28436 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Final Funding

Priorities for Fiscal Year 1996–1997

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Final Funding

Priorities for Fiscal Years 1996–1997 for

a Research and Demonstration Project,

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers, and a Rehabilitation

Engineering Research Center.

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final

funding priorities for the Research and

Demonstration Project (R&D) Program,

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Center (RRTC) Program, and

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Center (RERC) Program under the

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for

fiscal years 1996–1997. 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 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Esquith, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Switzer Building, Room 3424,

Washington, D.C. 20202–2601.

Telephone: (202) 205–8801. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD

number at (202) 205–8133. Internet:

David—Esquith@ed.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains final priorities to

establish: one R&D project for research

on emerging disability populations, two

RRTCs for research related to vocational

rehabilitation services to individuals

who are blind or visually impaired and

vocational rehabilitation services to

individuals who are deaf or hard of

hearing; and one RERC for research on

technology for older persons with

disabilities.

NIDRR is in the process of developing

a revised long-range plan. The final

priorities in this notice are consistent

with the long-range planning process.

These final priorities support the

National Education Goal that calls for

all Americans to possess the knowledge

and skills necessary to compete in a

global economy and exercise the rights

and responsibilities of citizenship.

Note: This notice of final priorities does

not solicit applications. A notice inviting

applications under these competitions is

published in a separate notice in this issue

of the Federal Register.

On March 25, 1996, the Secretary

published three separate notices of

proposed priorities in the Federal

Register (61 FR 12062–12068). The

Department of Education received 13

letters commenting on the three notices

of proposed priorities by the deadline

date. Three additional comments were

received after the deadline date and

were not considered in this response.

Technical and other minor changes—

and suggested changes the Secretary is

not legally authorized to make under

statutory authority—are not addressed.

Analysis of Comments and Changes—

Research and Demonstration Projects

Program

This section contains an analysis of

the comments and the changes in the

priorities since the publication of the

notice of proposed priorities.

Priority: Emerging Disability

Populations

Comment: One commenter

recommended that individuals with

tuberculosis be included among the

emerging disability populations.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that

an applicant could propose to include

individuals with tuberculosis as part of

the universe of individuals who will be

addressed by the project. However, the

Secretary believes that applicants

should have the discretion to define and

characterize the emerging universe of

disability.

Changes: None.

Analysis of Comments and Changes—

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers (RRTCs)

This section contains an analysis of

the comments and the changes in the

priorities since the publication of the

notice of proposed priorities.

Priority 1: Vocational Rehabilitation

Services for Individuals Who are Blind

or Visually Impaired

Comment: One commenter

recommended requiring the RRTC to

conduct ‘‘a survey and analysis of the

long-term efficacy, and employment

results, of education for print-disabled

students which includes reliance on

taped texts.’’

Discussion: The Secretary believes

that studying the effectiveness and

impact of the education provided to

print-disabled students is outside the

scope of the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter

recommended requiring the RRTC to

address barriers in transportation and

information management.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

barriers in transportation and

information management can have a

significant impact on the employment

status of individuals with disabilities.

The Secretary believes that an applicant

could propose to study the effect of

vocational rehabilitation services on

those barriers. However, the Secretary

prefers to provide applicants with the

discretion to propose specific topics for

investigation.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the RRTC on

individuals who are blind or visually

impaired address computer-related

technological advancements and issues

of accessibility to the information

superhighway and develop methods of

improving access to these vital areas.

Discussion: The Secretary points out

that a NIDRR grantee, the Trace Center

at the University of Wisconsin,

currently addresses a wide range of

computer and information systems

issues related to persons with

disabilities. The Secretary does not

believe that research on computerrelated technological advancements and

issues of accessibility to the information

superhighway is within the scope of this

priority. However, the Secretary does

believe that an applicant for this RRTC

could propose to train or provide

technical assistance to rehabilitation

professionals on pertinent issues related

to computer-related technological

advancements and the information

superhighway.

Changes: None.

Other Changes

Discussion: The Secretary believes

that training State vocational

rehabilitation staff on state-of-the-art

computer technology for individuals

who are blind or visually impaired is an

important function for the RRTC to

perform.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to require the RRTC to conduct

at least three conferences to train State

vocational rehabilitation staff on stateof-the-art computer technology for

individuals who are blind or visually

impaired.

Priority 2: Vocational Rehabilitation

Services for Individuals Who are Deaf or

Hard of Hearing

Comment: One commenter

recommended identifying new

accommodation strategies that utilize

advanced technology.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

new accommodation strategies that

utilize advanced technology are needed.

The Secretary points out that the RRTC
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28437

is required to identify or develop

vocational rehabilitation techniques or

reasonable accommodations that

address barriers to entering or

maintaining employment, including

those using emerging assistive

technology such as assistive listening

devices, telecommunications

equipment, and remote access

technology. The Secretary does not

believe any further requirements are

necessary in order to address the

commenter’s recommendation.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter

recommended that the RRTC study

States’ policies on the provision of

accommodations for communication,

such as assistive listening devices and

realtime captioning in addition to sign

language interpreting services.

