National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, 29156-29165 [2016-10853]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29156-29165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Part 1330

RIN 0985-AA12


National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and 
Rehabilitation Research

AGENCY: National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and 
Rehabilitation Research; Administration for Community Living; HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule implements the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act of 2014 and reflects the transfer of the National Institute on 
Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) 
from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS). The previous regulations were issued by the Department 
of Education. The rulemaking consolidates the NIDILRR regulations into 
a single part, aligns the regulations with the current statute and HHS 
policies, and provides guidance to NIDILRR grantees.

DATES: These final regulations are effective July 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Pugh, Administration for 
Community Living, telephone (202) 795-7422 (Voice). This is not a toll-
free number. This document will be made available in alternative 
formats upon request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Discussion of Final Rule

    The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (``WIOA,'' 
Pub. L. 113-128), signed into law on July 22, 2014, included 
significant changes to Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The 
first of these is the insertion of a new name, the National Institute 
on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
(``NIDILRR,'' which was previously the National Institute on Disability 
and Rehabilitation Research). WIOA also relocates NIDILRR from the 
Department of Education to the Administration for Community Living 
(``ACL'') of the Department of Health and Human Services. As part of 
the transfer, the Administrator of ACL (Administrator) drafted a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking that was published on December 21, 2015, to 
implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 and 
reflect the transfer of the National Institute on Disability, 
Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research from the Department of 
Education to the Department of Health and Human Services.
    ACL received 13 unduplicated comments during the public comment 
period from individuals, state agencies, and organizations representing 
disability, rehabilitation, and aging constituencies. ACL has read and 
considered each of the comments received. We respond here to the most-
commonly-received comments and those that we believe require further 
discussion. Several comments raised issues that are specific to the 
commenter. Responding to such comments is beyond the scope of the final 
regulation. Nevertheless, we encourage commenters with individualized 
questions to contact NIDILRR directly at 202-401-4634--Option 5.
    Many of the comments expressed broad general support for the rule 
and the broader transfer of NIDILRR to the Administration for Community 
Living. Commenters expressed their support of the consolidation of 
existing NIDILRR regulations and alignment with HHS policies, a major 
goal of this rulemaking. Others expressed their approval of the 
elimination of unnecessary language from the regulatory text, while at 
the same time maintaining existing Department of Education language 
where it makes programmatic sense to do so. Finally, multiple 
commenters wrote in support of the inclusion of the stages of research, 
as well as the new stages of development.
    While no commenters expressed general opposition to the 
promulgation of the rule, several expressed their concerns about 
specific provisions of the proposed rule. We made changes to the 
regulatory text based on the comments as discussed below and we fixed a 
few non-substantive technical errors in the regulatory text. In 
addition, it has come to our attention that a selection criterion used 
at the Department of Education related to the quality of a proposed 
project's design was inadvertently omitted from this rule. This 
criterion is extremely valuable to the evaluation of applications for 
certain NIDILRR projects, and we have therefore included it verbatim at 
Sec.  1330.24(p) as one of the criteria the Director may consider in 
evaluating an application. Other than the changes discussed below, we 
adopt our discussion of the rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
published December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79283).

A. Funding Out of Rank Order in Field-Initiated Competitions

    Comment: Six commenters (five organizations and one individual) 
raised concerns about a proposed change to Sec.  1330.25. The proposed 
regulation gives the NIDILRR director authority to fund out of rank 
order in field-initiated competitions when there is an opportunity to 
fund a project of significant interest to the agency. Concerns ranged 
from the change giving too much authority to political appointees to 
the potential undermining of the scientific integrity of the research 
process. Suggestions ranged from dropping this proposed change in the 
regulation to increasing the scoring threshold for use of the provision 
or to creating a requirement for a formal explanation by the NIDILRR 
director justifying the proposed change.
    Response: NIDILRR appreciates the concerns expressed by these 
commenters especially the focus on impartial peer review and its role 
in maintaining the scientific integrity of NIDILRR's research 
portfolio. Our goal in suggesting this change was to provide an 
opportunity for the Director to select applications that address 
critical agency goals in circumstances where these applications have 
high scores but would not be funded in a strictly rank order

[[Page 29157]]

framework. NIDILRR has long had the ability to fund out of rank order, 
and though it was rarely used, we added the 80 percent threshold in an 
effort to ensure the quality of NIDILRR-funded research. NIDILRR has 
expanded our field-initiated research opportunities in recent years, 
and we think that clarifying the requirements for funding out of rank 
order will ensure this quality, while also allowing for funding of 
compelling research opportunities. In such cases where an application 
may have otherwise gone unfunded in a strict rank-order process, we 
believe that the Director should have the ability to fund highly 
promising studies, while setting a minimum threshold for quality 
assurance and providing for public notification.
    After careful consideration of the concerns raised by the 
commenters, as well as a review of past applications, NIDILRR proposes 
to increase the threshold before funding out of rank order can be 
considered to a score of 85 points or above. We believe, based upon 
decades of staff experience with the grant review process, that this 
number strikes a reasonable balance between providing the Director the 
flexibility to fund applications which are uniquely promising and 
ensuring that all NIDILRR-funded research projects are of the quality 
and rigor for which NIDILRR is known. In addition, the regulation has 
been amended to require a public notification by the Director of any 
decision to fund out of rank order. Should it become advisable to raise 
this threshold further, we may revisit this threshold in the future. We 
take these steps to clarify our commitment to conducting rigorous peer 
review.

