[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37191-37201]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-27]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR)--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers
Program--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) and
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.133B
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers and 84.133E Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Centers.
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities (NFP) for RRTCs and RERCs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces certain funding priorities for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program
administered by NIDRR. Specifically, this notice announces four
priorities for RRTCs and three priorities for RERCs. The Assistant
Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2009 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention
on areas of national need. We intend these priorities to improve
rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective August 27, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6029, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7462 or by e-mail:
donna.nangle@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This NFP is in concert with NIDRR's Final
Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). The Plan, which was published
in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be
accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve
the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2)
foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to
facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique
needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best
strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for
underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify
mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate
findings.
This notice announces priorities that NIDRR intends to use for RRTC
and RERC competitions in FY 2009 and possibly later years. However,
nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if
needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for
each of these priorities. The decision to make an award will be based
on the quality of applications received and available funding.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related
activities, including international activities, to develop methods,
procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living,
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe
disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g), 764(a), 764(b)(2), and
764(b)(3).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21338). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities. This information may be useful for applicants in
preparing their applications.
There are several significant differences between the NPP and this
NFP, as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 80
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities.
We discuss substantive issues under the priorities to which they
pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes
or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments that raised
[[Page 37192]]
concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows.
General
Comment: One commenter noted that it is important for RRTC and RERC
applicants to be aware of the concerns, needs, and strengths of
individuals from diverse backgrounds (based on gender, race, ethnicity,
and age), and appropriately address these within their proposed
programs.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that it is important for grantees in the
RRTC and RERC programs to address the needs of individuals with
disabilities from diverse backgrounds. In order to maximize the utility
of grant products, RRTC and RERC activities should take into account
differences in the needs of individuals with disabilities, based on
their gender, race, ethnicity, age, and other important
characteristics. However, we do not believe it is necessary to require
each grantee to address all of these factors. The peer review process
will determine the merits of each proposal. We also note that NIDRR
requires all RRTCs to demonstrate in their applications how they will
address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with
disabilities from minority backgrounds.
Changes: None.
RRTCs
Priority 1--Improved Employment Outcomes for Individuals With
Psychiatric Disabilities
Comment: One commenter expressed an interest in implementing
statewide supported employment programs that assist people with
psychiatric disabilities to enter the workforce.
Discussion: Under Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, NIDRR has the authority to sponsor research, demonstration
projects, training, and related activities. NIDRR does not have the
authority to fund the direct implementation of employment programs.
However, paragraph (a)(3) of the priority does require applicants to
develop, test, and validate adaptations of evidence-based interventions
for individuals from traditionally underserved groups, and specifically
mentions supported employment as an example of an evidence-based
practice. Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant from focusing
on supported employment when conducting activities under this priority.
The peer review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the phrase
``scientifically based research'' and asked how the definition of this
phrase may impact the type of research design permitted in the
applications.
Discussion: Under this priority, scientifically based research must
be used to identify or develop, and test, innovative interventions and
employment accommodations. We are using the definition of
``scientifically based research'' from section 9101(37) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. This
definition emphasizes the use of experimental or quasi-experimental
designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are
assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to
evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference
for random-assignment experiments. NIDRR believes that experimental
research designs are appropriate for research that involves identifying
or developing, and testing, interventions or accommodations, but are
not necessarily appropriate for research activities of a more
exploratory nature. Therefore, scientifically based research is
explicitly required under paragraph (a)(1) of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that projects under this priority
should conduct research on the full range of transition, systems, and
needs (e.g., housing, transportation, money management, and performance
of daily life activities) leading up to and supporting employment for
people with psychiatric disabilities.
