35476 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final funding priorities

for fiscal years 1998–1999 for

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers.

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final

funding priorities for two Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers (RRTCs)

under the National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

(NIDRR) for fiscal years 1998–1999. The

Secretary takes this action to focus

research attention on areas of national

need. These priorities are intended to

improve rehabilitation services and

outcomes for individuals with

disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take

effect on July 29, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205–

5880. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202)

205–9136. Internet:

DonnalNangle@ed.gov

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternate

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains final priorities under the

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Projects and Centers Program for two

RRTCs related to: (1) aging and mental

retardation; and (2) disability statistics.

These final priorities support the

National Education Goal that calls for

every adult American to possess the

skills necessary to compete in a global

economy.

The authority for the Secretary to

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities is contained in sections 202(g)

and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 761a(g)

and 762).

Note: This notice of final priorities does

not solicit applications. A notice inviting

applications is published in this issue of the

Federal Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

On May 4, 1998, the Secretary

published a notice of proposed

priorities in the Federal Register (63 FR

24718–24721). The Department of

Education received three letters

commenting on the notice of proposed

priorities by the deadline date.

Technical and other minor changes—

and suggested changes the Secretary is

not legally authorized to make under

statutory authority—are not addressed.

Aging With Mental Retardation

Comment: The RRTC should be

required to carry out research and

develop models of service that support

aging in place and showcase best

practices that provide for an

institutional admission diversion. In

conjunction with this requirement, the

RRTC should be required to develop

informational materials that would help

people with mental retardation reach a

better understanding of what happens

(and may happen) to them as they age.

These materials and information should

illustrate and guide the steps they can

take to maintain a healthy lifestyle as

older adults.

Discussion: Under the second and

third required activities of the priority,

an applicant could propose to carry out

research and develop models of service

that support aging in place and

showcase best practices that provide for

an institutional admission diversion.

The peer review process will evaluate

the merits of this proposal. However,

NIDRR has no basis for requiring all

applicants to carry out this research.

In regard to the commenter’s

suggestion that RRTC should be

required to develop informational

materials, the second general RRTC

requirement states that the RRTC must

develop and disseminate informational

materials based on knowledge gained

from the Center’s research activities,

and disseminate the materials to

persons with disabilities, their

representatives, service providers, and

other interested parties. Therefore, if an

applicant proposes to carry out the

research suggested by the commenter,

no further requirements are necessary in

order for the RRTC to develop this

informational material.

Changes: None.

Comment: The requirement to

‘‘identify, develop, and evaluate

accommodations that help maintain

employment’’ is not among the most

significant issues facing persons aging

with mental retardation and should be

eliminated or made optional.

Discussion: NIDRR acknowledges that

for the oldest segment of the population

of persons aging with mental

retardation, maintaining employment is

not as significant an issue as others

included in the priority. However, there

are a substantial number of persons

aging with mental retardation who are

employed and face barriers to

maintaining employment as they age.

Applicants have the discretion to

emphasize or deemphasize specific

activities included in the priority

depending upon the importance the

applicant attaches to the activity. An

applicant could deemphasize this

activity, and the peer review process

will evaluate the merits of the proposal.

NIDRR declines to eliminate the activity

because the knowledge gained from this

research could prove to be beneficial to

those persons aging with mental

retardation who are employed.

Changes: None.

Comment: The required activity on

health should be revised to include:

development of a model of medical

education applicable to managed care;

research on coincident conditions in

older age; development of practice

guidelines and standards for both

women’s and men’s health;

identification of care practices to

address very old persons; and an

examination of dementia care models

that further community living.

Discussion: Under the first activity of

the priority, an applicant could propose

to carry out all of the projects included

in the comment. The peer review

process will evaluate the merits of the

proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis

for requiring all applicants to carry out

this research.

Changes: None.

Comment: The RRTC should be

required to identify aging models that

are successful with the general

population and demonstrate their

applicability with persons aging with

mental retardation.

Discussion: Under the first and third

activities, an applicant could propose to

identify aging models that are successful

with the general population and

demonstrate their applicability with

persons aging with mental retardation.

The peer review process will evaluate

the merits of the proposal. However,

NIDRR has no basis for requiring all

applicants to carry out this research.

