[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39577-39581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14385]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.133A]


Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; National 
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Disability 
Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program; Notice Inviting 
Applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002

    Purpose of the Program: The purpose of the DRRP Program is to 
improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the Act), as amended.
    For FY 2002 the competition for new awards focuses on projects 
designed to meet the priorities we describe in the PRIORITIES section 
of this application notice. We intend these priorities to improve the 
rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with severe burn 
injuries and traumatic brain injury.
    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 2002 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects, CFDA No. 84-133A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Maximum
                                                                         Deadline for transmittal of   Estimated      award      Estimated     Project
             Funding priority                  Application available             applications          available   amount (per   number of      period
                                                                                                         funds       year) *       awards      (months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.133A-1, Burn Model Systems............  June 7, 2002................  July 22, 2002..............   $1,200,000     $300,000            4           60
84.133A-4, Burn Data Center..............  June 7, 2002................  July 22, 2002..............      250,000      250,000            1           60
84.133A-5, Traumatic Brain Injury Model    June 7, 2002................  July 22, 2002..............    5,475,000      365,000           15          60
 Systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: We will reject without consideration any application that proposes a budget exceeding the stated maximum award amount in any year (See 34 CFR
  75.104(b)).
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.


[[Page 39578]]

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 
82, 85, 86 and 97, and (b) The program regulations 34 CFR part 350.

Priorities

    This competition focuses on projects designed to meet the 
priorities in the notice of final priorities for these programs, 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The 
priorities are:

Priority 1--Burn Model System Projects
Priority 2--Burn Data Center
Priority 3--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems

    For FY 2002 these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one or more of 
these priorities.

Selection Criteria

    We use the following selection criteria to evaluate applications 
under this program.
    The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points.
    The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
    An additional 10 points may be earned by an applicant depending on 
how well they meet the additional selection criterion elsewhere in this 
notice.

Priority 1--Burn Model Systems Projects and Priority 3--Traumatic Brian 
Injury Model Systems

    We use the following selection criteria to evaluate applications 
for the Burn Model Systems Projects and for the Traumatic Brain Injury 
Model Systems.
    (a) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority (6 
points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the responsiveness of the application 
to an 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 one or more of the 
following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of 
the absolute or competitive priority. (3 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are 
likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority. 
(3 points)
    (b) Design of research activities (40 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the extent to which the design of 
research activities is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project.
    (2) In determining the extent to which the design is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Secretary 
considers one or more of 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. (10 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; (8 points)
    (C) Each sample population is appropriate and of sufficient size; 
(7 points)
    (D) The data collection and measurement techniques are appropriate 
and likely to be effective; (5 points)
    (E) The data analysis methods are appropriate. (5 points)
    (c) Design of dissemination activities (8 points).
    (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 one or more of 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. (4 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the materials and information to be 
disseminated and the methods for dissemination are appropriate to the 
target population. (2 points)
    (iii) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will 
be accessible to individuals with disabilities. (2 points)
    (d) Plan of operation (8 points).
    (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. (8 points)
    (e) Collaboration (5 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of collaboration.
    (2) In determining the quality of collaboration, the Secretary 
considers one or more of 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. 
(3 points)
    (ii) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant. (2 points)
    (f) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (5 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy and the reasonableness of 
the budget.
    (2) In determining the adequacy and the reasonableness of the 
proposed budget, the Secretary considers one or more of the following 
factors:
    (i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
proposed project activities. (3 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant is of sufficient size, 
scope, and quality to effectively carry out the activities in an 
efficient manner. (2 points)
    (g) Plan of Evaluation (10 points).
    (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 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. (5 points)
    (h) Project Staff (8 points).
    (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 one or more of the 
following:
    (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

[[Page 39579]]

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)
    (i) Adequacy and accessibility of resources (10 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 one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The quality of an applicant's past performance in carrying out 
a grant. (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. (8 
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)

Priority 2--Burn Data Center

    We use the following selection criteria to evaluate applications 
for the Burn Data Center.
    (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 of 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 
(10 points)
    (b) Quality of the project design (35 points total).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable 
(5 points).
    (ii) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed 
project (15 points).
    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is 
appropriate to and will successfully address the needs of the target 
population or other identified needs (5 points).
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include 
adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of 
products (5 points).
    (v) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated 
with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community, 
State, and federal resources (5 points).
    (c) Design of dissemination activities (15 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 projects, 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 (8 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 (7 points).
    (d) Technical Assistance (10 points).
    (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 one or more of the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods for providing technical 
assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration (5 
points).
    (ii) 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 (5 points).
    (e) Plan of evaluation (10 points).
    (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 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).
    (B) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as appropriate 
(2 points).
    (f) Project Staff (10 points).
    (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 (3 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 (2 points).
    (g) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget (5 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 (3 points). Additional Selection Criterion (10 points).
    We use the following additional criterion to evaluate applications 
under each priority.
    Up to 10 points based on the extent to which an application 
includes