Discussion: The priority requires the RRTC to contribute to
improved models, programs, and interventions to enable individuals with
psychiatric disabilities to obtain, retain, and advance in competitive
employment of their choice. Nothing in the priority precludes an
applicant from focusing on one or more of the topics identified by the
commenter. We do not believe it is necessary to require that an
applicant focus on all of those topics. The peer review process will
determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that occupational therapists could
work with vocational rehabilitation (VR) and other professionals to
address employment-related factors so that individuals with psychiatric
disabilities will be more prepared for tasks related to employment and
independent living.
Discussion: Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant from
including a focus on the role of occupational therapists in the
research on improved models, programs, and interventions in paragraph
(a)(1) of the priority, or in the research on effective partnerships
between VR and other agencies and mental health groups in paragraph
(a)(2). The peer review process will determine the merits of each
proposal.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Transition-Age Youth and Young Adults With Serious Mental
Health Conditions
Comment: Forty-five commenters noted that the proposed priority did
not address questions regarding serious mental health conditions in
children younger than the age of 14. These commenters stated that many
mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders have their onset before
this age.
Discussion: We recognize that many mental, emotional, and behavior
disorders begin when children are much younger than age 14. However, it
is not possible to address all age groups and conditions in a single
RRTC. In developing this priority, NIDRR considered the state of the
science, major Federal reports and initiatives, and priorities of the
Department of Education, which included an emphasis on transition to
adulthood. The decision to fund research addressing the needs of the
target population (i.e., individuals between the ages of 14 and 30,
inclusive) is a strategic one, based on a need for knowledge in this
area.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters requested that the priority include
families as a critical component of research.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that families are critical to the outcomes
of children and young adults with serious mental health conditions. The
priority requires research on family-guided care. In addition,
paragraph (a) of the priority specifically requires family involvement
in the processes of identifying, or developing, and evaluating
interventions. We believe these provisions adequately address the
concern raised by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the research conducted under
this priority should focus on policy and financing issues related to
mental health disparities in the access, availability, and quality of
services, and associated outcomes for children, youth, and families of
color.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that research on policy and financing
issues related to mental health disparities for children and youth of
color would be an
[[Page 37193]]
important addition to the research literature. Applicants may propose
such research under paragraph (c) of the priority, which requires
research on the financial, policy, and other barriers to integration of
youth and adult mental health systems. However, we have no basis for
requiring all applicants to propose such research. In addition, the
Department believes that limiting the research in this way would
preclude applicants from proposing valuable research on the broader
issues related to interventions and system coordination that would
benefit all transition-aged youth with disabilities, including those
from minority backgrounds. As described in the priority, research on
this or other topics must focus on the experiences of youth and young
adults between the ages of 14 and 30.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that in May 2007, NIDRR convened a
panel of experts on child and adolescent mental health that made a
series of research recommendations, which are not addressed in the
proposed priority. The commenter asked why panel recommendations in the
areas of early intervention and screening, schools and education,
family and community supports, systems of care, and diversity and
cultural competence were not named as the focus of the priority.
Discussion: In determining priority topics, NIDRR uses a number of
inputs, including but not limited to: NIDRR's analysis of the state of
the science; input from experts in the field (e.g., the 2007 expert
panel on child and adolescent mental health); work produced by NIDRR's
RRTCs; work sponsored by other agencies; major Federal reports and
initiatives; and leadership initiatives at the Department of Education.