Changes: None.

Comment: More and more States are

developing consumer-directed models

of supporting adults with mental

retardation. However, not enough

empirical data exist about the

effectiveness of these service models.

The topic of self-direction or consumer

direction should be incorporated into

the third required activity.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that

integrating research on consumer choice

or self-direction in the activities of the

RRTC is important and needed.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to require the RRTC to address

issues of self-direction in all of the

required activities except the fourth

activity.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35477

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers

The authority for RRTCs is contained

in section 204(b)(2) of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 760–

762). Under this program, the Secretary

makes awards to public and private

organizations, including institutions of

higher education and Indian tribes or

tribal organizations, for coordinated

research and training activities. These

entities must be of sufficient size, scope,

and quality to effectively carry out the

activities of the Center in an efficient

manner consistent with appropriate

State and Federal laws. They must

demonstrate the ability to carry out the

training activities either directly or

through another entity that can provide

that training.

The Secretary may make awards for

up to 60 months through grants or

cooperative agreements. The purpose of

the awards is for planning and

conducting research, training,

demonstrations, and related activities

leading to the development of methods,

procedures, and devices that will

benefit individuals with disabilities,

especially those with the most severe

disabilities.

Description of Rehabilitation Research

and Training Centers

RRTCs are operated in collaboration

with institutions of higher education or

providers of rehabilitation services or

other appropriate services. RRTCs serve

as centers of national excellence and

national or regional resources for

providers and individuals with

disabilities and the parents, family

members, guardians, advocates or

authorized representatives of the

individuals.

RRTCs conduct coordinated,

integrated, and advanced programs of

research in rehabilitation targeted

toward the production of new

knowledge to improve rehabilitation

methodology and service delivery

systems, to alleviate or stabilize

disabling conditions, and to promote

maximum social and economic

independence of individuals with

disabilities.

RRTCs provide training, including

graduate, pre-service, and in-service

training, to assist individuals to more

effectively provide rehabilitation

services. They also provide training

including graduate, pre-service, and inservice training, for rehabilitation

research personnel.

RRTCs serve as informational and

technical assistance resources to

providers, individuals with disabilities,

and the parents, family members,

guardians, advocates, or authorized

representatives of these individuals

through conferences, workshops, public

education programs, in-service training

programs and similar activities.

RRTCs disseminate materials in

alternate formats to ensure that they are

accessible to individuals with a range of

disabling conditions.

NIDRR encourages all Centers to

involve individuals with disabilities

and individuals from minority

backgrounds as recipients of research

training, as well as clinical training.

The Department is particularly

interested in ensuring that the

expenditure of public funds is justified

by the execution of intended activities

and the advancement of knowledge and,

thus, has built this accountability into

the selection criteria. Not later than

three years after the establishment of

any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or

more reviews of the activities and

achievements of the Center. In

accordance with the provisions of 34

CFR 75.253(a), continued funding

depends at all times on satisfactory

performance and accomplishment.

General RRTC Requirements

The following requirements apply to

the RRTCs pursuant to these absolute

priorities, unless noted otherwise. An

applicant’s proposal to fulfill these

requirements will be assessed using

applicable selection criteria in the peer

review process.

The RRTC must provide: (1) Applied

research experience; (2) training on

research methodology; and (3) training

to persons with disabilities and their

families, service providers, and other

appropriate parties in accessible formats

on knowledge gained from the Center’s

research activities.

The RRTC must develop and

disseminate informational materials

based on knowledge gained from the

Center’s research activities, and

disseminate the materials to persons

with disabilities, their representatives,

service providers, and other interested

parties.

The RRTC must involve individuals

with disabilities and, if appropriate,

their representatives, in planning and

implementing its research, training, and

dissemination activities, and in

evaluating the Center.

The RRTC must conduct a state-ofthe-science conference and publish a

comprehensive report on the final

outcomes of the conference. The report

must be published in the fourth year of

the grant.

Priorities:

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the

Secretary proposes to give an absolute

preference to applications that meet the

following priorities. The Secretary

proposes to fund under this competition

only applications that meet one of these

absolute priorities.