Discussion: The Secretary believes that

an applicant could propose to

investigate how States’ policies on the

provision of communication

accommodations affect the vocational

rehabilitation services provided to

persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.

However, the Secretary prefers to

provide applicants with the discretion

to propose specific topics for

investigation.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter

recommended requiring the RRTC to

train consumers and employers on

accommodations in addition to

rehabilitation professionals. The

commenter also recommended

expanding the target audience of the

national information and resource

referral data base to consumers and

employers. A second commenter

stressed the need for the development

and dissemination of consumer-oriented

materials and recommended the

development of print and media

materials that can be used by

consumers, as well as employers and

rehabilitation professionals.

Discussion: The Secretary believes

that the RRTC should develop and

disseminate materials that can be used

by consumers. The Secretary agrees that

requiring the RRTC to train consumers

and employers on accommodations

would be worthwhile as long as it did

not diminish the training that the RRTC

provides to rehabilitation professionals.

Similarly, the Secretary agrees

consumers and employers could benefit

from access to the national information

and resource referral data base.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to include, as appropriate,

consumers and employers in the

training provided to rehabilitation

professionals on accommodations. In

addition, the priority has been revised

to require the RRTC to develop and

disseminate consumer-oriented

materials, and include consumers and

employers as part of the target audience

for the national information and

resource referral data base.

Comment: Three commenters

addressed the inclusion of lowfunctioning individuals who are deaf in

the priority. The commenters

questioned the ability of the RRTC to

address the wide range of needs

evidenced by persons who are deaf, latedeafened, hard of hearing, or lowfunctioning deaf.

Discussion: The Secretary recognizes

that the persons who are deaf, latedeafened, hard of hearing, or lowfunctioning deaf have a wide range of

vocational rehabilitation needs. The

Secretary expects the RRTC to include

staff with expertise in all of these areas.

The Secretary believes one Center, using

a holistic approach, is best suited to

address the unique and common needs

of persons who are deaf or hard of

hearing.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters

expressed a concern that the priority

simply repeated the current priority and

would not advance the field. The

commenters indicated that a sufficient

body of knowledge existed on the

employment status of individuals who

were deaf or hard of hearing. The

commenters recommended that the

RRTC build on the work that has been

completed by the current RRTC in this

area and focus on the development and

verification of intervention strategies.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

the RRTC should utilize existing

information and build upon the work of

the current RRTC in this area. If valid

and reliable information exists regarding

the employment status on individuals

who are deaf or hard of hearing, the

Secretary expects the RRTC to update

this information as necessary. In

addition, the Secretary believes that the

priority requires the RRTC to develop a

level of detail that does not currently

exist regarding the employment status of

persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The Secretary believes that applicants

should have the discretion to propose

how they will fulfill the purposes of the

RRTC.

Regarding the intervention strategies,

the Secretary agrees that the RRTC

should develop and verify intervention

strategies. The Secretary points out that

the second purpose of the RRTC is, in

part, to develop vocational

rehabilitation techniques or reasonable

accommodations that address barriers to

employment. The Secretary does not

believe any further requirements are

necessary in order to accomplish the

commenters’ recommendation.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the RRTC address

literacy skills development.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

literacy skills development is a critical

programming area that should be

emphasized in the priority.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to require the RRTC to identify

or develop vocational rehabilitation

techniques or reasonable

accommodations that address literacy

skills development.

Comment: The same commenter

indicated that the third and fourth

purposes of the priority should not be

presented as separate activities, but

should apply to all of the purposes in

the priority.

Discussion: The Secretary believes

that the training and data base

development purposes of the priority

are discrete activities that do not apply

to all of the purposes of the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter

recommended emphasizing the

inclusion of low-functioning deaf

individuals in the requirement to solicit

and utilize input from individuals who

are deaf or hard of hearing in the

planning, development, and

implementation of the grant.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

the priority should be revised to ensure

that the RRTC solicits and utilizes input

from low-functioning deaf individuals.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to emphasize the inclusion of

low-functioning deaf individuals in the

planning, development, and

implementation of the grant.

Comment: One commenter

recommended broadening the

coordination requirement to include

grantees from RSA and the Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP),

such as the Regional Centers on

Postsecondary Education.

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that

it would be beneficial for the RRTC to

expand its coordination efforts to

include grantees from OSEP and RSA.

Changes: The priority has been

revised to broaden the RRTC’s research

coordination requirements to include

grantees from OSEP and RSA.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the RRTC emphasize

the needs of deaf individuals with

mental illness.

Discussion: The Secretary recognizes

the unique needs of deaf individuals

with mental illness. The Secretary

believes that an applicant could propose

to emphasize the needs of deaf
28438 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

individuals with mental illness.

However, the Secretary prefers to

provide applicants with the discretion

to propose areas of emphasis.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the RRTC for

individuals who are deaf or hard of

hearing address computer-related

technological advancements and issues

of accessibility to the information

superhighway and develop methods of

improving access to these vital areas.