B. Publication of Funding Opportunities and Application Instructions

    Comment: In light of the new regulation's elimination of specific 
funding application instructions, two commenters suggested that NIDILRR 
update its Web site to provide clear information to applicants on 
funding opportunities and on the process of submitting applications.
    Response: NIDILRR shares these commenters' commitment to ensuring 
that potential grantees have adequate access to information on 
NIDILRR's research priorities and application processes. To this end, 
we are publishing funding forecast documents with links to necessary 
application information on the ACL Web site, and will endeavor at all 
times to maximize the transparency and wide dissemination of funding 
opportunities and application instructions.

C. Stages of Development

    Comment: One commenter, while supporting the stages of development 
in Sec.  1330.5, expressed concern that the rule doesn't make clear 
that the technology transfer plan requirement does not sufficiently 
convey the complexity of supply and demand and the behaviors of 
consumers and other stakeholders in their decisions to adopt and use 
technology.
    Response: The stages of development provide an organizational 
framework to guide prospective applicants in preparing their technical 
proposals. The stages are not prescriptive. For this reason, we believe 
that identifying the relevant stage(s) of development will allow the 
peer review process to better determine the extent to which proposed 
activities to facilitate and measure product adoption are necessary and 
appropriate and to determine the extent to which applicants understand 
contextual factors that might impact product adoption.

D. Disability Advisory Panels and Reviewer Training

    Comment: One organization made a number of suggestions related to 
NIDILRR's peer review process as described in Sec.  1330.22. This 
commenter recommended that NIDILRR form advisory panels with members 
with diverse disabilities, including physical, sensory, intellectual, 
and mental disabilities, to be assigned to each peer review panel to 
ensure that disability perspectives are considered in the funding 
decision.
    In addition, the commenter suggested reviewer training related to 
consistent weighting of scores, minimizing personal biases of 
reviewers, and reviewing and scoring application attachments. The 
commenter also suggested that NIDILRR provide training to the 
disability advisory panels to ensure that personal likes and dislikes 
of the reviewers not enter into the scoring.
    Response: NIDILRR strongly supports a diversity of perspectives on 
peer review panels and makes every effort to include reviewers who have 
disabilities as well as subject-matter expertise relevant to the 
research or development topic. We are constantly seeking to recruit 
new, qualified individuals with disabilities for these purposes. We 
require our peer reviewers to attend an orientation session and, if 
they are new to our system, participate in training sessions to ensure 
that they understand the technical requirements of the process. NIDILRR 
staff monitors each panel to ensure that the review is carried out in a 
professional manner and further to ensure that each application is 
treated fairly.
    To support the importance of research and development focused on 
the needs of individuals with disabilities, NIDILRR has already added a 
requirement that applicants must obtain input from individuals with 
disabilities and other stakeholders in shaping proposed research or 
development activities. NIDILRR is also finalizing approval of its 
Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Advisory 
Council (DILRRAC) which adheres to a statutory requirement that more 
than 50% of its membership be comprised of individuals with 
disabilities. We believe that this committee will provide valuable 
guidance regarding ways that we can improve the relevance of NIDILRR's 
research to individuals with disabilities. We are confident that all of 
these steps will address the commenters concerns without adding 
significant administrative burden and expense to the peer review 
process.

E. Collaboration

    Comment: Two commenters suggested additions to the peer review 
criterion on collaboration in Sec.  1330.24(k). Both suggested more 
specific requirements for collaboration with local and national 
consumer organizations, and one also included a recommendation for 
requiring meaningful collaboration with other relevant agencies, 
organizations, or institutions. In addition, one of the commenters 
suggested weighting the collaboration criterion more heavily.
    Response: NIDILRR strongly agrees that it is important to seek 
appropriate collaboration where relevant to the specific research or 
development project being proposed. To this end, we have long had a 
collaboration review element which is required for many funding 
priorities. We believe that this requirement is adequate, and that to 
require it of all research or development projects would be misguided, 
as collaboration may not be relevant for the research topic or stage of 
research or development being proposed.
    Specific weighting of review criteria is not prescribed by 
regulation so as to allow weighting as appropriate to the purpose and 
goals of each funding priority. More specific regulatory language on 
weighting would significantly limit NIDILRR's ability to match 
individual criteria with the topic of the priority at hand.

[[Page 29158]]

F. Notification of Review Scores and Comments

    Comment: Two commenters suggested the insertion into regulation a 
requirement that applicants will receive reviewer scores and comments 
within 30 days of NIDILRR decisions.
    Response: This is already a part of NIDILRR's grants management 
policy, and we make every effort to ensure that notification of scores 
and comments is provided within a 30 day timeframe. We believe that to 
specifically require this in regulation would be counter to the stated 
objectives of consolidating and simplifying the regulatory language, to 
which many commenters responded very favorably.

