eligible to

apply for fellowships.

8. Can NIDRR Staff Advise me Whether my

Project is of Interest to NIDRR or Likely to be

Funded?

No. NIDRR staff can advise you of the

requirements of the program in which you

propose to submit your application.

However, staff cannot advise you of whether

your subject area or proposed approach is

likely to receive approval.

9. How Do I Assure That my Application Will

be Referred to the Most Appropriate Panel for

Review?

Applicants should be sure that their

applications are referred to the correct

competition by clearly including the

competition title and CFDA number,

including alphabetical code, on the Standard

Form 424, and including a project title that

describes the project.

10. How Soon After Submitting my

Application Can I Find Out if it Will be

Funded?

The time from closing date to grant award

date varies from program to program.

Generally speaking, NIDRR endeavors to

have awards made within five to six months

of the closing date. Unsuccessful applicants

generally will be notified within that time

frame as well. For the purpose of estimating

a project start date, the applicant should

estimate approximately six months from the

closing date, but no later than the following

September 30.

11. Can I Call NIDRR to Find Out if my

Application is Being Funded?

No. When NIDRR is able to release

information on the status of grant

applications, it will notify applicants by

letter. The results of the peer review cannot

be released except through this formal

notification.

12. If my Application is Successful, Can I

Assume I Will Get the Requested Budget

Amount in Subsequent Years?

No. Funding in subsequent years is subject

to availability of funds and project

performance.

13. Will all Approved Applications be

Funded?

No. It often happens that the peer review

panels approve for funding more applications

than NIDRR can fund within available

resources. Applicants who are approved but

not funded are encouraged to consider

submitting similar applications in future

competitions.

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36305
36306 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36307
36308 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36309

BILLING CODE 4001–01–C
36310 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

Public reporting burden for these

collections of information is estimated to

average 30 hours per response, including the

time for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing

and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of these

collections of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to the:

U.S. Department of Education, Information

Management and Compliance Division,

Washington, D.C. 20202–4651; and Office of

Management and Budget, Paperwork

Reduction Project 1820–0027, Washington,

D.C. 20503. Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Projects (CFDA No. 84.133A) 34

CFR Part 350 Subpart B. Rehabilitation

Research and Training Center (CFDA No.

84.133B) 34 CFR Part 350 Subpart C.

Notice to All Applicants

Thank you for your interest in this

program. The purpose of this enclosure is to

inform you about a new provision in the

Department of Education’s General Education

Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies to

applicants for new grant awards under

Department programs. This provision is

section 427 of GEPA, enacted as part of the

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994

(Pub. L. 103–382).

To Whom Does This Provision Apply?

Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for

new discretionary grant awards under this

program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR NEW

AWARDS MUST INCLUDE INFORMATION

IN THEIR APPLICATION TO ADDRESS THIS

NEW PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE

FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM.

What Does This Provision Require?

Section 427 requires each applicant for

funds (other than on individual person) to

include in its application a description of the

steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure

equitable access to, and participation in, its

federally assisted program for students,

teachers, and other program beneficiaries

with special needs.

This section allows applicants discretion

in developing the required description. The

statute highlights six types of barriers that

can impede equitable access or participation

that you may address: gender, race, national

origin, color, disability, or age. Based on local

circumstances, you can determine whether

these or other barriers may prevent your

students, teachers, etc. from equitable access

or participation. Your description need not

be lengthy; you may provide a clear and

succinct description of how you plan to

address those barriers that are applicable to

your circumstances. In addition, the

information may be provided in a single

narrative, or, if appropriate, may be

discussed in connection with related topics

in the application.

Section 427 is not intended to duplicate

the requirement of civil rights statutes, but

rather to ensure that, in designing their

projects, applicants for Federal funds address

equity concerns that may affect the ability of

certain potential beneficiaries to fully

participate in the project and to achieve to

high standards. Consistent with program

requirements and its approved application,

an applicant may use the Federal funds

awarded to its to eliminate barriers it

identifies.

What are Examples of How an Applicant

Might Satisfy the Requirement of This

Provision?

The following examples may help illustrate

how an applicant may comply with section

427.

(1) An applicant that proposes to carryout

an adult literacy project serving, among

others, adults with limited English

proficiency, might describe in its application

how it intends to distribute a brochure about

the proposed project to such potential

participants in their native language.

(2) An applicant that proposes to develop

instructional materials for classroom use

might describe how it will make the

materials available on audio tape or in braille

for students who are blind.

(3) An applicant that proposes to carry out

a model science program for secondary

students and is concerned that girls may be

less likely than boys to enroll in the course,

might indicate how it intends to conduct

‘‘outreach’’ efforts to girls, to encourage their

enrollment.

We recognize that many applicants may

already be implementing effective steps to

ensure equity of access and participation in

their grant programs, and we appreciate your

cooperation in responding to the

requirements of this provision.

Estimated Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, no persons are required to respond

to a collection of information unless it

displays a valid OMB control number. The

valid OMB control number for this

information collection is 1801–0004 (Exp. 8/

31/98). The time required to complete this

information collection is estimated to vary

from 1 to 3 hours per response, with an

average of 1.5 hours, including the time to

review instructions, search existing data

resources, gather and maintain the data

needed, and complete and review the

information collection. If you have any

comments concerning the accuracy of the

time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving

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

Education, Washington, DC 20202–4651.

BILLING CODE 4001–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36311
36312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36313
36314 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36315
36316 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36317

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
36318 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127/Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

DUNS Number Instructions

D–U–N–S No.: Please provide the

applicant’s D–U–N–S Number. You can

obtain your D–U–N–S Number at no charge

by calling 1–800–333–0505 or by completing

a D–U–N–S Number Request Form. The form

can be obtained via the Internet at the

following URL:

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

intlduns.htm

The D–U–N–S Number is a unique ninedigit number that does not convey any

information about the recipient. A built in

check digit helps assure the accuracy of the

D–U–N–S Number. The ninth digit of each

number is the check digit, which is

mathematically related to the other digits. It

lets computer systems determine if a D–U–

N–S Number has been entered correctly.

Dun & Bradstreet, a global information

services provider, has assigned D–U–N–S

numbers to over 43 million companies

worldwide.

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

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P