[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 64 (Monday, April 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16532-16554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA Nos.: 84.133B and 84.133E]


National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 
Notice Inviting Applications for a New Rehabilitation Research and 
Training Center and New Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers for 
Fiscal Year 1999

    Note to Applicants: This notice is a complete application package. 
Together with the statute authorizing the programs and applicable 
regulations governing the programs, including the Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), this notice contains 
information, application forms, and instructions needed to apply for a 
grant under these competitions.
    These programs support the National Education Goal that calls for 
all Americans to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete 
in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of 
citizenship.
    The estimated funding levels in this notice do not bind the 
Department of Education to make awards in any of these categories, or 
to any specific number of awards or funding levels, unless otherwise 
specified in statute.
    Applicable Regulations: The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 
82, 85, and 86; and Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and 
Centers--34 CFR Part 350, particularly Rehabilitation Research and 
Training Centers in Subpart C and Rehabilitation Engineering Research 
Centers in Subpart D.
    Program Title: Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers 
(RRTCs).
    CFDA Number: 84.133B.
    Purpose of Program: RRTCs conduct coordinated and advanced programs 
or research on disability and rehabilitation that will produce new 
knowledge that will improve rehabilitation methods and service delivery 
systems, alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, and promote 
maximum social and economic independence for individuals with 
disabilities. RRTCs provide training to service providers at the pre-
service, in-service training, undergraduate, and graduate levels, to 
improve the quality and effectiveness of rehabilitation services. They 
also provide advanced research training to individuals with 
disabilities and those from minority backgrounds engaged in research on 
disability and rehabilitation. RRTCs serve as national and regional 
technical assistance resources and provide training for service 
providers, individuals with disabilities and families and 
representatives, and rehabilitation researchers.
    Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to apply for grants under 
this program are States, public or private agencies, including for-
profit agencies, public or private organizations, including for-profit 
organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes and 
tribal organizations.

     Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1999 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers CFDA No.84-133B-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Deadline for      Estimated      Maximum award
              Funding priority                 transmittal of     number of       amount (per     Project period
                                                applications        awards           year)*          (months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehabilitation for Persons with Traumatic            6/03/99                1         $650,000              60
 Brain Injury...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project
  funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

    RRTC Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection 
criteria to evaluate applications for an RRTC on Rehabilitation for 
Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury under the RRTC program. (See 
section 350.54)
    (a) Importance of the problem (9 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the importance of the problem.
    (2) In determining the importance of the problem, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant clearly describes the need 
and target population (3 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed activities address a 
significant need of those who provide services to individuals with 
disabilities (3 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project will have beneficial 
impact on the target population (3 points).
    (b) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority (4 points 
total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the responsiveness of the application 
to the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal 
Register.
    (2) In determining the responsiveness of the application to the 
absolute or competitive priority, the Secretary considers the following 
factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of 
the absolute or competitive priority (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are 
likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority 
(2 points).
    (c) Design of research activities (35 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
research activities is likely to be effective in

[[Page 16533]]