Priority 1: Aging With Mental

Retardation

Background

There are an estimated 550,000 adults

40 years and older with mental

retardation (McNeil, J., ‘‘Special Report

on Mental Retardation and Mental

Illness,’’ Bureau of the Census, Survey

of Income and Program Participation,

1997). This population has aging-related

health and social care needs specific to

their condition (McCarthy, J. and

Mullan, E., ‘‘The Elderly with a

Learning Disability (Mental

Retardation): An Overview,’’

International Psychogeriatrics, 8 (3),

pgs. 489–501, 1996).

Current research has begun to identify

secondary conditions that are causally

related to aging with mental retardation.

For instance, there is evidence that

persons aging with mental retardation

and a lifelong history of certain

medications (e.g., psychotropic, antiseizure) have a higher risk of developing

secondary conditions such as

osteoporosis or tardive dyskinesia

(Adlin, M., ‘‘Health Care Issues,’’ Older

Adults with Developmental Disabilities:

Optimizing Choice and Change,

Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co.,

pgs. 49–60, 1993). Persons with Downs

Syndrome have a higher prevalence of

Alzheimer’s disease at an earlier age

than the general population (Janicki, M.,

‘‘Practice Guidelines for the Clinical

Assessment and Care Management of

Alzheimer’s Disease and Other

Dementias Among Adults with

Intellectual Disability,’’ Journal of

Intellectual Disability Research, 40, pgs.

374–382, 1996). In addition, persons

aging with mental retardation

experience aging-related conditions like

hypertension, osteoarthritis, heart

disease, obesity, and high cholesterol

levels. Treating such conditions in

persons aging with mental retardation is

complicated by difficulty in

communicating about nutrition,

exercise, and prescribed treatment

protocols (Edgerton, R. ‘‘Some People

Know How to Be Old,’’ Life Course

Perspectives on Adulthood and Old

Age, American Association on Mental

Retardation Monograph Series, pgs. 53–

66, 1994) and by poor health

maintenance practices (Edgerton, R. et

al., ‘‘Health Care for Aging People with
35478 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

Mental Retardation,’’ Mental

Retardation, 32 (2), pgs. 146–150, April,

1994).

The health status and needs of older

women with mental retardation have

received little research attention and

merit special consideration. We have

limited information on the availability

of screening for breast or cervical

cancers, onset and reactions to

menopause, and treatment for

osteoporosis in menopausal and postmenopausal women, or the general

health status of women with mental

retardation as they age (Murphy, L.,

Aging with Developmental Disabilities:

Women’s Health Issues, Texas Arc,

1997).

Approximately 80 percent of adults

with mental retardation live at home,

often with their families of origin, and

many are known to the service system

(Seltzer, M., ‘‘Aging Parents with CoResident Adult Children: The Impact of

Lifelong Caregiving,’’ Life Course

Perspectives on Adulthood and Old

Age, American Association on Mental

Retardation, pgs. 3–18, 1994). A major

issue facing older family caregivers is

planning for the future of their children

aging with mental retardation. A

shortage of alternative living

arrangements and the aging of family

members contribute to this concern

(Heller, T., ‘‘Support Systems, Wellbeing, and Placement Decision-making

Among Older Parents and Their Adult

Children with Developmental

Disabilities,’’ Older Adults with

Developmental Disabilities; Optimizing

Choice and Change, pgs. 107–122,

1993). For many families, planning for

the future financial needs of their

members with mental retardation is a

particular concern.

There has been little research

examining family caregiving throughout

the life of the person aging with mental

retardation, particularly analysis of

sibling roles in the caregiving process.

Cross-sectional studies have suggested

that older family caregivers perceive

less personal burden than do younger

caregivers (Hayden, M., ‘‘Support,

Problem-Solving/Coping Ability, and

Personal Burden of Younger and Older

Caregivers of Adults with Mental

Retardation,’’ Mental Retardation, 35,

pgs. 364–372, 1997). With increasing

age, there appears to be greater

acceptance of the family member and

greater reciprocity in caregiving as the

child with mental retardation takes on

caregiving roles with aging parents

(Heller, T., ‘‘Adults with Mental

Retardation as Supports to their Parents:

Effects on Parental Caregiving

Appraisal,’’ Mental Retardation, 35, pgs.