[[Page 39580]]

effective strategies for employing and advancing in employment 
qualified individuals with disabilities in projects awarded under these 
absolute priorities. In determining the effectiveness of those 
strategies, we will consider the applicant's prior success, as 
described in the application, in employing and advancing in employment 
qualified individuals with disabilities.
    Thus, for purposes of this competitive preference, applicants can 
be awarded up to a total of 10 points in addition to those awarded 
under the published selection criteria for these priorities. That is, 
an applicant meeting this competitive preference could earn a maximum 
total of 110 points.
    Pre-Application Meeting: Interested parties are invited to 
participate in a pre-application meeting to discuss the funding 
priorities and to receive technical assistance through individual 
consultation and information about the funding priorities. The pre-
application meeting will be held on June 28, 2002 either by conference 
call or in person at the Department of Education, Office of Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Switzer Building, room 3065, 330 
C Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. NIDRR staff 
will also be available from 12:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on that same day to 
provide technical assistance through individual consultation and 
information about the funding priority. For further information or to 
make arrangements to attend contact Donna Nangle, Switzer Building, 
room 3412, 330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 
205-5880 or via Internet: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call (202) 205-4475.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities at the Public Meetings

    The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities, 
and a sign language interpreter will be available. If you will need an 
auxiliary aid or service other than a sign language interpreter in 
order to participate in the meeting (e.g., other interpreting service 
such as oral, cued speech, or tactile interpreter; assistive listening 
device; or materials in alternate format), notify the contact person 
listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting 
date. Although we will attempt to meet a request we receive after this 
date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid 
or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Application Procedures

    The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998 (Pub. L. 
105-277) and the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement 
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-107) encourage us to undertake initiatives to 
improve our grant processes. Enhancing the ability of individuals and 
entities to conduct business with us electronically is a major part of 
our response to these Acts. Therefore, we are taking steps to adopt the 
Internet as our chief means of conducting transactions in order to 
improve services to our customers and to simplify and expedite our 
business processes.
    We are requiring that applications to the FY 2002 Disability 
Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program be submitted 
electronically using e-Application available through the Education 
Department's e-GRANTS system. The e-GRANTS system is accessible through 
its portal page at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.
    Applicants who are unable to submit an application through the e-
GRANTS system may apply for a waiver to the electronic submission 
requirement. To apply for a waiver, applicants must explain the 
reason(s) that prevent them from using the Internet to submit their 
applications. The reason(s) must be outlined in a letter addressed to: 
Ruth Brannon, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
room 3413, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2645. Please submit 
your letter no later than two weeks before the closing date.
    Any application that receives a waiver to the electronic submission 
requirement will be given the same consideration in the review process 
as an electronic application.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

    Note: Some of the procedures in these instructions for 
transmitting applications differ from those in the Education 
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 
75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the 
Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to 
comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make 
procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. 
Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined 
that proposed rulemaking is not required.

Pilot Project for Electronic Submission of Applications

    In FY 2002, the U.S. Department of Education is continuing to 
expand its pilot project of electronic submission of applications to 
include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary 
grant competitions. The Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects 
(DRRP) Program--CFDA 84.133A is one of the programs included in the 
pilot project. If you are an applicant under the DRRP, you must submit 
your application to us in electronic format or receive a waiver.
    The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant 
Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the 
Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). We shall continue to 
evaluate its success and solicit suggestions for improvement.
    Please note the following:
     Do not wait until the deadline date for the transmittal of 
applications to submit your application electronically. If you wait 
until the deadline date to submit your application electronically and 
you are unable to access the e-Application system, you must contact the 
Help Desk by 4:30 p.m. Washington DC time on the deadline date.
     Keep in mind that e-Application is not operational 24 
hours a day every day of the week. Click on Hours of Web Site Operation 
for specific hours of access during the week.
     You will have access to the e-Application Help Desk for 
technical support: 1-888-336-8930 (TTY: 1-866-697-2696, local 202-401-
8363). The Help Desk hours of operation are limited to: 8 a.m.-6 p.m. 
Washington DC time Monday-Friday.
     If you submit your application electronically by the 
transmittal date but also wish to submit a paper copy of your 
application, then you must mail the paper copy of the application on or 
before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application 
Control Center, Attention: CFDA  84.133A, 7th and D Streets, 
SW., Room 3671, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4725.