Discussion: One commenter points

out that a NIDRR grantee, the Trace

Center at the University of Wisconsin,

currently addresses a wide range of

computer and information systems

issues related to persons with

disabilities. The Secretary does not

believe that research on computerrelated technological advancements and

issues of accessibility to the information

superhighway is within the scope of this

priority. However, the Secretary does

believe that an applicant for this RRTC

could propose to train or provide

technical assistance to rehabilitation

professionals on pertinent issues related

to computer-related technological

advancements and the information

superhighway.

Changes: None.

Analysis of Comments and Changes—

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Center (RERC)

This section contains an analysis of

the comments and the changes in the

priorities since the publication of the

notice of proposed priorities.

Priority: Assistive Technology for Older

Persons With Disabilities

Comment: One commenter

recommended targeting older persons

and their caregivers for dissemination

activities.

Discussion: The Secretary points out

that the priority requires the RERC to

target its dissemination initiative to

disability and elderly organizations as

well as assistive technology service

providers activities. The Secretary

believes that older persons with

disabilities and their caregivers will

receive information from the RERC

through the dissemination activities of

the organizations and service providers.

The Secretary does not believe any

further requirements are necessary in

order for older persons with disabilities

and their caregivers to receive

information from the RERC.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the RERC’s research

include those ‘‘at risk’’ to develop

severe disabilities. The same commenter

recommended that the RERC conduct

general studies on effects of assistive

technology on physiological function in

the elderly.

Discussion: The Secretary believes

that the only ‘‘at-risk’’ populations that

are within the scope of the priority are

those individuals with disabilities who

are at-risk of developing secondary

disabilities or aggravating their current

disability. The Secretary does not

believe that elderly persons who do not

have disabilities, but who are ‘‘at-risk’’

of developing a disability, are within the

scope of the priority. Similarly, the

Secretary believes that the RERC may

pursue general studies on the effects of

assistive technology on physiological

function for elderly persons who have

disabilities, but may not pursue such

studies for elderly persons who do not

have disabilities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that the RERC’s testing of

assistive devices should include

quantitative assessment of outcomes.

Discussion: The Secretary points out

that the testing of prototype devices is

a general requirement of the RERC. The

Secretary believes that applicants may

propose to include quantitative

assessment of outcomes. However, the

Secretary believes that applicants

should have the discretion to propose

specific testing methodologies.

Changes: None.

Research and Demonstration Projects

Under this program the Secretary

makes awards to public agencies and

private agencies and organizations,

including institutions of higher

education, Indian tribes, and tribal

organizations. This program is designed

to assist in the development of solutions

to the problems encountered by

individuals with handicaps in their

daily activities, especially problems

related to employment (see 34 CFR

351.1). Under the regulations for this

program (see 34 CFR 351.32), the

Secretary may establish research

priorities by reserving funds to support

the research activities listed in 34 CFR

351.10.

Priority

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet the following

priority. The Secretary will fund under

this competition only applications that

meet this absolute priority:

Priority: Emerging Disability

Populations

Background

Demographic and social trends

indicate that the prevalence and

distribution of various types of

disability are changing, and that new

populations of individuals are emerging

to create unique demands on social

policy and service systems. These new

populations frequently result from such

factors as: (1) Changing etiologies for

existing disabilities; (2) growth in

segments of the population with higher

prevalence rates for certain disabilities,

including the aging of the population in

general and the population of

individuals with disabilities in

particular; (3) the unintended

consequences of changes in public

policy; or (4) the introduction of new

disabilities.

The first category includes, for

example, mental retardation that results

from high-risk births, (President’s

Committee on Mental Retardation, The

New Morbidity, 1993) or spinal cord

injury resulting from interpersonal

violence (Stover, unpublished

communique to NIDRR, 1994). The

second category is exemplified by

higher incidence and prevalence of

activity limitations due to impairments

typically correlated with increased age.

(LaPlante, 1995). Examples include the

onset of sensory loss in older persons,

or certain strength-limiting

musculoskeletal or neuromuscular

diseases. A subset of this category is

represented by the acquisition of

secondary disabilities or new

exacerbations of existing disabilities

among individuals with disabilities as

they age, for example post-polio

syndrome or deterioration of stressed

joints. The third category of emerging

disabilities may have iatrogenic causes

or may result from inappropriate

societal interventions such as

institutionalization or segregation

during which the acquisition of social

skills and learning opportunities are

forfeited. Social policies such as

deinstitutionalization into inadequately

supportive environments, while not

necessarily creating new disabilities,

have led to different manifestations of

problems associated with long-term

mental illness, including homelessness,

abuse, involvement in the criminal

justice system, and the acquisition of

additional disabilities and health

problems. Other disabilities,

particularly secondary disabilities, may

result from policy decisions that result

in inadequate preventive services. The

final category includes persons with

newly emergent disabilities, most
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28439

clearly illustrated by persons living with

HIV disease and AIDS, and by

environmental or workplace disabilities

such as repetitive motion syndrome,

environmental allergies, and various

hidden disabilities.