accomplishing the objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the research activities constitute a 
coherent, sustained approach to research in the field, including a 
substantial addition to the state-of-the-art (5 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the methodology of each proposed research 
activity is meritorious, including consideration of the extent to 
which--
    (A) The proposed design includes a comprehensive and informed 
review of the current literature, demonstrating knowledge of the state-
of-the-art (5 points);
    (B) Each research hypothesis is theoretically sound and based on 
current knowledge (5 points);
    (C) Each sample population is appropriate and of sufficient size (5 
points);
    (D) The data collection and measurement techniques are appropriate 
and likely to be effective (5 points); and
    (E) The data analysis methods are appropriate (5 points).
    (iii) The extent to which anticipated research results are likely 
to satisfy the original hypotheses and could be used for planning 
additional research, including generation of new hypotheses where 
applicable (5 points).
    (d) Design of training activities (11 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
training activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the proposed training materials are likely 
to be effective, including consideration of their quality, clarity, and 
variety (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed training methods are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the proposed training content--
    (A) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter (1 
point); and
    (B) If relevant, is based on new knowledge derived from research 
activities of the proposed project (1 point).
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed training materials, methods, 
and content are appropriate to the trainees, including consideration of 
the skill level of the trainees and the subject matter of the materials 
(2 points).
    (v) The extent to which the proposed training materials and methods 
are accessible to individuals with disabilities (1 point).
    (vi) The extent to which the applicant is able to carry out the 
training activities, either directly or through another entity (2 
points).
    (e) Design of dissemination activities (8 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
dissemination activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the content of the information to be 
disseminated--
    (A) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter (1 
point); and
    (B) If appropriate, is based on new knowledge derived from research 
activities of the project (1 point).
    (ii) The extent to which the materials to be disseminated are 
likely to be effective and usable, including consideration of their 
quality, clarity, variety, and format (2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the methods for dissemination are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (2 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the materials and information to be 
disseminated and the methods for dissemination are appropriate to the 
target population, including consideration of the familiarity of the 
target population with the subject matter, format of the information, 
and subject matter (1 point).
    (v) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will be 
accessible to individuals with disabilities (1 point).
    (f) Design of technical assistance activities (4 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
technical assistance activities is likely to be effective in 
accomplishing the objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods for providing technical 
assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (1 
point).
    (ii) The extent to which the information to be provided through 
technical assistance covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject 
matter (1 point).
    (iii) The extent to which the technical assistance is appropriate 
to the target population, including consideration of the knowledge 
level of the target population, needs of the target population, and 
format for providing information (1 point).
    (iv) The extent to which the technical assistance is accessible to 
individuals with disabilities (1 point).
    (g) Plan of operation (4 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of operation.
    (2) In determining the quality of the plan of operation, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the plan of operation to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, and timelines for accomplishing project tasks 
(2 points).
    (ii) The adequacy of the plan of operation to provide for using 
resources, equipment, and personnel to achieve each objective (2 
points).
    (h) Collaboration (2 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of collaboration.
    (2) In determining the quality of collaboration, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant's proposed collaboration with 
one or more agencies, organizations, or institutions is likely to be 
effective in achieving the relevant proposed activities of the project 
(1 point).
    (ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant (1 point).
    (i) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (3 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and the reasonableness of 
the proposed budget.
    (2) In determining the adequacy and the reasonableness of the 
proposed budget, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
proposed project activities (1 point).
    (ii) The extent to which the budget for the project, including any 
subcontracts, is adequately justified to support the proposed project 
activities (2 points).
    (j) Plan of evaluation (7 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of evaluation.
    (2) In determining the quality of the plan of evaluation, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:

[[Page 16534]]

    (i) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for 
periodic assessment of progress toward--
    (A) Implementing the plan of operation (1 point); and
    (B) Achieving the project's intended outcomes and expected impacts 
(1 point).
    (ii) The extent to which the plan of evaluation will be used to 
improve the performance of the project through the feedback generated 
by its periodic assessments (1 point).
    (iii) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for 
periodic assessment of a project's progress that is based on identified 
performance measures that--
    (A) Are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and 
expected impacts on the target population (2 points); and
    (B) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate 
(2 points).
    (k) Project staff (9 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project staff.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project staff, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability (1 point).
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the key personnel and other key staff have 
appropriate training and experience in disciplines required to conduct 
all proposed activities (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate 
to accomplish all the proposed activities of the project (2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about 
the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas (2 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the project staff includes outstanding 
scientists in the field (2 points).
    (l) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (4 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and accessibility of the 
applicant's resources to implement the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the adequacy and accessibility of resources, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant is committed to provide 
adequate facilities, equipment, other resources, including 
administrative support, and laboratories, if appropriate (1 point).
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant has appropriate access to 
clinical populations and organizations representing individuals with 
disabilities to support advanced clinical rehabilitation research (2 
points).
    (iii) The extent to which the facilities, equipment, and other 
resources are appropriately accessible to individuals with disabilities 
who may use the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the 
project (1 point).
    Program Title: Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs).
    CFDA Number: 84.133E.
    Purpose of Program: RERCs conduct research, demonstration, and 
training activities regarding rehabilitation technology--including 
rehabilitation engineering, assistive technology devices, and assistive 
technology services, in order to enhance the opportunities to better 
meet the needs of, and address the barriers confronted by, individuals 
with disabilities in all aspects of their lives.
    Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to apply for grants under 
this program are States, public or private agencies, including for-
profit agencies, public or private organizations, including for-profit 
organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes and 
tribal organizations.

     Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1999, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, CFDA No. 84-133E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Deadline for      Estimated     Maximum award
                Funding priority                  transmittal of     number of      amount (per   Project period
                                                   applications       awards          year)*         (months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.133E-1 Universal Design and the Built                 6/03/99               1        $675,000              60
 Environment....................................
84.133E-7 Telecommunications Access.............         6/03/99               1         675,000             60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project
  funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

    RERC Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection 
criteria to evaluate applications for RERCs on Universal Design and the 
Built Environment, and Telecommunications Access under the RERC 
program. (See section 350.54)
    (a) Importance of the problem (8 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the importance of the problem.
    (2) In determining the importance of the problem, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant clearly describes the need 
and target population (3 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed activities address a 
significant need of rehabilitation service providers (2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project will have beneficial 
impact on the target population (3 points).
    (b) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority (4 points 
total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the responsiveness of an application to 
the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal Register.
    (2) In determining the application's responsiveness to the absolute 
or competitive priority, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of 
the absolute or competitive priority (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are 
likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority 
(2 points).
    (c) Design of research activities (20 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
research activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the research activities constitute a 
coherent, sustained approach to research in the field, including a 
substantial addition to the state-of-the-art (3 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the methodology of each proposed research 
activity is meritorious, including consideration of the extent to 
which--

[[Page 16535]]

    (A) The proposed design includes a comprehensive and informed 
review of the current literature, demonstrating knowledge of the state-
of-the-art (3 points);
    (B) Each research hypothesis is theoretically sound and based on 
current knowledge (3 points);
    (C) Each sample population is appropriate and of sufficient size (3 
points);
    (D) The data collection and measurement techniques are appropriate 
and likely to be effective (3 points); and
    (E) The data analysis methods are appropriate (3 points).
    (iii) The extent to which anticipated research results are likely 
to satisfy the original hypotheses and could be used for planning 
additional research, including generation of new hypotheses where 
applicable (2 points).
    (d) Design of development activities (20 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
development activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2)(i) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to 
be effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (ii) The extent to which the plan for development, clinical 
testing, and evaluation of new devices and technology is likely to 
yield significant products or techniques, including consideration of 
the extent to which--
    (A) The proposed project will use the most effective and 
appropriate technology available in developing the new device or 
technique (3 points);
    (B) The proposed development is based on a sound conceptual model 
that demonstrates an awareness of the state-of-the-art in technology (4 
points);
    (C) The new device or technique will be developed and tested in an 
appropriate environment (3 points);
    (D) The new device or technique is likely to be cost-effective and 
useful (3 points);
    (E) The new device or technique has the potential for commercial or 
private manufacture, marketing, and distribution of the product (4 
points); and
    (F) The proposed development efforts include adequate quality 
controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products (3 points).
    (e) Design of training activities (4 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
training activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factor: The extent to which the type, extent, 
and quality of the proposed clinical and laboratory research 
experience, including the opportunity to participate in advanced-level 
research, are likely to develop highly qualified researchers (4 
points).
    (f) Design of dissemination activities (7 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
dissemination activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the content of the information to be 
disseminated--
    (A) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter (2 
points); and
    (B) If appropriate, is based on new knowledge derived from research 
activities of the project (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the materials to be disseminated are 
likely to be effective and usable, including consideration of their 
quality, clarity, variety, and format (2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will 
be accessible to individuals with disabilities (1 point).
    (g) Design of utilization activities (2 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
utilization activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factor: The extent to which the potential new 
users of the information or technology have a practical use for the 
information and are likely to adopt the practices or use the 
information or technology, including new devices (2 points).
    (h) Design of technical assistance activities (2 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
technical assistance activities is likely to be effective in 
accomplishing the objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factor: The extent to which the methods for 
providing technical assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity, 
and duration (2 points).
    (i) Plan of operation (4 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of operation.
    (2) In determining the quality of the plan of operation, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the plan of operation to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, and timelines for accomplishing project tasks 
(2 points).
    (ii) The adequacy of the plan of operation to provide for using 
resources, equipment, and personnel to achieve each objective (2 
points).
    (j) Collaboration (4 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of collaboration.
    (2) In determining the quality of collaboration, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
that commit to collaborate with the applicant have the capacity to 
carry out collaborative activities (2 points).
    (k) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (3 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and the reasonableness of 
the proposed budget.
    (2) In determining the adequacy and the reasonableness of the 
proposed budget, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
proposed project activities (1 point).
    (ii) The extent to which the budget for the project, including any 
subcontracts, is adequately justified to support the proposed project 
activities (2 points).
    (l) Plan of evaluation (9 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the plan of evaluation.
    (2) In determining the quality of the plan of evaluation, the 
Secretary considers the following factors: The extent to which the plan 
of evaluation provides for periodic assessment of a project's progress 
that is based on identified performance measures that--
    (i) Are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and 
expected impacts on the target population (5 points); and
    (ii) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate 
(4 points).
    (m) Project staff (9 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project staff.