338–346, 1997).

For adults living in residential

settings, family involvement has been

low. However, such involvement has

many benefits for the adult including

increasing social interaction, oversight

of residential conditions, provision of

recreational opportunities, assistance

with financial planning activities

(Feinstein, C., ‘‘A Survey of Family

Satisfaction with Regional Treatment

Centers and Community Services to

Persons with Mental Retardation in

Minnesota,’’ Philadelphia: Conroy and

Feinstein Associates, 1988). Older

adults with mental retardation have

lower rates of family involvement than

younger adults (Hill, B., Living in the

Community: A Comparative Study of

Foster Homes and Small Group Homes

for People with Mental Retardation,

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,

Center for Residential and Community

Services, 1989).

Approximately 40 percent of working

age persons with mental retardation

work outside the home (McNeil, J.,

‘‘Current Population Reports: Americans

With Disabilities,’’ U.S. Census Bureau,

P70–61, 1997). Research indicates that

as persons with mental retardation grow

older, they experience new work-related

problems because of functional decline

and changing job requirements.

Furthermore, many individuals with

mental retardation and their employers

are unaware of the resources and

services available to help them solve

these problems (Parent, W., ‘‘Social

Integration in the Workplace; An

Analysis of the Interaction Activities of

Workers with Mental Retardation and

their Co-workers,’’ Education and

Training in Mental Retardation, 27, pgs.

28–37, 1992).

Many individuals aging with mental

retardation have limited access to

assistive technology that might help

them cope with aging-related functional

limitations such as decreased mobility.

Assistive technology has generally been

underutilized by persons with mental

retardation of all ages because few

devices successfully incorporate

accommodations that assist persons

with cognitive impairments in their use

(Wehmeyer, M., ‘‘The Use of Assistive

Technology by People with Mental

Retardation and Barriers to This

Outcome: A Pilot Study,’’ Technology

and Disability, 4, pgs. 195–204, 1995).

Also, staff and families often are

insufficiently aware of assistive

technology solutions or of options for its

funding.

Information on health care utilization

rates and educational and employment

status of persons with mental

retardation is not readily available.

Although a number of Federal agencies,

some States, and private research

institutions collect mental retardation

data, too often these data are

unanalyzed. Secondary analysis of

existing data on mental retardation

would help identify research questions

and gaps in service for persons with

mental retardation and their families.

Priority 1

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on Aging with Mental Retardation to

assist individuals aging with mental

retardation and their families to prevent

secondary conditions, maintain general

overall health, plan for the future, and

maximize independence. The RRTC

shall:

(1) Identify, develop, and evaluate

programs that promote health, including

early recognition and treatment of

secondary conditions, with special

emphasis on the needs of women aging

with mental retardation;

(2) Investigate determinants of the

role played by the family of origin in

providing care for persons aging with

mental retardation, with special

emphasis on adults in residential

settings and the role of siblings in the

caregiving process;

(3) Identify, develop, and evaluate

techniques that assist individuals with

mental retardation and their families to

plan for future needs, including future

financial needs;

(4) Analyze and disseminate

information from national data sets and

public health surveillance data on

adults with mental retardation to

identify health care utilization,

educational, and employment patterns;

(5) Identify, develop, and evaluate

accommodations that help maintain

employment;

(6) Identify best practices in the use

of assistive technology or universal

design to compensate for physical and

psychological consequences of aging

with mental retardation.

In carrying out these purposes, the

RRTC must:

• Coordinate with other relevant

research and demonstration activities

sponsored by the National Center on

Medical Rehabilitation Research at the

National Institutes of Health, the

National Institute on Mental Health, the

National Institute on Aging, the

Rehabilitation Services Administration,

the Department of Veteran Affairs, the

Social Security Administration, the

Health Care Financing Administration,

and the Rehabilitation Research

Training Centers on Managed Care and

Personal Assistance Services; and

• Address issues of consumer choice

or self-direction in all of the activities

except the fourth activity.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35479

Priority 2: Disability Statistics

Background

A number of Federal, State, and

private agencies collect information on

persons with disabilities. While some of

this information is analyzed, significant

amounts of unanalyzed data are

generated. The National Health

Interview Survey, the Survey of Income

and Program Participation, the

California Work and Health Survey,

other surveys, population data,

information on program participation,

data on institutions, and market

research profiles provide many

indicators about the lives of persons

with disabilities. Policy makers,

program directors, and others need

information on the incidence,

prevalence and distribution of

disabilities, as well as the integration of

persons with disabilities into society.