The causes of each of these categories

of disabilities are such that emergent

disabilities tend to be differentially

distributed throughout the population

in ways that are not typical of other

common disabilities. While there is a

strong correlation between disability

and poverty generally, (LaPlante, 1995;

The New Morbidity, 1993; McNeil, 1995;

Aday, 1993) these emergent disabilities

appear to be inordinately concentrated

among the poor, minorities, youth, the

aged, the poorly educated, and those

who already have other disabilities.

The underlying causes of these

emergent disabilities may be sociobehavioral, environmental, or socioeconomic, but are most often a

combination of these elements. Among

the most important factors creating this

‘‘emerging universe of disability’’ are

interpersonal violence, such as

shootings, battery, or child abuse; lowbirthweight and other high-risk births,

often to mothers who are young

teenagers, substance abusers, HIVpositive, or with poor prenatal care;

aging, with or without prior existing

disabilities; high risk behaviors

involving substance abuse or sexual

activities; and secondary conditions,

often resulting from inadequate acute or

long-term care.

The nation lacks a clear

understanding of the existence of these

disabilities, which are closely related to

an individual’s position in the social

structure, and certainly does not

comprehend the possible consequences

for the disability service systems of a

new population of disabled persons

from among what one author calls ‘‘the

vulnerable.’’ (Aday, 1993). There are

many gaps in the knowledge base about

risk factors associated with the

emergence of disability, as there are no

comprehensive surveillance systems or

epidemiological studies.

Priority

The Secretary will establish a research

and demonstration project to: (1) Define

and characterize the emerging universe

of disability; (2) assess the incidence

and prevalence of these ‘‘new universe’’

disabilities; (3) identify etiologies

associated with these disabilities; and

(4) evaluate the implications of these

emerging disabilities for service systems

and social policy. In addition to

activities proposed by the applicant to

carry out these purposes, the proposed

R&D project shall carry out the

following activities:

• Determine and test methods, using

a range of existing databases, to estimate

and describe the emerging universe of

disability both for the present and in the

future, and assess the feasibility of using

existing, or establishing new,

surveillance systems to predict and

characterize future emerging

disabilities;

• Assess the particular needs of the

emerging universe, both now and for the

future, for vocational rehabilitation,

special education, medical and

psychosocial rehabilitation,

independent living services, and

assistive technology services, as well as

for community-based supports, income

supports, and medical assistance;

• Analyze the implications for the

selection, preparation, and training of

personnel, including professionals and

peers, to provide services to the

emerging universe, and for the ways in

which services should be delivered;

• Design a practical and prioritized

agenda for a future research program to

develop interventions and policy

approaches to address the disabilityrelated problems of various segments of

the emerging universe; and

• Convene a conference of

individuals both within and outside of

the disability field to discuss the

Center’s findings and their implications.

APPLICABLE PROGRAM REGULATIONS: 34

CFR parts 350 and 351.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers (RRTCs)

Authority for the RRTC program of

NIDRR 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

such 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.

Under the regulations for this program

(see 34 CFR 352.32) the Secretary may

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities.

Description of the Rehabilitation

Research and Training Center Program

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 and

advanced programs of research in

rehabilitation targeted toward the

production of new knowledge to

improve rehabilitation methodology and

service delivery systems, alleviate or

stabilize disabling conditions, and

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 and other

rehabilitation 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.

NIDRR encourages all Centers to

involve individuals with disabilities

and minorities as recipients in research

training, as well as clinical training.

Applicants have considerable latitude

in proposing the specific research and

related projects they will undertake to

achieve the designated outcomes;

however, the regulatory selection

criteria for the program (34 CFR 352.31)

state that the Secretary reviews the

extent to which applicants justify their

choice of research projects in terms of

the relevance to the priority and to the

needs of individuals with disabilities.

The Secretary also reviews the extent to

which applicants present a scientific

methodology that includes reasonable
28440 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

hypotheses, methods of data collection

and analysis, and a means to evaluate

the extent to which project objectives

have been achieved.

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

The following requirements apply to

these RRTCs pursuant to the priorities

unless noted otherwise:

Each RRTC must conduct an

integrated program of research to

develop solutions to problems

confronted by individuals with

disabilities.

Each RRTC must conduct a

coordinated and advanced program of

training in rehabilitation research,

including training in research

methodology and applied research

experience, that will contribute to the

number of qualified researchers working

in the area of rehabilitation research.

Each Center must disseminate and

encourage the use of new rehabilitation

knowledge. They must publish all

materials for dissemination or training

in alternate formats to make them

accessible to individuals with a range of

disabling conditions.

Each RRTC must involve individuals

with disabilities and, if appropriate,

their family members, as well as

rehabilitation service providers in

planning and implementing the research

and training programs, in interpreting

and disseminating the research findings,

and in evaluating the Center.