G. Posting of Applicant Scores

    Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDILRR post a list of 
applicants and aggregate scores on its Web site at the conclusion of a 
competition.
    Response: NIDILRR's goal is to fund rigorous and relevant research, 
as determine by an independent panel of individuals with subject-
specific expertise and with knowledge of and sensitivity to the needs 
of individuals with disabilities. We ask these reviewers to provide 
detailed and thoughtful comments on the proposals they review, and we 
send this feedback to applicants in an effort to help build capacity in 
disability and rehabilitation research. We do not believe that listing 
unsuccessful applicants and their scores would further this goal, and 
believe that doing so would be contrary to HHS grants policy with 
regard to applicant privacy.

H. Meaning of ``Product''

    Comment: One organization raised several questions about the 
meaning of the term ``product'' in our discussion of stages of 
development, specifically requesting that NIDILRR define the term and 
what it includes. A related comment recommended that NIDILRR provide 
clarification to the concept of ``proof of product'' to ensure that it 
includes functional requirements such as accessibility and usability or 
market viability requirements such as price or performance. This 
commenter also suggested that NIDILRR elaborate on its expectations of 
the attributes associated with the stages of development. Finally, 
there was one comment asking that there be consistent use of the term 
product in the document.
    Response: NIDILRR carefully considered these comments which helped 
us think about the extent to which we wanted to make the definition of 
``product'' to be enumerative or non-enumerative and to allow for 
changes in conceptualization over time. Our conclusion is that 
flexibility is needed and beneficial. To this end, we are defining 
products as potentially encompassing but not necessarily limited to 
models, methods, tools, applications, and devices. Applicants can 
associate proposed products to these types or clarify and defend why 
proposed products lie outside of these types. Finally, we agree that it 
would contribute to clarity to use the term, ``product'' consistently 
in the document, and we have made this change accordingly.

I. Removal of ``Scientific'' From Peer Review Panels

    Comment: A commenter suggested that NIDILRR remove the term 
``scientific'' from the description of its peer review panels.
    Response: NIDILRR's authorizing statute specifically requires the 
NIDILRR Director to provide for scientific review of all applications 
over which the Director has authority. 29 U.S.C. 762(f)(1). Given the 
statutory requirement, NIDILRR feels that it must adhere to this 
standard which confirms Congressional intent to ensure that NIDILRR 
carry out its peer review so that scientific expertise supports 
rigorous review that help ensures that NIDILRR funds the research that 
is likely to generate findings that will help improve the lives of 
individuals with disabilities. However, NIDILRR also notes that this 
section of the statute references inclusion of expertise regarding 
needs of individuals with disabilities and their families. To this end, 
we make every effort to have peer review panels that balance scientific 
expertise with knowledge relevant to individuals with disabilities and 
their families.

J. Role of the Director

    Comment: One organization asked for clarification of the role of 
the Director in conducting evaluation of applications for NIDILRR 
funding, specifically inquiring whether the Director has sole 
discretion over the review.
    Response: As stated in Sec.  1330.21, the NIDILRR Director is 
required to refer each application to a peer review panel that reviews 
the application using the applicable peer review criteria as defined in 
Sec.  1330.23. The ranking of the applications by the peer review 
panels determines which applicants are awarded funds, subject to 
special considerations in Sec.  1330.25.

K. Role of the Director, Consistency

    Comment: One commenter pointed out that, in Sec.  1330.24(d), the 
reference to Secretary should refer to the NIDILRR Director for 
consistency with the rest of the section.
    Response: We concur, and have corrected the regulatory text 
accordingly.

L. Applications Address the Needs of Individuals With Diverse 
Backgrounds

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the language in Sec.  1330.11 
be changed so that the Director must require that applicants 
demonstrate how they will address the needs of individuals with 
disabilities from minority backgrounds.
    Response: NIDILRR appreciates the concern behind this comment, and 
this language is often inserted into NIDILRR priorities. However, we 
feel that it is too prescriptive to require that the Director must do 
this in every instance, and that making this an absolute requirement 
will restrict the ability of the Director to establish criteria that 
support topics of research initiatives that may not benefit from such a 
requirement.

M. Composition of Panels

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the language in Sec.  1330.22 
be changed so that the Director shall take into account factors 
including does the peer review panels include knowledgeable individuals 
with disabilities or disability advocates such as parents or family 
members and does the panel include individuals from diverse 
populations.
    Response: NIDILRR appreciates the concern behind this comment. 
However, we feel that it is too prescriptive to require that the 
Director shall do this in every instance and that making this an 
absolute requirement will restrict the ability of the Director to 
establish peer review panels that best match the topics of proposed 
research proposals.

II. Impact Analysis

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The 
Department has determined that this rule is consistent with the 
priorities and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. Executive 
Order 12866 encourages agencies, as

[[Page 29159]]

appropriate, to provide the public with meaningful participation in the 
regulatory process. The rulemaking implements the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act of 2014. In developing the final rule, we 
considered input we received from the public including stakeholders. 
This final rule is not being treated as a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 
the final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The primary impact of this regulation is on entities applying for 
NIDILRR funding opportunities, specifically researchers, States, public 
or private agencies and organizations, institutions of higher 
education, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. The regulation 
does not have a significant economic impact on these entities. This 
rule is in fact significantly shorter than, but with identical 
compliance requirements to, the regulations it replaces.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to 
provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public 
comment before an information collection request is submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. We are 
not introducing any new information collections in this rule however, 
nor revising reporting requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before 
promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million, adjusted for 
inflation, or more in any one year.
    If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, 
section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and 
least burdensome alternatives that achieves the objectives of the rule 
and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section 
203 requires a plan for informing and advising any small government 
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a rule.
    ACL has determined that this rule does not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of more than $100 million in any one year.