Likewise, reliable information on use of

services such as long-term care,

transportation, vocational rehabilitation

and personal care assistance is

extremely valuable to individuals with

disabilities and their organizations,

planners, researchers and policy

makers.

The 1994–95 National Health

Interview Survey on Disability (NHIS–

D) conducted by the National Center for

Health Statistics was developed, in part,

to meet the demands for data from

numerous agencies (Verbrugee, L. M.,

‘‘The Disability Supplement to the

1994–95 National Health Interview

Survey,’’ for the National Center for

Health Statistics). The 1994–95 NHIS–D

offers an excellent opportunity to

analyze many variables related to

persons with disabilities. Researchers

can use the NHIS–D to determine access

to health care and personal services, use

of assistive technologies, and

community participation, among other

key descriptors.

The major Federal agencies that

routinely collect information on

disability publish only a small fraction

of statistical information derived from

that data. Most agency data collections

are driven by statutory requirements

and agencies report statistics about

receipt of program services and subsets

of eligible individuals. These

constraints limit the usefulness of the

data that are collected. Easier access to

a full range of data on disability for

policy makers and others may be

assured, in part, by providing a central

resource for disability statistics and

information and an organized and

comprehensive system for the

collection, analysis, and synthesis of the

data. A disability statistics center can

use existing data to conduct metaanalyses focused on problems such as

employment, use of health care and

social services, household situations,

family composition, and educational

levels.

Researchers, policy makers and others

have begun to work within the

framework of the ‘‘New Paradigm of

Disability,’’ a contextual model of

disability that recognizes the role of the

built environment and of social and

cultural factors in the disablementenablement process. Most national

surveys fail to measure the role of

environmental factors in the operational

definitions of disability used, tending to

focus solely on health problems as the

locus of disability. (Kirchner, C.,

‘‘Looking Under the Streetlamp:

Inappropriate Use of Measures Just

Because They Are There’’ Journal of

Disability Policy Studies, 7:77–90.

1996). The Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) emphasizes barrier removal,

accessibility, and reasonable

accommodations. Barriers may be

physical or may involve programmatic

exclusions and other social obstacles.

Despite increasing recognition that data

systems must be enhanced to meet

newly developing information needs,

such as those suggested by the New

Paradigm of Disability and the ADA,

there is a lack of environmental

measures that have been tested for

accuracy and reliability. This has been

an impediment to the development of

survey and census measures of

disability at the national and State

levels.

New survey measures must be

developed to accurately and reliably

depict disability in the context of

individual health and environmental

factors. The resulting questions must

take into account the interaction

between the individual and the

environment and examine the effects of

that interaction on the ability to carry

out daily activities and normative social

roles. This includes examination of the

immediate living arrangements of the

person’s household and the larger

community environment. Architectural

accessibility features, assistive

technologies, transportation, and other

accommodations and supports must be

addressed.

With increased global interest in

disability, researchers must be aware of

new developments in the World Health

Organization sponsored International

Committee on Impairments, Disabilities,

and Handicaps, and consider

international data sets for purposes of

comparison with U.S. data and, as

appropriate, to generate hypotheses to

be tested against U.S. data.

Given these needs and opportunities

in the promotion and use of disability

statistics, a Center that can identify

major sources and perform secondary

analyses of existing data, including

meta-analyses on important topics, will

be a cornerstone of a future disability

data initiative. The Center can also

contribute to the future of disability

research through the development,

testing, and dissemination of data

collection items that address the New

Paradigm of Disability.