Priorities

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet one of the

following priorities. The Secretary will

fund under these competitions only

applications that meet one of these

absolute priorities:

Priority 1: Vocational Rehabilitation

Services for Individuals Who Are Blind

or Visually Impaired

Background

In 1990, approximately 17 out of

every 1,000 persons in the civilian

noninstitutionalized population of the

United States were unable to see to read

ordinary newspaper print even when

wearing glasses. Of these 4.3 million

individuals approximately 515,000 were

blind in both eyes (K.A. Nelson and E.

Dimitrova, Severe Visual Impairment in

the United States and in Each State,

1990, Journal of Visual Impairment and

Blindness, March 1993, 80). The

number of persons with a visual

impairment that substantially limits one

or more major life activity is estimated

to be 1.3 million (M. Laplante and D.

Carlson, Disability in the United States:

Prevalence and Causes, 1992, Disability

Statistics Rehabilitation Research and

Training Center, University of

California, San Francisco, October,

1995). These individuals are the

primary target audience for this RRTC.

For the years 1991 and 1992, of the

4.57 million persons 21 to 64 years old

who had some functional limitation

seeing words or letters, 2.086 million

individuals or 45.6 percent were

employed, while 144,000 individuals, or

25.6 percent of those who were totally

unable to see words or letters, were

employed. By comparison, for the same

age group, 80.5 percent of all

individuals without a disability were

employed (J. McNeil, Americans with

Disabilities: 1991–1992, Household

Economic Studies, P70–33, December

1993). Among the cases closed by State

vocational rehabilitation agencies as

non-rehabilitated or rehabilitated in

1993, 25,488 individuals were blind or

visually impaired. Of those individuals,

18,273 or 71.7 percent, were

rehabilitated (Rehabilitation Services

Administration (RSA), Caseload

Services data, 1993).

In order to improve the employment

status of individuals who are blind and

visually impaired, there is a need to

identify barriers to achieving

employment outcomes and to develop

new and improved rehabilitation

techniques that rehabilitation service

providers can use to address these

barriers. In addition, rehabilitation

service providers and employers must

be knowledgeable about job

accommodations. Rehabilitation service

providers and employers should have

the ability to assist individuals who are

blind or visually impaired to overcome

not only physical barriers, but also

technological barriers to the emerging

electronic information infrastructure.

Computer technology is changing

rapidly. Rehabilitation professionals

must have up-to-date knowledge of

accessible computer technology for

individuals who are blind or visually

impaired. RSA has determined that

State vocational rehabilitation agency

staff need training on state-of-the-art

computer technology for individuals

who are blind or visually impaired. To

address this need, RSA is collaborating

with NIDRR to support the training of

State VR agency staff through this

RRTC, using a train the trainer model.

Since 1936 the Randolph-Sheppard

Act program has been a source of

employment for individuals who are

blind. The program enables individuals

who are blind to become licensed

facility managers and operate vending

facilities on Federal property. According

to RSA, in fiscal year 1994, 3,524 blind

vendors operated 3,419 vending

facilities under the Randolph-Sheppard

Act program. The program generated

$401 million in gross earnings with

vendors averaging an annual income of

$26,478.

In order to ensure that the vending

facilities are competitive, an assessment

should be undertaken to identify areas

of the program that may be improved by

training State Business Enterprise

program counselors and licensed facility

managers.

Priority 1

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on vocational rehabilitation services for

individuals who are blind or visually

impaired that will: (1) Investigate and

document the employment status of

individuals who are blind or visually

impaired; (2) identify the barriers to

employment that can be addressed by

rehabilitation service providers or

employers, and develop or identify

rehabilitation techniques or reasonable

accommodations that address these

barriers; (3) train rehabilitation

professionals on new and effective

rehabilitation techniques and

accommodations; (4) develop a national

information and resource referral data

base for rehabilitation professionals and

employers; and (5) identify the training

needs of State Business Enterprise

program counselors and licensed facility

managers that will enable the vending

facilities to be competitive, develop and

deliver training programs to meet the

identified needs, and evaluate the

efficacy of the training.

In carrying out the purposes of the

priority, the RRTC shall:

• Conduct at least three conferences

to train State vocational rehabilitation

staff on state-of-the-art computer

technology for individuals who are

blind or visually impaired;

• Solicit and utilize input from

individuals who are blind or severely

visually impaired in the planning,

development, and implementation of

the activities of the RRTC as much as

possible; and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28441

• Coordinate its research efforts with

other NIDRR grantees that address

vocational rehabilitation in general, as

well as those that address the needs of

individuals who are blind or visually

impaired.