[[Page 16536]]

    (2) In determining the quality of the project staff, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability (1 point).
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the key personnel and other key staff have 
appropriate training and experience in disciplines required to conduct 
all proposed activities (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate 
to accomplish all the proposed activities of the project (2 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about 
the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas (2 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the project staff includes outstanding 
scientists in the field (2 points).
    (n) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (4 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and accessibility of the 
applicant's resources to implement the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the adequacy and accessibility of resources, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant is committed to provide 
adequate facilities, equipment, other resources, including 
administrative support, and laboratories, if appropriate (2 points).
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant has appropriate access to 
clinical populations and organizations representing individuals with 
disabilities to support advanced clinical rehabilitation research (1 
point).
    (iii) The extent to which the facilities, equipment, and other 
resources are appropriately accessible to individuals with disabilities 
who may use the facilities, equipment, and other resources of the 
project (1 point).

Instructions for Application Narrative

    The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any 
application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the 
stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).
    The Secretary strongly recommends the following:
    (a) A one-page abstract;
    (b) An Application Narrative (i.e., Part III that addresses the 
selection criteria that will be used by reviewers in evaluating 
individual proposals) of no more than 125 pages double-spaced (no more 
than 3 lines per vertical inch) 8\1/2\  x  11'' pages (on one side 
only) with one inch margins (top, bottom, and sides). The application 
narrative page limit recommendation does not apply to: Part I--the 
electronically scannable form; Part II--the budget section (including 
the narrative budget justification); and Part IV--the assurances and 
certifications; and
    (c) A font no smaller than a 12-point font and an average character 
density no greater than 14 characters per inch.

Instructions for Transmittal of Applications

    (a) If an applicant wants to apply for a grant, the applicant 
must--
    (1) Mail the original and two copies of the application on or 
before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application 
Control Center, Attention: (CFDA # [Applicant must insert number and 
letter]), Washington, DC 20202-4725, or
    (2) Hand deliver the original and two copies of the application by 
4:30 p.m. [Washington, DC time] on or before the deadline date to: U.S. 
Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA # 
[Applicant must insert number and letter]), Room #3633, Regional Office 
Building #3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, DC.
    (b) An applicant must show one of the following as proof of 
mailing:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.
    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.
    (c) If an application is mailed through the U.S. Postal Service, 
the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of 
mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Notes: (1) The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a 
dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an applicant should 
check with its local post office.
    (2) An applicant wishing to know that its application has been 
received by the Department must include with the application a 
stamped self-addressed postcard containing the CFDA number and title 
of this program.