E. Congressional Review

    This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Section 
804(2).

F. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or 
regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's conclusion is 
affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment 
addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These regulations do 
not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.

G. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 on ``federalism'' was signed August 4, 1999. 
The purposes of the Order are: ``. . . to guarantee the division of 
governmental responsibilities between the national government and the 
States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure 
that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the 
executive departments and agencies in the formulation and 
implementation of policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act . . .''
    The Department certifies that this rule does not have a substantial 
direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    ACL is not aware of any specific State laws that would be preempted 
by the adoption of the regulation.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1330

    Grant programs, Research, Scholarships and fellowships.

    Dated: April 20, 2016.
Kathy Greenlee,
Administrator, Administration for Community Living.
    Approved: May 2, 2016.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR subchapter C by adding part 
1330 to read as follows:

PART 1330--NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DISABILITY, INDEPENDENT LIVING, 
AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH

Subpart A--Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects and Centers Program
Sec.
1330.1 General.
1330.2 Eligibility for assistance and other regulations and 
guidance.
1330.3 Definitions.
1330.4 Stages of research.
1330.5 Stages of development.
Subpart B--Requirements for Awardees
1330.10 General requirements for awardees.
1330.11 Individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds.
Subpart C--Selection of Awardees
1330.20 Peer review purpose.
1330.21 Peer review process.
1330.22 Composition of peer review panel.
1330.23 Evaluation process.
1330.24 Selection criteria.
1330.25 Additional considerations for field-initiated priorities.
Subpart D--Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
Fellowships
1330.30 Fellows program.
Subpart E--Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries
1330.40 Spinal cord injuries program.

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 709, 3343.

Subpart A--Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 
Research Projects and Centers Program


Sec.  1330.1  General.

    (a) The Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects and Centers Program provides grants to establish and support:
    (1) The following Disability, Independent Living, and 
Rehabilitation Research and Related Projects:
    (i) Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects;
    (ii) Field-Initiated Projects;
    (iii) Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects; and
    (2) The following Disability, Independent Living, and 
Rehabilitation Research Centers:
    (i) Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers;
    (ii) Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers.
    (b) The purpose of the Disability, Independent Living, and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and 
conduct research, development, demonstration projects, training, 
dissemination, and related activities, including international 
activities, to:

[[Page 29160]]

    (1) Develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology, 
that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, 
employment, education, independent living, family support, and economic 
and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, 
especially individuals with the most severe disabilities; and
    (2) Improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.


Sec.  1330.2  Eligibility for assistance and other regulations and 
guidance.

    (a) Unless otherwise stated in this part or in a determination by 
the NIDILRR Director, the following entities are eligible for an award 
under this program:
    (1) States.
    (2) Public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies.
    (3) Public or private organizations, including for-profit 
organizations.
    (4) Institutions of higher education.
    (5) Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
    (b) Other sources of regulation which may apply to awards under 
this part include but are not limited to:
    (1) 45 CFR part 16--Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals 
Board.
    (2) 45 CFR part 46--Protection of Human Subjects.
    (3) 45 CFR part 75--Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.
    (4) 2 CFR parts 376 and 382--Nonprocurement Debarment and 
Suspension and Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial 
Assistance).
    (5) 45 CFR part 80--Nondiscrimination under Programs Receiving 
Federal Assistance through the Department of Health and Human 
Services--Effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    (6) 45 CFR part 81--Practice and Procedure for Hearings under part 
80 of this title.
    (7) 45 CFR part 84--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in 
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
    (8) 45 CFR part 86--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in 
Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
Assistance.
    (9) 45 CFR part 87--Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations.
    (10) 45 CFR part 91--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in 
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from HHS.
    (11) 45 CFR part 93--New Restrictions on Lobbying.


Sec.  1330.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
    (b) Administrator means the Administrator of the Administration for 
Community Living.
    (c) Director means the Director of the National Institute on 
Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research.
    (d) Research is classified on a continuum from basic to applied:
    (1) Basic research is research in which the investigator is 
concerned primarily with gaining new knowledge or understanding of a 
subject without reference to any immediate application or utility.
    (2) Applied research is research in which the investigator is 
primarily interested in developing new knowledge, information, or 
understanding which can be applied to a predetermined rehabilitation 
problem or need.
    (e) Development activities use knowledge and understanding gained 
from research to create materials, devices, systems, or methods 
beneficial to the target population, including design and development 
of prototypes and processes.
    (f) Products encompass models, methods, tools, applications, and 
devices, but are not necessarily limited to these types.


Sec.  1330.4  Stages of research.