     You can submit all documents electronically, including the 
Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424 Standard Face Sheet), Budget 
Information--Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary 
assurances and certifications.
     Within three working days of submitting your electronic 
application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal 
Assistance (ED 424 Standard Face Sheet) to the Application Control 
Center after following these steps:
    1. Print ED 424 from the e-APPLICATION system.
    2. Make sure that the institution's Authorizing Representative 
signs this form.
    3. Before faxing this form, submit your electronic application via 
the e-

[[Page 39581]]

APPLICATION system. You will receive an automatic acknowledgement, 
which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to 
your application).
    4. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of ED 
424.
    5. Fax ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
     We may request that you give us original signatures on all 
other forms at a later date.
    You may access the electronic grant application for the DRRP at: 
http://e-grants.ed.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3412, Switzer Building, 
Washington, DC 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880 or via Internet: 
[email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), may call 
the TDD number at (202) 205-4475.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may review this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.


    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b).

    Dated: June 3, 2002.
Robert H. Pasternack,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix

Frequent Questions

    1. Can I Get an Extension of the Due Date?
    No. On rare occasions the Department of Education may extend a 
closing date for all applicants. If that occurs, a notice of the 
revised due date is published in the Federal Register. However, 
there are no extensions or exceptions to the due date made for 
individual applicants.
    2. What Should be Included in the Application?
    The application should include a project narrative, vitae of key 
personnel, and a budget, as well as the Assurances forms included in 
this package. Vitae of staff or consultants should include the 
individual's title and role in the proposed project, and other 
information that is specifically pertinent to this proposed project. 
The budgets for both the first year and all subsequent project years 
should be included.
    If collaboration with another organization is involved in the 
proposed activity, the application should include assurances of 
participation by the other parties, including written agreements or 
assurances of cooperation. It is not useful to include general 
letters of support or endorsement in the application.
    If the applicant proposes to use unique tests or other 
measurement instruments that are not widely known in the field, it 
would be helpful to include the instrument in the application.
    Many applications contain voluminous appendices that are not 
helpful and in many cases cannot even be mailed to the reviewers. It 
is generally not helpful to include such things as brochures, 
general capability statements of collaborating organizations, maps, 
copies of publications, or descriptions of other projects completed 
by the applicant.
    3. What Format Should Be Used for the Application?
    NIDRR generally advises applicants that they may organize the 
application to follow the selection criteria that will be used. The 
specific review criteria vary according to the specific program, and 
are contained in this Consolidated Application Package.
    4. May I Submit Applications to More Than One NIDRR Program 
Competition or More Than One Application to a Program?
    Yes, you may submit applications to any program for which they 
are responsive to the program requirements. You may submit the same 
application to as many competitions as you believe appropriate. You 
may also submit more than one application in any given competition.
    5. What Is the Allowable Indirect Cost Rate?
    The limits on indirect costs vary according to the program and 
the type of application. An applicant for an RRTC is limited to an 
indirect rate of 15%. An applicant for a Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Project should limit indirect charges to the 
organization's approved indirect cost rate. If the organization does 
not have an approved indirect cost rate, the application should 
include an estimated actual rate.
    6. Can Profitmaking Businesses Apply for Grants?
    Yes. However, for-profit organizations will not be able to 
collect a fee or profit on the grant, and in some programs will be 
required to share in the costs of the project.
    7. Can Individuals Apply for Grants?
    No. Only organizations are eligible to apply for grants under 
NIDRR programs. However, individuals are the only entities eligible 
to apply for fellowships.
    8. Can NIDRR Staff Advise Me Whether My Project Is of Interest 
To NIDRR or Likely To Be Funded?
    No. NIDRR staff can advise you of the requirements of the 
program in which you propose to submit your application. However, 
staff cannot advise you of whether your subject area or proposed 
approach is likely to receive approval.
    9. How Do I Assure That My Application Will Be Referred to the 
Most Appropriate Panel for Review?
    Applicants should be sure that their applications are referred 
to the correct competition by clearly including the competition 
title and CFDA number, including alphabetical code, on the Standard 
Form 424, and including a project title that describes the project.
    10. How Soon After Submitting My Application Can I Find Out if 
It Will Be Funded?
    The time from closing date to grant award date varies from 
program to program. Generally speaking, NIDRR endeavors to have 
awards made within five to six months of the closing date. 
Unsuccessful applicants generally will be notified within that time 
frame as well. For the purpose of estimating a project start date, 
the applicant should estimate approximately six months from the 
closing date, but no later than the following September 30.
    11. Can I Call NIDRR To Find Out if My Application Is Being 
Funded?
    No. When NIDRR is able to release information on the status of 
grant applications, it will notify applicants by letter. The results 
of the peer review cannot be released except through this formal 
notification.
    12. If My Application Is Successful, Can I Assume I Will Get the 
Requested Budget Amount in Subsequent Years?
    No. Funding in subsequent years is subject to availability of 
funds and project performance.
    13. Will All Approved Applications Be Funded?
    No. It often happens that the peer review panels approve for 
funding more applications than NIDRR can fund within available 
resources. Applicants who are approved but not funded are encouraged 
to consider submitting similar applications in future competitions.

[FR Doc. 02-14385 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P