Skip to Content

Notice

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Notice Inviting Applications for New Model Spinal Cord Injury Centers and New Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers for Fiscal Year 2000

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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; Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers—34 CFR Part 350, and the Notice of Final Priority published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers in Subpart D; and Disability and Rehabilitation Research Special Projects and Demonstrations for Model Spinal Cord Injury—34 CFR Part 359 and the Notice of Final Priorities published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

Pre-Application Meetings: Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting to discuss the funding priority for a RERC on Low Vision and Blindness and a Technologies for Children with Orthopedic Disabilities and to receive technical assistance through individual consultation and information about the funding priorities. The pre-application meeting will be held on April 4, 2000.

A pre-application meeting for the Model Spinal Cord Injury Centers will be held on April 5, 2000 at the Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Switzer Building, Room 3065, 330 C St. SW, Washington, DC between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. NIDRR staff will also be available at this location from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on that same day to provide technical assistance through individual consultation and information about the funding priorities. NIDRR will make alternate arrangements to accommodate interested parties who are unable to attend the pre-application meeting in person. For further information contact William Peterson, Switzer Building, room 3425, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 205-9192, or Joel Myklebust, Switzer Building, room 3042, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 401-2071. 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 Start Printed Page 14356language interpreter will be available. If you 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 Notice for Fiscal Year 2000, Model Spinal Cord Injury Centers—CFDA No.84-133N

Funding priorityDeadline for transmittal of applicationsEstimated number of awardsAward amount (per year) *Project Period (months)
Model Spinal Cord Injury Centers60 Days, May 12, 200015$300,000-$375,00060
*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)).

Program Title: Model Spinal Cord Injury Centers.

CFDA Number: 84.133N.

Purpose of Program: Model SCI Centers provide assistance to establish innovative projects for the delivery, demonstration, and evaluation of comprehensive medical, vocational, and other rehabilitation services to meet the wide range of needs of individuals with SCI.

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.

Projects will be funded at varying amounts up to the maximum allowed based on individual factors in proposals. Proposed budgets should reflect costs associated with data collection, proposed research, and administration. Funding will be determined individually for each successful applicant up to the maximum allowed based upon 6 documented workload, the peer review process, and overall budgetary limits of the program.

Final Selection Criterion

The Assistant Secretary will use these selection criteria to evaluate applications under this program. The maximum score for all the criteria is 100 points; however, the Assistant Secretary also will use the following criterion so that up to an additional ten points may be earned by an applicant for a total possible score of 110 points:

The new emphasis on research and NIDRR's Plan, plus the importance of the NSCID, require some modifications to the selection criteria for this program. The Secretary will redistribute points to reflect the increased emphasis on research, and to add references to the Plan and NSCID.

(a) Research Project design (30 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) There is a clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program and the Plan;

(2) The research is likely to produce new and useful information;

(3) The need and target population are adequately defined and are sufficient for meaningful research and demonstration;

(4) The outcomes are likely to benefit the defined target population;

(5) The research hypotheses are sound; and

(6) The research methodology is sound in the sample design and selection, the data collection plan, the measurement instruments, and the data analysis plan.

(b) Service comprehensiveness (20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) The services to be provided within the project are comprehensive in scope, and include emergency medical services, intensive and acute medical care, rehabilitation management, psychosocial and community reintegration, and follow up;

(2) A broad range of vocational and other rehabilitation services will be available to individuals with severe disabilities within the project; and

(3) Services will be coordinated with those services provided by other appropriate community resources.

(c) Plan of operation (10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) There is an effective plan of operation that ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;

(2) The applicant's planned use of its resources and personnel is likely to achieve each objective;

(3) Collaboration between institutions, if proposed, is likely to be effective;

(4) Participation in the National Spinal Cord Injury Database is clearly and adequately described; and

(5) There is a clear description of how the applicant will include eligible project participants who have been traditionally underrepresented, such as—

(i) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;

(ii) Women;

(iii) Individuals with disabilities; and

(iv) The elderly.

