[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