    (3) The applicant must indicate on the envelope and--if not 
provided by the Department--in Item 10 of the Application for Federal 
Assistance (Standard Form 424) the CFDA number--and letter, if any--of 
the competition under which the application is being submitted.

Application Forms and Instructions

    The appendix to this application is divided into four parts. These 
parts are organized in the same manner that the submitted application 
should be organized. These parts are as follows:
    PART I: Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424 (Rev. 
4-88)) and instructions.
    PART II: Budget Form--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 
524A) and instructions.
    PART III: Application Narrative.

Additional Materials

    Estimated Public Reporting Burden.
    Assurances--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
    Certification Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension, and Other 
Responsibility Matters: and Drug-Free Work-Place Requirements (ED Form 
80-0013).
    Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered Transactions (ED Form 80-0014) 
and instructions. (NOTE: ED Form GCS-014 is intended for the use of 
primary participants and should not be transmitted to the Department.)
    Certification of Eligibility for Federal Assistance in Certain 
Programs (ED Form 80-0016).
    Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL (if 
applicable) and instructions; and Disclosure Lobbying Activities 
Continuation Sheet (Standard Form LLL-A).
    An applicant may submit information on a photostatic copy of the 
application and budget forms, the assurances, and the certifications. 
However, the application form, the assurances, and the certifications 
must each have an original signature. No grant may be awarded unless a 
completed application form has been received.
    For Applications Contact: The Grants and Contracts Service Team, 
Department of Education, 400 Independence Avenue S.W., Switzer 
Building, 3317, Washington, D.C. 20202, or call (202) 205-8207. 
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the TDD number at (202) 205-9860. The preferred method for 
requesting information is to FAX your request to (202) 205-8717.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application 
package in an alternate format by contacting the GCST. However, the 
Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard 
forms included in the application package.
    For Further Information Contact: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of

[[Page 16537]]

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., room 3418, Switzer Building, 
Washington, D.C. 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880. Individuals who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD 
number at (202) 205-9136. Internet: Donna__N[email protected]
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding 
paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

    Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or 
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the 
following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with 
Search, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If 
you have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government 
Printing Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
    Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an 
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511 
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option 
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register.

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

    Dated: March 30, 1999.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix--Application Forms and Instructions

    Applicants are advised to reproduce and complete the application 
forms in this Section. Applicants are required to submit an original 
and two copies of each application as provided in this Section. 
However, applicants are encouraged to submit an original and seven 
copies of each application in order to facilitate the peer review 
process and minimize copying errors.

Frequent Questions

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

    No! On rare occasions the Department of Education may extend a 
closing date for all applicants. If that occurs, a notice of the 
revised due date is published in the Federal Register. However, 
there are no extensions or exceptions to the due date made for 
individual applicants.

2. What Should be Included in the Application?

    The application should include a project narrative, vitae of key 
personnel, and a budget, as well as the Assurances forms included in 
this package. Vitae of staff or consultants should include the 
individual's title and role in the proposed project, and other 
information that is specifically pertinent to this proposed project. 
The budgets for both the first year and all subsequent project years 
should be included.
    If collaboration with another organization is involved in the 
proposed activity, the application should include assurances of 
participation by the other parties, including written agreements or 
assurances of cooperation. It is not useful to include general 
letters of support or endorsement in the application.
    If the applicant proposes to use unique tests or other 
measurement instruments that are not widely known in the field, it 
would be helpful to include the instrument in the application.
    Many applications contain voluminous appendices that are not 
helpful and in many cases cannot even be mailed to the reviewers. It 
is generally not helpful to include such things as brochures, 
general capability statements of collaborating organizations, maps, 
copies of publications, or descriptions of other projects completed 
by the applicant.