    For any Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects and Centers Program competition, the Department may require in 
the application materials for the competition that the applicant 
identify the stage(s) of research in which it will focus the work of 
its proposed project or center. The four stages of research are:
    (a) Exploration and discovery mean the stage of research that 
generates hypotheses or theories through new and refined analyses of 
data, producing observational findings and creating other sources of 
research-based information. This research stage may include identifying 
or describing the barriers to and facilitators of improved outcomes of 
individuals with disabilities, as well as identifying or describing 
existing practices, programs, or policies that are associated with 
important aspects of the lives of individuals with disabilities. 
Results achieved under this stage of research may inform the 
development of interventions or lead to evaluations of interventions or 
policies. The results of the exploration and discovery stage of 
research may also be used to inform decisions or priorities;
    (b) Intervention development means the stage of research that 
focuses on generating and testing interventions that have the potential 
to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Intervention 
development involves determining the active components of possible 
interventions, developing measures that would be required to illustrate 
outcomes, specifying target populations, conducting field tests, and 
assessing the feasibility of conducting a well-designed intervention 
study. Results from this stage of research may be used to inform the 
design of a study to test the efficacy of an intervention;
    (c) Intervention efficacy means the stage of research during which 
a project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is feasible, 
practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the 
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and 
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the 
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research 
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to 
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts. 
This stage of research may include assessing the training needed for 
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to 
evaluation of the intervention in real-world applications; and
    (d) Scale-up evaluation means the stage of research during which a 
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing 
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in 
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests 
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings. 
The project examines the challenges to successful replication of the 
intervention, and the circumstances and activities that contribute to 
successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings. This 
stage of research may also include well-designed studies of an 
intervention that has been widely adopted in practice, but lacks a 
sufficient evidence base to demonstrate its effectiveness.


Sec.  1330.5  Stages of development.

    For any Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects and Centers Program competition, the Department may require in 
the notice inviting applications for the competition that the

[[Page 29161]]

applicant identify the stage(s) of development in which it will focus 
the work of its proposed project or center. The three stages of 
development are:
    (a) Proof of concept means the stage of development where key 
technical challenges are resolved. Stage activities may include 
recruiting study participants, verifying product requirements; 
implementing and testing (typically in controlled contexts) key 
concepts, components, or systems, and resolving technical challenges. A 
technology transfer plan is typically developed and transfer partner(s) 
identified; and plan implementation may have started. Stage results 
establish that a product concept is feasible.
    (b) Proof of product means the stage of development where a fully-
integrated and working prototype, meeting critical technical 
requirements is created. Stage activities may include recruiting study 
participants, implementing and iteratively refining the prototype, 
testing the prototype in natural or less-controlled contexts, and 
verifying that all technical requirements are met. A technology 
transfer plan is typically ongoing in collaboration with the transfer 
partner(s). Stage results establish that a product embodiment is 
realizable.
    (c) Proof of adoption means the stage of development where a 
product is substantially adopted by its target population and used for 
its intended purpose. Stage activities typically include completing 
product refinements; and continued implementation of the technology 
transfer plan in collaboration with the transfer partner(s). Other 
activities include measuring users' awareness of the product, opinion 
of the product, decisions to adopt, use, and retain products; and 
identifying barriers and facilitators impacting product adoption. Stage 
results establish that a product is beneficial.

Subpart B--Requirements for Awardees


Sec.  1330.10  General requirements for awardees.

    (a) In carrying out a research activity under this program, an 
awardee must:
    (1) Identify one or more hypotheses or research questions;
    (2) Based on the hypotheses or research question identified, 
perform an intensive systematic study in accordance with its approved 
application directed toward:
    (i) New or full scientific knowledge; or
    (ii) Understanding of the subject or problem being studied.
    (b) In carrying out a development activity under this program, an 
awardee must create, using knowledge and understanding gained from 
research, models, methods, tools, systems, materials, devices, 
applications, or standards that are adopted by and beneficial to the 
target population. Development activities span one or more stages of 
development.
    (c) In carrying out a training activity under this program, an 
awardee shall conduct a planned and systematic sequence of supervised 
instruction that is designed to impart predetermined skills and 
knowledge.
    (d) In carrying out a demonstration activity under this program, an 
awardee shall apply results derived from previous research, testing, or 
practice to determine the effectiveness of a new strategy or approach.
    (e) In carrying out a utilization activity under this program, a 
grantee must relate research findings to practical applications in 
planning, policy making, program administration, and delivery of 
services to individuals with disabilities.
    (f) In carrying out a dissemination activity under this program, a 
grantee must systematically distribute information or knowledge through 
a variety of ways to potential users or beneficiaries.
    (g) In carrying out a technical assistance activity under this 
program, a grantee must provide expertise or information for use in 
problem-solving.


Sec.  1330.11  Individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds.

    (a) If the director so indicates in the application materials or 
elsewhere, an applicant for assistance under this program must 
demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in 
part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority 
backgrounds.
    (b) The approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement 
may include one or more of the following:
    (1) Proposing project objectives addressing the needs of 
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds.
    (2) Demonstrating that the project will address a problem that is 
of particular significance to individuals with disabilities from 
minority backgrounds.
    (3) Demonstrating that individuals from minority backgrounds will 
be included in study samples in sufficient numbers to generate 
information pertinent to individuals with disabilities from minority 
backgrounds.
    (4) Drawing study samples and program participant rosters from 
populations or areas that include individuals from minority 
backgrounds.
    (5) Providing outreach to individuals with disabilities from 
minority backgrounds to ensure that they are aware of rehabilitation 
services, clinical care, or training offered by the project.
    (6) Disseminating materials to or otherwise increasing the access 
to disability information among minority populations.

Subpart C--Selection of Awardees


Sec.  1330.20  Peer review purpose.