Although the priority does not focus exclusively on the topics
recommended by the 2007 expert panel, it does incorporate several of
the panel's recommendations. For example, the priority requires the
RRTC to utilize recovery-based outcome measures, including education
and community integration. In addition, the priority requires the
development of new knowledge in a number of areas recommended by the
panel, including knowledge about youth and young adults with serious
mental health conditions who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, a
focus on family and consumer-guided care, and systems coordination.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority address the
building of skills needed to achieve recovery-based outcomes.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that these skills are important to
recovery and positive outcomes. Nothing in the priority precludes an
applicant from proposing interventions research that highlights the
building of skills needed to achieve recovery-based outcomes under
paragraphs (a) and (b). However, NIDRR does not have a sufficient basis
for requiring all applicants to propose such interventions. The peer
review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that research under this
priority focus on the development of protocols for schools to bring
together resources that help ensure safe and effective transition.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that school-based protocols can be useful
in promoting safe and effective transition for youth with serious
mental health conditions. Such protocols could play a role in
interventions research under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the priority or
in systems integration research under paragraph (c). Nothing in the
priority precludes an applicant from proposing research on school-based
protocols. However, NIDRR does not have a sufficient basis for
requiring all applicants to do so. The peer review process will
determine the merits of each proposal under this priority.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Improving Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes
Comment: Two commenters suggested that by specifically requiring
the RRTC to develop measures of cognition and ``environmental factors''
under paragraph (a) of the priority NIDRR is limiting the range of
innovative applications that might be received under this priority. The
commenters suggested that applicants be invited to address any of the
seven research recommendations from the NIDRR-sponsored Post-Acute
Rehabilitation Symposium in 2007.
Discussion: NIDRR has made the development of measures of cognitive
function and measures to assess environmental factors a priority
because adequate measures of these factors have not been developed for
systemic application in the field of medical rehabilitation. Cognition
is both a rehabilitation outcome and a factor related to broader
functional and community outcomes for individuals with a wide variety
of disabling conditions. Better measures of the environment are
required to facilitate emerging research on the influence of
environmental factors on medical rehabilitation outcomes.
Paragraph (a) of the priority also permits an RRTC to develop
medical rehabilitation outcome measures in other areas where a
demonstrated need has been identified in the literature. This
flexibility allows applicants to propose development of outcomes
measures in additional areas, including other areas identified in the
proceedings of the Post Acute Care Symposium. The peer review process
will determine the merits of each proposal under this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority require
development of measures of physical function.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that measures of physical function are
important in the field of medical rehabilitation research. NIDRR has
sponsored the development of key measures of physical function, which
are now widely used in the field. Nothing in this priority prohibits
applicants from proposing the development of additional measures of
physical function. The peer review process will determine the merits of
each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR revise the priority to
encourage the application of newly developed measures to assess the
effectiveness of rehabilitation or to compare the effectiveness of
different rehabilitation approaches.
Discussion: The primary purpose of this priority is to develop
outcome measures and data collection methods that improve the quality
of disability and rehabilitation research related to medical
rehabilitation. While we intend that the new outcome measures be used
in the field, the application of new measures to assess the
effectiveness of rehabilitation services is beyond the scope of this
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR should specify that
simple, valid, and reliable methods for characterizing cognitive
function of rehabilitation patients is needed and that the new measure
of cognition should be broader, better, and more reliable than the
cognitive subscale of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM).
Discussion: In paragraph (a) of the priority, NIDRR emphasizes the
specific need for valid and reliable measures of cognition, data
collection efficiency, and the applicability of measures across a wide
variety of rehabilitation settings
[[Page 37194]]
and disability groups. NIDRR agrees that the cognitive subscale of the
FIM is an important benchmark in the field. However, we have no basis
for requiring that all applicants use the FIM as a reference point as
they develop new measures of cognition. Applicants may discuss the
merits of their proposed measures, relative to the cognitive subscale
of the FIM or any other relevant existing measure.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked NIDRR to specify whether we are
prioritizing measures of the environment that focus on the
characteristics of rehabilitation settings or on the characteristics of
the social and physical environments to which rehabilitation patients
are discharged.
Discussion: Paragraph (a) of the priority states that the RRTC must
develop valid and reliable measures to assess environmental factors
that affect outcomes among individuals with disabilities living in the
community. NIDRR understands that characteristics of rehabilitation
settings and characteristics of the home and community environment may
affect outcomes. Applicants may propose and justify the development of
measures in either, or both, settings.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that computer adaptive testing (CAT)
and item response theory may not be applicable to some key measurement
areas, including measurement of the environment. This commenter
suggested that we revise the priority to clarify that data collection
strategies should be determined by the state of the science and that
other data collection strategies may apply in some measurement domains.