3. What Format Should be Used for the Application?

    NIDRR generally advises applicants that they may organize the 
application to follow the selection criteria that will be used. The 
specific review criteria vary according to the specific program, and 
are contained in this Consolidated Application Package.

4. May I Submit Applications to More Than One NIDRR Program Competition 
or More Than One Application to a Program?

    Yes, you may submit applications to any program for which they 
are responsive to the program requirements. You may submit the same 
application to as many competitions as you believe appropriate. You 
may also submit more than one application in any given competition.

5. What is the Allowable Indirect Cost Rate?

    The limits on indirect costs vary according to the program and 
the type of application.
    An applicant for an RRTC is limited to an indirect rate of 15%.
    An applicant for an RERC is limited to the organization's 
approved indirect cost rate. If the organization does not have an 
approved indirect cost rate, the application should include an 
estimated actual rate.

6. Can Profitmaking Businesses Apply for Grants?

    Yes. However, for-profit organizations will not be able to 
collect a fee or profit on the grant, and in some programs will be 
required to share in the costs of the project.

7. Can Individuals Apply for Grants?

    No. Only organizations are eligible to apply for grants under 
NIDRR programs. However, individuals are the only entities eligible 
to apply for fellowships.

8. Can NIDRR Staff Advise Me Whether My Project Is of Interest to NIDRR 
or Likely To Be Funded?

    No. NIDRR staff can advise you of the requirements of the 
program in which you propose to submit your application. However, 
staff cannot advise you of whether your subject area or proposed 
approach is likely to receive approval.

9. How Do I Assure That My Application Will Be Referred to the Most 
Appropriate Panel for Review?

    Applicants should be sure that their applications are referred 
to the correct competition by clearly including the competition 
title and CFDA number, including alphabetical code, on the Standard 
Form 424, and including a project title that describes the project.

10. How Soon After Submitting My Application Can I Find Out If It Will 
Be Funded?

    The time from closing date to grant award date varies from 
program to program. Generally speaking, NIDRR endeavors to have 
awards made within five to six months of the closing date. 
Unsuccessful applicants generally will be notified within that time 
frame as well. For the purpose of estimating a project start date, 
the applicant should estimate approximately six months from the 
closing date, but no later than the following September 30.

11. Can I Call NIDRR to Find Out If My Application Is Being Funded?

    No. When NIDRR is able to release information on the status of 
grant applications, it will notify applicants by letter. The results 
of the peer review cannot be released except through this formal 
notification.

12. If My Application Is Successful, Can I Assume I Will Get the 
Requested Budget Amount in Subsequent Years?

    No. Funding in subsequent years is subject to availability of 
funds and project performance.

13. Will All Approved Applications Be Funded?

    No. It often happens that the peer review panels approve for 
funding more applications than NIDRR can fund within available 
resources. Applicants who are approved but not funded are encouraged 
to consider submitting similar applications in future competitions.

BILLING CODE 4000-01-U

[[Page 16538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.001



[[Page 16539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.002



[[Page 16540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.003



[[Page 16541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.004



[[Page 16542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.005



[[Page 16543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.006



[[Page 16544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.007



[[Page 16545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.008



[[Page 16546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.009



BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

[[Page 16547]]

    Public reporting burden for these collections of information is 
estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 
of these collections of information, including suggestions for 
reducing this burden, to: the U.S. Department of Education, 
Information Management and Compliance Division, Washington, D.C. 
20202-4651; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project 1820-0027, Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (CFDA No. 84.133B) 
34 CFR Part 350.
    Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (CFDA No. 84.133E) 34 
CFR Part 350.

BILLING CODE 4000-01-U

[[Page 16548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.010



[[Page 16549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.011



[[Page 16550]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.012



[[Page 16551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.013



[[Page 16552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.014



[[Page 16553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.015




[[Page 16554]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP99.016


[FR Doc. 99-8166 Filed 4-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C