    The purpose of peer review is to insure that:
    (a) Those activities supported by the National Institute on 
Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) 
are of the highest scientific, administrative, and technical quality; 
and
    (b) Activity results may be widely applied to appropriate target 
populations and rehabilitation problems.


Sec.  1330.21  Peer review process.

    (a) The Director refers each application for an award governed by 
these regulations in this part to a peer review panel established by 
the Director.
    (b) Peer review panels review applications on the basis of the 
applicable selection criteria in Sec.  1330.23.


Sec.  1330.22  Composition of peer review panel.

    (a) The Director selects as members of a peer review panel 
scientists and other experts in disability, independent living, 
rehabilitation or related fields who are qualified, on the basis of 
training, knowledge, or experience, to give expert advice on the merit 
of the applications under review.
    (b) The scientific peer review process shall be conducted by 
individuals who are not Department of Health and Human Services 
employees.
    (c) In selecting members to serve on a peer review panel, the 
Director may take into account the following factors:
    (1) The level of formal scientific or technical education completed 
by potential panel members.
    (2) The extent to which potential panel members have engaged in 
scientific, technical, or administrative activities appropriate to the 
category of applications that the panel will consider; the roles of 
potential panel members in those activities; and the quality of those 
activities.
    (3) The recognition received by potential panel members as 
reflected by awards and other honors from scientific

[[Page 29162]]

and professional agencies and organizations outside the Department.
    (4) Whether the panel includes knowledgeable individuals with 
disabilities, or parents, family members, guardians, advocates, or 
authorized representatives of individuals with disabilities.
    (5) Whether the panel includes individuals from diverse 
populations.


Sec.  1330.23  Evaluation process.

    (a) The Director selects one or more of the selection criteria to 
evaluate an application:
    (1) The Director establishes selection criteria based on statutory 
provisions that apply to the Program which may include, but are not 
limited to:
    (i) Specific statutory selection criteria;
    (ii) Allowable activities;
    (iii) Application content requirements; or
    (iv) Other pre-award and post-award conditions; or
    (2) The Director may use a combination of selection criteria 
established under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and selection 
criteria from Sec.  1330.24 to evaluate a competition.
    (3) For Field-Initiated Projects, the Director does not consider 
Sec.  1330.24(b) (Responsiveness to the Absolute or Competitive 
Priority) in evaluating an application.
    (b) In considering selection criteria in Sec.  1330.24, the 
Director selects one or more of the factors listed in the criteria, but 
always considers the factor in Sec.  1330.24(n) regarding members of 
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, 
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (c) The maximum possible score for an application is 100 points.
    (d) In the application package or a notice published in the Federal 
Register, the Director informs applicants of:
    (1) The selection criteria chosen and the maximum possible score 
for each of the selection criteria; and
    (2) The factors selected for considering the selection criteria and 
if points are assigned to each factor, the maximum possible score for 
each factor under each criterion. If no points are assigned to each 
factor, the Director evaluates each factor equally.
    (e) For all instances in which the Director chooses to allow field-
initiated research and development, the selection criteria in Sec.  
1330.25 will apply, including the requirement that the applicant must 
achieve a score of 85 percent or more of maximum possible points.


Sec.  1330.24  Selection criteria.

    In addition to criteria established under Sec.  1330.23(a)(1), the 
Director may select one or more of the following criteria in evaluating 
an application:
    (a) Importance of the problem. In determining the importance of the 
problem, the Director considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant clearly describes the need 
and target population.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed activities further the 
purposes of the Rehabilitation Act.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed activities address a 
significant need of individuals with disabilities.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed activities address a 
significant need of rehabilitation service providers.
    (5) The extent to which the proposed activities address a 
significant need of those who provide services to individuals with 
disabilities.
    (6) The extent to which the applicant proposes to provide training 
in a rehabilitation discipline or area of study in which there is a 
shortage of qualified researchers, or to a trainee population in which 
there is a need for more qualified researchers.
    (7) The extent to which the proposed project will have beneficial 
impact on the target population.
    (b) Responsiveness to an absolute or competitive priority. In 
determining the application's responsiveness to the application package 
or the absolute or competitive priority published in the Federal 
Register, the Director considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant addresses all requirements of 
the absolute or competitive priority.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are 
likely to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority.
    (c) Design of research activities. In determining the extent to 
which the design is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project, the Director considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (1) 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.
    (2) The extent to which the methodology of each proposed research 
activity is meritorious, including consideration of the extent to 
which:
    (i) The proposed design includes a comprehensive and informed 
review of the current literature, demonstrating knowledge of the state-
of-the-art;
    (ii) Each research hypothesis or research question, as appropriate, 
is theoretically sound and based on current knowledge;
    (iii) Each sample is drawn from an appropriate, specified 
population and is of sufficient size to address the proposed hypotheses 
or research questions, as appropriate, and to support the proposed data 
analysis methods;
    (iv) The source or sources of the data and the data collection 
methods are appropriate to address the proposed hypotheses or research 
questions and to support the proposed data analysis methods;
    (v) The data analysis methods are appropriate;
    (vi) Implementation of the proposed research design is feasible, 
given the current state of the science and the time and resources 
available;
    (vii) Input of individuals with disabilities and other key 
stakeholders is used to shape the proposed research activities; and
    (viii) The applicant identifies and justifies the stage of research 
being proposed and the research methods associated with the stage.
    (3) The extent to which anticipated research results are likely to 
satisfy the original hypotheses or answer the original research 
questions, as appropriate, and could be used for planning additional 
research, including generation of new hypotheses or research questions, 
where applicable.
    (4) The extent to which the stage of research is identified and 
justified in the description of the research project(s) being proposed.
    (d) Design of development activities. In determining the extent to 
which the project design is likely to be effective in accomplishing 
project objectives, the Director considers one or more of the following 
factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project identifies a 
significant need and a well-defined target population for the new or 
improved product;
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project methodology is 
meritorious, including consideration of the extent to which:
    (i) The proposed project shows awareness of the state-of-the-art 
for current, related products;
    (ii) The proposed project employs appropriate concepts, components, 
or systems to develop the new or improved product;
    (iii) The proposed project employs appropriate samples in tests, 
trials, and other development activities;