Discussion: The priority does not endorse CAT as a universal
approach for measurement. Rather, the priority calls for applicants to
include item response theory and CAT techniques as strategies. Nothing
in this priority prohibits applicants from proposing strategies in
addition to these two. However, we acknowledge that our intent in this
area may not be clear.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (a) of the priority to clarify
that data collection strategies for newly developed measures must
include, but are not limited to, item response theory and CAT
techniques, as appropriate.
Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required to
develop rehabilitation measures via research methods that are theory-
based, with particular attention on reduction of measurement error and
enhancement of precision. This commenter also recommended that measures
developed under this priority should generate clinically useful
information.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that these are important considerations
when developing rehabilitation outcome measures. However, we do not
believe it is necessary for the priority to specify the role of theory-
based methods of measure development. Applicants' attention to issues
such as these will be considered during peer review. The peer review
process will determine the merits of each proposal under this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority require
research on methods for linking payment for post-acute rehabilitation
to rehabilitation outcomes, across post-acute settings of care.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that linking payment for post-acute
rehabilitation to rehabilitation outcomes is an important issue.
However, the purpose of this priority is to improve measurement of
medical rehabilitation outcomes. Development of methods for
establishing an outcomes-based rehabilitation payment system is beyond
the scope of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority ensure that
individuals from a broad range of professions and interests be allowed
to participate in the training to ensure comprehensive coverage of the
full range of rehabilitation.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that it would be beneficial to have
individuals from a broad range of professions participate in the
training.
Changes: We have revised the last sentence of paragraph (b) of the
priority to require, where appropriate, the inclusion of
multidisciplinary approaches from a broad range of professions and
interests in the program of training.
Priority 4--Developing Strategies To Foster Community Integration and
Participation for Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury
Comment: Three commenters noted that development of improved tools
for traumatic brain injury (TBI) research, required under paragraphs
(a) and (b) of the proposed priority, would reduce grant resources that
should be spent on testing interventions to promote community
integration and participation.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that there is a great need for community
integration and participation (CIP) interventions in TBI. Our reading
of the research literature suggests that better characterization of
symptom variations within research samples might contribute
substantially to improved accumulation of knowledge regarding the
effectiveness of interventions. In response to the concerns of
commenters that it would be difficult for one RRTC both to develop and
test interventions and to develop a TBI classification system, we
reordered the priority requirements to emphasize the testing of
interventions and we eliminated some of the prescriptive requirements
related to the development of a TBI classification system. Although we
reduced the number of requirements for the development of a TBI
classification system, we expect applicants to propose and justify the
steps they will take to accomplish this task. The peer review process
will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: We have revised the priority by reordering the priority
requirements, eliminating the requirement for expert input into the
classification system, and eliminating the requirement for the
development of a manual for use of the classification system. Also, in
response to this comment and related comments, discussed below in
greater detail, we have revised the priority by decoupling the testing
of interventions from the classification system, eliminating the
numerous examples of symptoms, eliminating the requirement for a short
version of the classification system, and eliminating the requirement
for a literature review.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the sequential nature of the
priority makes the timeline for required activities infeasible. Two of
these commenters suggested that the research tools required under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the priority be developed concurrently with
the interventions research conducted under paragraph (c) instead of
having the testing of interventions be tied to the development of the
research tools. One of these commenters asked about the logistical
difficulty of reviewing and funding interventions research, which would
not be developed and specified until after the completion of the
research tools.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the sequential nature of the required
activities as presented in the proposed priority may substantially
reduce the time available to conduct research on the TBI interventions.
Changes: We have revised the priority by eliminating the
requirement that the testing of interventions be tied to the
classification system.
[[Page 37195]]
Comment: Three commenters stated that the development of a symptom-
based classification of individuals with TBI is not feasible. These
commenters noted that the large number of TBI symptoms and the
uniqueness of every individual with TBI preclude meaningful
classification.