Priority 2: Vocational Rehabilitation

Services for Individuals Who are Deaf or

Hard of Hearing

Background

In 1991–1992 there were

approximately 10.9 million persons age

15 and older with a ‘‘functional

limitation hearing normal conversation’’

and an additional 924,000 persons who

were ‘‘unable to hear normal

conversation’’ (J. McNeil, Americans

with Disabilities: 1991–1992, Household

Economic Studies, P70–33, December

1993). The number of persons with a

hearing impairment that substantially

limits one or more major life activity is

estimated to be 1.2 million (M. Laplante

and D. Carlson, Disability in the United

States: Prevalence and Causes, 1992,

Disability Statistics Rehabilitation

Research and Training Center,

University of California, San Francisco,

October, 1995). These individuals are

the primary target audience for this

RRTC.

For the years 1991 and 1992, of all

persons 21 to 64 years old who had

some functional limitation hearing

normal conversation, 3,335,000

individuals or 63.6 percent were

employed, while 189,000 individuals, or

58.2 percent of those who were totally

unable to hear normal conversation,

were employed. By comparison, for the

same age group, 80.5 percent of all

individuals without a disability were

employed (J. McNeil, 1993). Among the

cases closed by State vocational

rehabilitation agencies as nonrehabilitated or rehabilitated in 1993,

21,888 individuals were deaf or hard of

hearing. Of those individuals, 15,901, or

72.6 percent, were rehabilitated

(Rehabilitation Services Administration

(RSA), Caseload Services data, 1993).

Although the Federal vocational

rehabilitation system successfully serves

and rehabilitates significant numbers of

individuals who are deaf or hard of

hearing, new knowledge is needed to

address the vocational rehabilitation

needs of specific subgroups within this

population such as late-deafened adults,

individuals who have limited English

proficiency, individuals who are

functionally illiterate, and individuals

with co-existing disabilities, including

psychiatric disabilities and mental

retardation.

‘‘Low-functioning’’ deaf individuals

often do not have comprehensive

rehabilitation training and related

services accessible and available to

them. This segment of the deaf

population—sometimes called ‘‘low

achieving,’’ ‘‘multiply disabled deaf,’’ or

‘‘traditionally underserved deaf’’—

requires long-term and intensive

habilitative and rehabilitative services.

These individuals exhibit deficits in

vocational skills, independent living

skills, manual and oral communication

skills, social skills, and academic skills,

and many have significant secondary

disabilities. Many are from

socioeconomically and culturally

disadvantaged backgrounds, and many

are from ethnic or linguistic minorities.

Services to this population are scarce

and fragmented. In addition to

understanding the social, vocational,

and educational implications of the

disability, vocational rehabilitation

service providers must also be able to

communicate with the individuals,

often through less than optimal means,

such as rudimentary sign language.

The application of emerging

technology is expected to play a pivotal

role in improving the vocational

rehabilitation and employment status of

persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.

This new technology will address a

wide-range of workplace

accommodation issues including, but

not limited to, communication, safety,

and literacy.

Priority 2

The Secretary will establish an RRTC

on the vocational rehabilitation of

individuals who are deaf or hard of

hearing that will: (1) Investigate and

document the employment status of

individuals who are deaf or hard of

hearing by age, gender, ethnic or

linguistic background, education, level

of impairment, age at on-set of

impairment (particularly late-deafened

adults), and co-existing conditions; (2)

identify the barriers to entering or

maintaining employment that can be

addressed by vocational rehabilitation

service providers or employers, and

identify or develop vocational

rehabilitation techniques or reasonable

accommodations that address these

barriers, including those related to

literacy skills and those using emerging

assistive technology such as assistive

listening devices, telecommunications

equipment, and remote access

technology; (3) train rehabilitation

professionals, including peer advocates,

on new and effective rehabilitation

techniques and accommodations, and as

appropriate include consumers and

employers in the training on

accommodations; (4) develop and

disseminate consumer-oriented

materials and develop a national

information and resource referral data

base for rehabilitation professionals and

employers; and (5) identify the range of

vocational rehabilitation services and

service resources required to meet the

needs of low-functioning deaf

individuals.

In carrying out the purposes of the

priority, the RRTC shall:

• Examine patterns of vocational

rehabilitation service usage by lowfunctioning deaf individuals with

specific attention to those from diverse

cultural backgrounds;

• Solicit and utilize input from

individuals who are deaf or hard of

hearing, including low-functioning deaf

individuals, in the planning,

development, and implementation of

the activities of the grant as much as

possible; and

• Coordinate its research efforts with

grantees from NIDRR, OSEP, and RSA

that address vocational rehabilitation in

general, as well as those that address the

needs of individuals who are deaf or

hard of hearing.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR

parts 350 and 352.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Center (RERC)

Authority for the RERC program of

NIDRR is contained in section 204(b)(3)

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 agencies

and organizations, including

institutions of higher education, Indian

tribes, and tribal organizations, to

conduct research, demonstration, and

training activities regarding

rehabilitation technology in order to

enhance opportunities for meeting the

needs of, and addressing the barriers

confronted by, individuals with

disabilities in all aspects of their lives.

An RERC must be operated by or in

collaboration with an institution of

higher education or a nonprofit

organization.

Under the regulations for this program

(see 34 CFR 353.32) the Secretary may

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities.