[[Page 29163]]

    (iv) The proposed project conducts development activities in 
appropriate environment(s);
    (v) Input from individuals with disabilities and other key 
stakeholders is obtained to establish and guide proposed development 
activities; and
    (vi) The applicant identifies and justifies the stage(s) of 
development for the proposed project; and activities associated with 
each stage.
    (3) The new product will be developed and tested in an appropriate 
environment.
    (e) Design of demonstration activities. In determining the extent 
to which the design of demonstration activities is likely to be 
effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Director 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities build 
on previous research, testing, or practices.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities 
include the use of proper methodological tools and theoretically sound 
procedures to determine the effectiveness of the strategy or approach.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities 
include innovative and effective strategies or approaches.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities are 
likely to contribute to current knowledge and practice and be a 
substantial addition to the state-of-the-art.
    (5) The extent to which the proposed demonstration activities can 
be applied and replicated in other settings.
    (f) Design of training activities. In determining the extent to 
which the design is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project, the Director considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed training materials are likely 
to be effective, including consideration of their quality, clarity, and 
variety.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed training methods are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed training content:
    (i) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter; and
    (ii) If relevant, is based on new knowledge derived from research 
activities of the proposed project.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed training materials, methods, 
and content are appropriate to the trainees, including consideration of 
the skill level of the trainees and the subject matter of the 
materials.
    (5) The extent to which the proposed training materials and methods 
are accessible to individuals with disabilities.
    (6) The extent to which the applicant's proposed recruitment 
program is likely to be effective in recruiting highly qualified 
trainees, including those who are individuals with disabilities.
    (7) The extent to which the applicant is able to carry out the 
training activities, either directly or through another entity.
    (8) The extent to which the proposed didactic and classroom 
training programs emphasize scientific methodology and are likely to 
develop highly qualified researchers.
    (9) The extent to which the quality and extent of the academic 
mentorship, guidance, and supervision to be provided to each individual 
trainee are of a high level and are likely to develop highly qualified 
researchers.
    (10) The extent to which the type, extent, and quality of the 
proposed research experience, including the opportunity to participate 
in advanced-level research, are likely to develop highly qualified 
researchers.
    (11) The extent to which the opportunities for collegial and 
collaborative activities, exposure to outstanding scientists in the 
field, and opportunities to participate in the preparation of scholarly 
or scientific publications and presentations are extensive and 
appropriate.
    (g) Design of dissemination activities. In determining the extent 
to which the design is likely to be effective in accomplishing the 
objectives of the project, the Director considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the content of the information to be 
disseminated:
    (i) Covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject matter; and
    (ii) If appropriate, is based on new knowledge derived from 
research activities of the project.
    (2) The extent to which the materials to be disseminated are likely 
to be effective and usable, including consideration of their quality, 
clarity, variety, and format.
    (3) The extent to which the methods for dissemination are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration.
    (4) 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.
    (5) The extent to which the information to be disseminated will be 
accessible to individuals with disabilities.
    (h) Design of utilization activities. In determining the extent to 
which the design of utilization activities is likely to be effective in 
accomplishing the objectives of the project, the Director considers one 
or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the potential new users of the information 
or technology have a practical use for the information and are likely 
to adopt the practices or use the information or technology, including 
new devices.
    (2) The extent to which the utilization strategies are likely to be 
effective.
    (3) The extent to which the information or technology is likely to 
be of use in other settings.
    (i) Design of technical assistance activities. In determining the 
extent to which the design of technical assistance activities is likely 
to be effective in accomplishing the objectives of the project, the 
Director considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the methods for providing technical 
assistance are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration.
    (2) The extent to which the information to be provided through 
technical assistance covers all of the relevant aspects of the subject 
matter.
    (3) 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.
    (4) The extent to which the technical assistance is accessible to 
individuals with disabilities.
    (j) Plan of operation. In determining the quality of the plan of 
operation, the Director considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) 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) The adequacy of the plan of operation to provide for using 
resources, equipment, and personnel to achieve each objective.
    (k) Collaboration. In determining the quality of collaboration, the 
Director considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) 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.