Discussion: NIDRR understands that there are numerous TBI symptoms,
and that every individual with TBI has unique circumstances and
experiences. However, this does not preclude the development of tools
to help broadly classify individuals with TBI according to the TBI
symptoms that they experience. Through collection and analysis of data
by researchers and clinicians, this RRTC can determine the prevalence
of relevant clusters of TBI symptoms.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the general practice among TBI
researchers of using inclusion and exclusion criteria to enroll
appropriate individuals into research projects is adequate. The
commenter also stated that the symptom classification required under
paragraph (c) of the priority is not useful for this purpose.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that clear and appropriate inclusion and
exclusion criteria are essential in the field of disability research.
However, individuals with similar severity of injury or cognitive
function can have a wide range of symptoms that is not specified in the
inclusion or exclusion criteria. This range can affect the impact of
interventions, limit the ability to compare the findings of different
studies, and make it unclear whether the findings can be generalized. A
TBI symptom classification can serve as a tool for identifying
important variations within samples, promote comparability of studies,
and clarify the extent to which findings can be generalized to the
larger population of individuals with TBI.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the symptom classification
to be developed for this priority is potentially duplicative of an
emerging effort to develop a classification of individuals with TBI
based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability,
and Health (ICF). However, one of these commenters noted that the
sample size planned by this group could limit its ability to generate
adequate information about infrequent yet important TBI symptoms.
Discussion: We do not believe that the classification to be
developed under this priority will be duplicative of the effort based
on the ICF. NIDRR's focus on a symptom-based classification related to
CIP should support the development of this broader classification
activity. Applicants may propose methods that are in concert with this
ICF effort or other methods of creating a symptom-based classification
of individuals with TBI, as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the requirement in the priority
that the grantee review the literature on barriers to CIP among
individuals with TBI is unnecessary. These commenters stated that the
review of literature on barriers to CIP is likely to be redundant with
the effort to develop a list of symptoms because TBI symptoms are often
CIP barriers for this population.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the literature on barriers to CIP may
be significantly related to the list of TBI symptoms; in fact, NIDRR
believes this relationship strengthens the importance of reviewing
current and relevant literature. However, NIDRR feels that requiring a
literature review under this priority is unnecessarily prescriptive.
Applicants' plans for conducting and incorporating such a literature
review into the RRTC's activities will be considered during peer
review. The peer review process will determine the merits of each
proposal under this priority.
Changes: We have revised the priority by removing the requirement
for a literature review.
Comment: One commenter noted that the expertise necessary to create
a TBI classification system under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
priority is different from the expertise required to carry out TBI
interventions research under paragraph (c). The commenter stated that
it may be difficult for an RRTC to have staff with this diverse
expertise.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes that an RRTC developing a TBI
classification system and conducting high-quality intervention studies
is likely to require staff with varying expertise. We would expect that
an RRTC would have this diversity. In addition, as stated in its Long
Range Plan, NIDRR expects RRTCs to be multidisciplinary, i.e., able to
combine the strengths and perspectives of researchers from multiple
disciplines and areas of expertise. (See 71 FR 8166, 8177.)
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR should publish a less
prescriptive priority that would allow applicants more latitude to
propose innovative research topics. This commenter and one other
suggested a number of potentially innovative topics that could be
proposed under such a priority. The suggested topics included testing
cognitive rehabilitation interventions; assessing the use of computer-
mediated networking technologies; developing new tools for measuring
CIP; reviewing literature on CIP related interventions; and developing
strategies to improve employment outcomes among individuals with TBI.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that research on these topics may generate
new knowledge about CIP among individuals with TBI. Many of these
topics are appropriate for development under paragraph (a) of the
priority that requires testing of interventions to improve CIP among
individuals with TBI. Applicants may propose these topics. The peer
review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of NIDRR's intent
related to the requirement to ``empirically validate'' the required
list of TBI symptoms. This commenter noted that the time and resources
required to validate the symptom list could vary greatly, depending on
the applicants' approach to the task.