Description of the Rehabilitation

Engineering Research Center Program

RERCs carry out research or

demonstration activities by: (1)

Developing and disseminating

innovative methods of applying

advanced technology, scientific

achievement, and psychological and

social knowledge to (a) solve
28442 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

rehabilitation problems and remove

environmental barriers, and (b) study

new or emerging technologies, products,

or environments; (2) demonstrating and

disseminating (a) innovative models for

the delivery of cost-effective

rehabilitation technology services to

rural and urban areas, and (b) other

scientific research to assist in meeting

the employment and independent living

needs of individuals with severe

disabilities; or (3) facilitating service

delivery systems change through (a) the

development, evaluation, and

dissemination of consumer-responsive

and individual and family-centered

innovative models for the delivery to

both rural and urban areas of innovative

cost-effective rehabilitation technology

services, and (b) other scientific

research to assist in meeting the

employment and independent needs of

individuals with severe disabilities.

Each RERC must provide training

opportunities to individuals, including

individuals with disabilities, to become

researchers of rehabilitation technology

and practitioners of rehabilitation

technology in conjunction with

institutions of higher education and

nonprofit organizations.

General

The following requirements apply to

this RERC pursuant to this absolute

priority unless noted otherwise:

The RERC must have the capability to

design, build, and test prototype devices

and assist in the transfer of successful

solutions to the marketplace. The RERC

must evaluate the efficacy and safety of

its new products, instrumentation, or

assistive devices.

The RERC must provide graduatelevel research training to build capacity

for engineering research in the

rehabilitation field and to provide

training in the applications of new

technology to service providers and to

individuals with disabilities and their

families.

The RERC must develop all training

materials in formats that will be

accessible to individuals with various

types of disabilities and communication

modes, and widely disseminate findings

and products to individuals with

disabilities and their families and

representatives, service providers,

manufacturers and distributors, and

other appropriate target populations.

The RERC must involve individuals

with disabilities and, if appropriate,

their family members in planning and

implementing the research,

development, and training programs, in

interpreting and disseminating the

research findings, and in evaluating the

Center.

The RERC must share information and

data, and, as appropriate, collaborate on

research and training with other NIDRRsupported grantees including, but not

limited to, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) Disability and

Business Technical Assistance Centers

and other related RERCs and RRTCs.

The RERC must work closely with the

RERC on Technology Evaluation and

Transfer at the State University of New

York at Buffalo.

Priority

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the

Secretary gives an absolute preference to

applications that meet the following

priority. The Secretary will fund under

this competition only applications that

meet this absolute priority:

Priority: Assistive Technology for Older

Persons With Disabilities

Background

In 1991–1992, of 30.68 million

persons who were 65 years old and

over, 16.54 million or 53.9 percent had

a disability. Of those 16.54 million with

a disability, 15.21 million persons had

a ‘‘functional limitation’’ performing

activities such as seeing, hearing,

reaching, or walking (J. McNeil,

Americans with Disabilities: 1991–1992,

Household Economic Studies, P70–33,

December 1993). The prevalence of

medical, neurological and orthopedic

impairments increases with the age of

the population. It is estimated that over

half of all Americans over seventy years

of age have one or more disabilities

(McNeil, 1993). Also, as a result of

improved life-long health care and

expanded employment and educational

opportunities, increased numbers of

persons with severe disabilities will

become part of our elderly population

and experience new or changed

assistive technology needs.

While assistive technology has been

used in rehabilitation to help reduce the

adverse effects of disability, it is only

beginning to be used effectively to

address problems in geriatric

rehabilitation. An RERC on assistive

technology for older persons with

disabilities will address the application

of technology to meet the special needs

of older persons with disabilities and

their caregivers.

Many devices or techniques aimed at

ameliorating specific disabilities are

designed to augment or take advantage

of compensatory abilities. However,

multiple and gradual changes related to

aging may leave older persons without

one or more areas of strength with

which to compensate for other

functional losses. For example, an older

person requiring a wheelchair, because

of gradual loss of muscle mass, may not

have, or may not be able to develop, the

requisite arm strength to use grab bars

to assist them in transferring in and out

of their wheelchair.

Efforts to develop and disseminate

technological aids to older persons with

functional limitations must be

conducted in the context of using

effective information dissemination

strategies to reach older persons. It is

also necessary to deliver effective

training in the use and maintenance of

the technology that is prescribed. It is

particularly important to make

information on assistive technology for

older persons with disabilities available

in relation to the major activities of

work, personal and health care, and

leisure.

Assistive technology can address the

physical stress that is problematic for

caregivers of older persons with

disabilities. Many of these caregivers are

spouses who are elderly themselves.

Premature admission to institutional

care is commonly caused by a crisis of

the caregiver rather than by a sudden

deterioration in the health or abilities of

the older persons with a disability.

Typically, the caregiver becomes injured

or sick and finds it impossible to

continue to do the lifting and other

demanding physical tasks. Assistive

technology that can assist the caregiver

can have a major impact on eliminating

the need or delaying the time for

institutional placement of an older

person with a disability.