[[Page 29164]]

    (2) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
demonstrate a commitment to collaborate with the applicant.
    (3) The extent to which agencies, organizations, or institutions 
that commit to collaborate with the applicant have the capacity to 
carry out collaborative activities.
    (l) Adequacy and reasonableness of the budget. In determining the 
adequacy and the reasonableness of the proposed budget, the Director 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
proposed project activities.
    (2) The extent to which the budget for the project, including any 
subcontracts, is adequately justified to support the proposed project 
activities.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant is of sufficient size, scope, 
and quality to effectively carry out the activities in an efficient 
manner.
    (m) Plan of evaluation. In determining the quality of the plan of 
evaluation, the Director considers one or more of the following 
factors:
    (1) The extent to which the plan of evaluation provides for 
periodic assessment of progress toward:
    (i) Implementing the plan of operation; and
    (ii) Achieving the project's intended outcomes and expected 
impacts.
    (2) The extent to which the plan of evaluation will be used to 
improve the performance of the project through the feedback generated 
by its periodic assessments.
    (3) 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; and
    (ii) Are objective, and quantifiable or qualitative, as 
appropriate.
    (n) Project staff. In determining the quality of the project staff, 
the Director 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. In addition, the Director considers 
one or more of the following:
    (1) 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) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate to 
accomplish all the proposed activities of the project.
    (3) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about 
the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas.
    (4) The extent to which the project staff includes outstanding 
scientists in the field.
    (5) The extent to which key personnel have up-to-date knowledge 
from research or effective practice in the subject area covered in the 
priority.
    (o) Adequacy and accessibility of resources. In determining the 
adequacy and accessibility of the applicant's resources to implement 
the proposed project, the Director considers one or more of the 
following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant is committed to provide 
adequate facilities, equipment, other resources, including 
administrative support, and laboratories, if appropriate.
    (2) The quality of an applicant's past performance in carrying out 
a grant.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant has appropriate access to 
populations and organizations representing individuals with 
disabilities to support advanced disability, independent living and 
clinical rehabilitation research.
    (4) 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.
    (p) Quality of the project design. In determining the quality of 
the design of the proposed project, the Director considers one or more 
of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (2) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed 
project.
    (3) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes 
a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-
quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate 
methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project 
objectives.
    (4) 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) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include 
adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of 
products.
    (6) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated 
with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community, 
State, and Federal resources.
    (7) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects 
up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
    (8) The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the 
competition.


Sec.  1330.25  Additional considerations for field-initiated 
priorities.

    (a) The Director reserves funds to support field-initiated 
applications funded under this part when those applications have been 
awarded points totaling 85 percent or more of the maximum possible 
points under the procedures described in Sec.  1330.23.
    (b) In making a final selection from applications received when 
NIDILRR uses field-initiated priorities, the Director may consider 
whether one of the following conditions is met and, if so, use this 
information to fund an application out of rank order:
    (1) The proposed project represents a unique opportunity to advance 
rehabilitation and other knowledge to improve the lives of individual 
with disabilities.
    (2) The proposed project complements or balances research activity 
already planned or funded by NIDILRR through its annual priorities or 
addresses the research in a new and promising way.
    (c) If the Director funds an application out of rank order under 
paragraph (b) of this section, the public will be notified through a 
notice on the NIDILRR Web site or through other means deemed 
appropriate by the Director.

Subpart D--Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 
Research Fellowships


Sec.  1330.30  Fellows program.

    (a) The purpose of this program is to build research capacity by 
providing support to highly qualified individuals, including those who 
are individuals with disabilities, to perform research on 
rehabilitation, independent living, and other experiences and outcomes 
of individuals with disabilities.
    (b) The eligibility requirements for the Fellows program are as 
follows:
    (1) Only individuals are eligible to be recipients of Fellowships.
    (2) Any individual is eligible for assistance under this program 
who has training and experience that indicate a potential for engaging 
in scientific research related to rehabilitation and independent living 
for individuals with disabilities.

[[Page 29165]]

    (3) This program provides two categories of Fellowships: Merit 
Fellowships and Distinguished Fellowships.
    (i) To be eligible for a Distinguished Fellowship, an individual 
must have seven or more years of research experience in subject areas, 
methods, or techniques relevant to disability and rehabilitation 
research and must have a doctorate, other terminal degree, or 
comparable academic qualifications.
    (ii) The Director awards Merit Fellowships to individuals in 
earlier stages of their careers in research. To be eligible for a Merit 
Fellowship, an individual must have either advanced professional 
training or experience in independent study in an area which is 
directly pertinent to disability and rehabilitation.
    (c) Fellowships will be awarded in the form of a grant to eligible 
individuals.
    (d) In making a final selection of applicants to support under this 
program, the Director considers the extent to which applicants present 
a unique opportunity to effect a major advance in knowledge, address 
critical problems in innovative ways, present proposals which are 
consistent with the Institute's Long-Range Plan, build research 
capacity within the field, or complement and significantly increases 
the potential value of already planned research and related activities.

Subpart E--Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord 
Injuries


Sec.  1330.40  Spinal cord injuries program.

    (a) This program provides assistance to establish innovative 
projects for the delivery, demonstration, and evaluation of 
comprehensive medical, vocational, independent living, and 
rehabilitation services to meet the wide range of needs of individuals 
with spinal cord injuries.
    (b) The agencies and organizations eligible to apply under this 
program are described in Sec.  1330.2.

[FR Doc. 2016-10853 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P