Discussion: Empirical validation is the use of data to demonstrate
the intended utility of a tool. Applicants must propose and justify
their approach to the validation of the TBI symptom list. The peer
review will determine the merits of each proposal under this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked what it means for applicants to
``provide or develop effective and practical methods'' for the
identification of TBI symptoms. This commenter noted that there are no
practical and effective methods for identifying many TBI symptoms.
Discussion: We recognize that it may not be feasible to provide an
effective and practical method for identifying each TBI symptom. We
expect that applicants will provide the most appropriate methods that
are available for this purpose.
Changes: We have revised the priority by requiring that the methods
for identification of TBI symptoms be appropriate, rather than
effective and practical.
Comment: One commenter noted that the list of symptoms in paragraph
(a) of the proposed priority included not just symptoms, but diseases,
diagnoses, and a number of ``problems'' that people may experience
after TBI.
Discussion: We agree that this list is unclear. We believe that
applicants
[[Page 37196]]
should propose and justify their own list of TBI symptoms.
Changes: We have revised the priority by eliminating specific
examples of the four major categories of symptoms named in the
priority.
Comment: One commenter asked NIDRR to clarify its intent with
regard to the ``short version'' of the classification system required
under paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed priority. The commenter noted
that valid and reliable short diagnostic tests do not exist for most
TBI symptoms and that existing diagnostic tools are generally
copyrighted. This commenter also noted that development of ``short
versions'' of methodological tools is generally cost-prohibitive within
a limited five-year budget.
Discussion: We agree that development of a short version of the TBI
symptom classification system can be logistically complex and could
absorb a disproportionate share of the Center's resources.
Changes: We have revised the priority by removing the requirement
for a short version of the TBI classification system.
Comment: One commenter suggested that systematic reviews are a
feasible and more traditional method for achieving the priority's aim
of linking interventions to TBI symptoms.
Discussion: We decoupled the interventions-testing requirement from
the requirement to develop a symptom-based TBI classification system.
The linking of interventions to TBI symptoms is no longer an explicit
requirement for RRTCs under this priority. However, one aim of a TBI
classification system, generally, is to allow better targeting of
interventions to specific symptoms. Applicants may propose a systematic
review in support of the requirements of this priority. However, we
have no basis for requiring all applicants to do so. The peer review
process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that, in addition to its current
focus on symptoms of TBI and barriers to CIP, the priority should focus
on strengths of individuals with TBI and facilitators of CIP.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that it is important to highlight the
strengths of individuals with TBI and the facilitators of their CIP.
The introductory paragraph of the priority refers to examining barriers
to and facilitators of CIP for individuals with disabilities. The
remainder of the priority refers to interventions that facilitate CIP
for individuals with TBI. We believe that the revised priority strikes
the appropriate balance between barriers to and facilitators of CIP.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the incidence of TBI is greater,
yet access to rehabilitation services is lower, among minority
populations. While recognizing that NIDRR requires all RRTCs to
demonstrate how they will address the needs of individuals with
disabilities from minority backgrounds, this commenter recommended that
NIDRR add a specific requirement for this RRTC regarding the inclusion
of minorities and individuals from diverse educational and
socioeconomic backgrounds in research samples.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that requiring RRTCs to demonstrate how
they will address the needs of individuals with disabilities from
minority backgrounds is sufficient to promote appropriately diverse
research samples under this priority. Applicants may propose and
justify sample characteristics that are appropriate to their proposed
research. The peer review process will determine the merits of each
proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended additional requirements for the
symptom-based classification system, and specifically that the system
include information about the environmental context in which symptoms
are experienced. This commenter noted that information about the
contexts in which symptoms are experienced will help inform the design
of a symptom-based classification system and effective interventions.