Priority 2

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

to improve collection and analysis of

disability statistics to guide

development of disability policies. The

RRTC shall:

(1) Conduct secondary analyses of

critical and relevant data sets, including

estimates of the incidence, prevalence,

and distribution of various disabilities,

and disseminate analytical reports;

(2) Develop new measures, designed

for inclusion in general population

surveys, addressing the effect of

physical, policy, and social

environments on persons with

disabilities; and disseminate these to

survey designers, researchers, and

statistical agencies;

(3) Conduct meta-analyses on key

variables such as, but not limited to,

employment, income and health status,

using a range of relevant existing data

sets on disability; and analyze the

policy implications based upon the

results of these analyses;

(4) Identify major gaps in

demographic and program data on the

disabled population and develop

strategies for addressing those gaps; and

(5) Serve as a resource to researchers,

consumers and consumer groups,

planners, and policy makers for

statistical information on disability and

develop and implement a marketing

plan to support dissemination of that

information.

In carrying out the purposes of the

priority, the RRTC must coordinate with

relevant activities sponsored by the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, the Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in

the Department of Health and Human

Services, the Bureau of the Census, the

Department of Labor, and the National

Institutes of Health.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as

well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the

Federal Register, in text or portable

document format (pdf) on the World
35480 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

Wide Web at either of the following

sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the Adobe

Acrobat Reader Program with Search,

which is available free at either of the

preceding sites. If you have questions

about using the pdf, call the U.S.

Government Printing Office at (202)

512–1530 or, toll free at 1–888–293–

6498.

Anyone may also view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option

G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins and

Press Releases.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR

Parts 350.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers 84.133B, Rehabilitation Research

and Training Centers)

Dated: June 23, 1998.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 98–17113 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.133B]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice

Inviting Applications for New

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

Note to Applicants: This notice is a

complete application package. Together with

the statute authorizing the programs and

applicable regulations governing the

programs, including the Education

Department General Administrative

Regulations (EDGAR), this notice contains

information, application forms, and

instructions needed to apply for a grant

under these competitions.

This program supports the National

Education Goal that calls for all Americans

to possess the knowledge and skills

necessary to compete in a global economy

and exercise the rights and responsibilities of

citizenship.

The estimated funding levels in this notice

do not bind the Department of Education to

make awards in any of these categories, or to

any specific number of awards or funding

levels, unless otherwise specified in statute.

Applicable Regulations: The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85,

and 86; and Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects and

Centers—34 CFR Part 350, particularly

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers in Subpart C.

Program Title: Rehabilitation

Research and Training Centers (RRTCs).

CFDA Number: 84.133B.

Purpose of Program: RRTCs conduct

coordinated and advanced programs or

research on disability and rehabilitation

that will produce new knowledge that

will improve rehabilitation methods and

service delivery systems, alleviate or

stabilize disabling conditions, and

promote maximum social and economic

independence for individuals with

disabilities. RRTCs provide training to

service providers at the pre-service, inservice training, undergraduate, and

graduate levels, to improve the quality

and effectiveness of rehabilitation

services. They also provide advanced

research training to individuals with

disabilities and those from minority

backgrounds engaged in research on

disability and rehabilitation. RRTCs

serve as national and regional technical

assistance resources and provide

training for service providers,

individuals with disabilities and

families and representatives, and

rehabilitation researchers.

Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to

apply for grants under this program are

States, public or private agencies,

including for-profit agencies, public or

private organizations, including forprofit organizations, institutions of

higher education, and Indian tribes and

tribal organizations.

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

APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998, REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTERS, CFDA NO. 84–133B

Funding priority

Deadline for

transmittal of

applications

Estimated

number of

awards

Maximum

award amount

(per year)*

Project period

(months)

Aging with mental retardation ........................................................................... 8/28/98 1 $700,000 60

Disability statistics ............................................................................................ 8/28/98 1 700,000 60

*Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

RRTC Selection Criteria: The

Secretary uses the following selection

criteria to evaluate applications for

RRTCs on aging with mental retardation

and disability statistics under the

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Project and Centers Program.

(a) Importance of the problem (9

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

importance of the problem.

(2) In determining the importance of

the problem, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

clearly describes the need and target

population (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

activities address a significant need of

those who provide services to

individuals with disabilities (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

project will have beneficial impact on

the target population (3 points).

(b) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (2 points).

(c) Design of research activities (35

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of research

activities is likely to be effective in

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