Priority

The Secretary will establish an RERC

on assistive technology for older

persons with disabilities for the

purposes of: (1) Identifying the needs for

assistive technology by older persons

with disabilities; (2) developing design

modifications to existing assistive

technology devices and disseminating

these modifications to developers of

assistive technology; (3) developing and

evaluating unique assistive technology

devices that otherwise will not be

developed by the field; (4) identifying

the problems of assistive technology

service delivery utilization, including

maintenance, and developing and

testing service delivery models to

address those problems; and (5)

developing and delivering training and

technical assistance to rehabilitation

service providers, providers of general

services to older persons, and

consumers, on sources and uses of

assistive technology for older persons

with disabilities and caregivers.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28443

In addition to activities proposed by

the applicant to carry out these

purposes, the RERC shall:

• Develop and implement an

information dissemination initiative to

address utilization problems, including

targeting disability and elderly

organizations as well as assistive

technology service providers;

• Coordinate and share information

with NIDRR-funded RRTCs on

Rehabilitation and Aging, and with

programs funded under the TechnologyRelated Assistance for Individuals with

Disabilities Act of 1988; and

• Establish a collaborative

relationship with the RERC on

Technology Evaluation and Transfer

and the RERC on Accessible Housing

and Universal Design.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR

Parts 350 and 353.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers: 84.133A, Research and

Demonstration Projects, 84.133B,

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center

Program, 84.133E, Rehabilitation Engineering

and Research Center Program)

Dated: May 29, 1996.

Andrew Pepin,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 96–13910 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA Nos.: 84.133A, 84.133B and 84.133E]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice

Inviting Applications for New Awards

Under Certain Programs for Fiscal

Year 1996

Note to Applicants

This notice is a complete application

package. Together with the statute

authorizing the programs and applicable

regulations governing the programs,

including the Education Department

General Administrative Regulations

(EDGAR), this notice contains

information, application forms, and

instructions needed to apply for a grant

under these competitions.

These programs support the National

Education Goal that calls for all

Americans to possess the knowledge

and skills necessary to compete in a

global economy and exercise the rights

and responsibilities of citizenship.

The estimated funding levels in this

notice do not bind the Department of

Education to make awards in any of

these categories, or to any specific

number of awards or funding levels,

unless otherwise specified in statute.

Applicable Regulations

The Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

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

and 86; and the following program

regulations:

Research and Demonstration Projects

(R&D)—34 CFR parts 350 and 351.

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers (RRTCs)—34 CFR parts 350 and

352.

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Centers (RERCs)—34 CFR Parts 350 and

353.

Program Title: Research and

Demonstration Projects.

CFDA Number: 84.133A.

Purpose of Program: The Research

and Demonstration Projects program is

designed to support discrete research,

demonstration, training, and related

projects to develop methods,

procedures, and technology that

maximize the full inclusion and

integration into society, independent

living, employment, family support, and

economic and social self-sufficiency of

individuals with disabilities, especially

those with the most severe disabilities.

In addition, the R&D program supports

discrete research, demonstration, and

training projects that specifically

address the implementation of Titles I,

III, VI, VII, and VIII of the Rehabilitation

Act, with emphasis on projects to

improve the effectiveness of these

programs and to meet the needs

described in State Plans submitted to

the Rehabilitation Services

Administration by State vocational

rehabilitation agencies.

APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996, REHABILITATION ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER PROGRAM, CFDA NO.

84.133E

Funding priority Deadline for transmittal of applications

Estimated

number of

awards

Maximum

award

amount (per

year)*

Project

period

(months)

Assistive Technology for Older Persons with Disabilities July 19, 1996 ............................................. 1 $500,000 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 (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

Selection Criteria

The Secretary uses the following

selection criteria to evaluate

applications under this program.

(a) Potential Impact of Outcomes:

Importance of Program (Weight 3.0).

The Secretary reviews each application

to determine to what degree—

(1) The proposed activity relates to

the announced priority;

(2) The research is likely to produce

new and useful information (research

activities only);

(3) The need and target population are

adequately defined;

(4) The outcomes are likely to benefit

the defined target population;

(5) The training needs are clearly

defined (training activities only);

(6) The training methods and

developed subject matter are likely to

meet the defined need (training

activities only); and

(7) The need for information exists

(utilization activities only).

(b) Potential Impact of Outcomes:

Dissemination/Utilization (Weight 3.0).

The Secretary reviews each application

to determine to what degree—

(1) The research results are likely to

become available to others working in

the field (research activities only);

(2) The means to disseminate and

promote utilization by others are

defined;

(3) The training methods and content

are to be packaged for dissemination

and use by others (training activities

only); and

(4) The utilization approach is likely

to address the defined need (utilization

activities only).

(c) Probability of Achieving Proposed

Outcomes: Program/Project Design

(Weight 5.0). The Secretary reviews

each application to determine to what

degree—

(1) The objectives of the project(s) are

clearly stated;