(d) Quality of key personnel (10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) The principal investigator and other key staff have adequate training or experience, or both, in spinal cord injury care and rehabilitation and demonstrate appropriate potential to conduct the proposed research, demonstration, training, development, or dissemination activity;

(2) The principal investigator and other key staff are familiar with pertinent literature or methods, or both;

(3) All the disciplines necessary to establish the multidisciplinary system described in § 359.11(a) are effectively represented;

(4) Commitments of staff time are adequate for the project; and

(5) The applicant is likely, as part of its non-discriminatory employment practices, to encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that traditionally have been underrepresented, such as—

(i) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;

(ii) Women;

(iii) Individuals with disabilities; and

(iv) The elderly.

(e) Adequacy of resources (5 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) The facilities planned for use are adequate;

(2) The equipment and supplies planned for use are adequate; and

(3) The commitment of the applicant to provide administrative and other necessary support is evident. Start Printed Page 14357

(f) Budget/cost effectiveness (5 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) The budget for the project is adequate to support the activities;

(2) The costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project; and

(3) The budget for subcontracts (if required) is detailed and appropriate.

(g) Dissemination/utilization (10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) There is a clearly defined plan for dissemination and utilization of project findings;

(2) The research results are likely to become available to others working in the field;

(3) The means to disseminate and promote utilization by others are defined; and

(4) The utilization approach is likely to address the defined need.

(h) Evaluation plan (10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine to what degree—

(1) There is a mechanism to evaluate plans, progress, and results;

(2) The evaluation methods and objectives are likely to produce data that are quantifiable; and

(3) The evaluation results, where relevant, are likely to be assessed in a service setting.

Final Additional Selection Criterion

Within the absolute priority (see the notice of final priority published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register), we will give the following competitive preference to applications that are otherwise eligible for funding under this priority:

Up to ten (10) points based on the extent to which an application includes effective strategies for employing and advancing in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in projects awarded under this absolute priority. In determining the effectiveness of those strategies, we will consider the applicant's success, as described in the application, in employing and advancing in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in the project.

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 this priority. That is, an applicant meeting this competitive preference could earn a maximum total of 110 points.

Application Notice for Fiscal Year 2000, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers—CFDA No. 84-133E

Funding priorityDeadline for transmittal of applicationsEstimated number of awardsMaximum award amount (per year) *Project period (months)
84.133E-1, Low Vision and BlindnessMay 12, 20001$650,00060
84.133E-3, Technologies for Children with Orthopedic DisabilitiesMay 12, 20001650,00060
*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)).

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.

Selection Criteria: The Assistant Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate applications for RERCs on Engineering for Low Vision and Blindness and Technologies for Children with Orthopedic Disabilities. (See section 350.54). The maximum score for all the criteria is 100 points.

(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 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 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 (4 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 (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 (4 points). Start Printed Page 14358

(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 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 (4 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 (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will be accessible to individuals with disabilities (2 point).

(g) Design of utilization activities (4 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 extent to which the potential new users of the information or technology have a practical use for the information and are likely to adopt the practices or use the information or technology, including new devices (4 points).

(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 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 (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 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).

(1) 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 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.

(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. Start Printed Page 14359

(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).

Final Additional Selection Criteria

Within this absolute priority, we will give the following competitive preference to applications that are otherwise eligible for funding under the notice of final priorities published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register:

Up to ten (10) points based on the extent to which an application includes 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 success, as described in the application, in employing and advancing in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in the project.

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.

Instructions for Application Narrative

The Assistant 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) 81/2″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 or express mail 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 20202.

(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 Assistant 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. ­1/12/1999) 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 (GCST), Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue S.W., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C., (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.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., room 3414, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880 or TDD (202) 205-4475. Internet: Donna_Nangle@ed.gov Start Printed Page 14360

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view 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 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 (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

Note:

The official version of 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

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.133N, Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries and 84.133E, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers)

Start Authority

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

End Authority Start Signature

Dated: March 8, 2000.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

End Signature

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 a Rehabilitation Research Project should limit indirect charges to the organizations 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.

Start Printed Page 14361

Start Printed Page 14362

Start Printed Page 14363

Start Printed Page 14364

Start Printed Page 14365

Start Printed Page 14366

Start Printed Page 14367

Start Printed Page 14368

Start Printed Page 14369

Start Printed Page 14370

Start Printed Page 14371

Start Printed Page 14372

Start Printed Page 14373

Start Printed Page 14374

Start Printed Page 14375

Start Printed Page 14376

Start Printed Page 14377

End Further Info End Preamble

BILLING CODE 4000-01-U

[FR Doc. 00-6141 Filed 3-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-C