Discussion: We agree that additional information of this nature may
be useful in the development of a TBI classification system and TBI
interventions. However, we have no basis for requiring all applicants
to do so. The peer review process will determine the merits of each
proposal.
Changes: None.
RERCs
Priority 5--Telerehabilitation
Comment: One commenter noted that mobile monitoring of gait and
vision and home monitoring may be the future of fall and accident
prevention for individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes that mobile monitoring of gait and
vision and home monitoring may be an important aspect of
telerehabilitation. The priority allows applicants the discretion to
propose research on mobile monitoring of gait and vision and home
monitoring. However, NIDRR has no basis for requiring that all
applicants do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR expand the priority to
include non-real time telerehabilitation applications.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes that the use of non-real time methods
can play a role in effective telerehabilitation services. We agree that
applicants should be permitted to propose research on and development
of technologies that support a variety of interventions, regardless of
whether or not those interventions are to be delivered in real time.
The peer review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: We have revised the priority by removing the requirement
that telerehabilitation applications be in real time.
Comment: One commenter noted that there is no need for a one-size-
fits-all solution for telerehabilitation infrastructure and
architecture. The commenter noted that technology needs will vary
considerably, based on unique needs of a diverse target population of
individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: NIDRR does not intend to imply a one-size-fits-all
solution for telerehabilitation infrastructure and architecture. The
requirement that the RERC contribute to the continuing development of
``a'' telerehabilitation infrastructure and architecture may have led
to this interpretation.
Changes: We have revised the priority by removing the first
indefinite article (``a'') from the second sentence.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR more clearly define the
meaning of ``barriers'' to telerehabilitation and ``limited access'' to
rehabilitation. The commenter specifically suggested geography,
physical immobility, clinician shortages, transportation, lack of
reimbursement, licensure, and lack of appropriate technology as
barriers that should be addressed by the RERC.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that these can be important barriers to
successful telerehabilitation and can affect access to rehabilitation
services. However, NIDRR has no basis for requiring all applicants to
address these specific barriers to rehabilitation services. NIDRR
expects applicants to identify and justify the barriers upon which they
will focus. The peer review process will determine the merits of each
proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that one of the greatest obstacles to
the large-scale implementation of telerehabilitation service delivery
is a lack of reimbursement. This commenter suggested that NIDRR require
applicants to promote reimbursement of
[[Page 37197]]
telerehabilitation services. A second commenter also emphasized the
importance of economic and reimbursement barriers to
telerehabilitation.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that lack of reimbursement can be an
important barrier to use of telerehabilitation on a larger scale.
Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant from focusing on this
issue in its proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis for requiring all
applicants to conduct research and development activities related to
telerehabilitation reimbursement. The peer review process will
determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if NIDRR intends the scope of this
RERC to include clinical studies with large patient cohorts or policy
and economic studies to determine factors such as cost effectiveness or
reimbursement by health care systems.
Discussion: This comment referred to the content provided in the
background statement for this priority. Although the background
statement suggested the importance of these types of research, the
priority does not require that the RERC perform large-scale clinical
studies or policy and economic studies related to telerehabilitation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter emphasized the importance of usability
testing when developing telerehabilitation products.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that usability testing is important. In
development activities, RERCs must work directly with individuals with
disabilities and their relevant representatives. Although this
requirement does not specifically require usability testing, such
testing regularly occurs in the development of technologies within the
RERCs. However, we have no basis for requiring all applicants to do so.
The peer review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Priority 7--Cognitive Rehabilitation
Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed priority did not
mention a more holistic approach to improve cognitive function, which
may include cognitive training therapies and exercise therapy.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that holistic approaches and therapies may
help improve cognitive function. However, the purpose of this priority
is to contribute to the development and testing of assistive technology
products that enhance cognitive functions needed to perform daily tasks
at home, school, work, and in the community. Research on cognitive or
exercise therapies are beyond the scope of this priority.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
In this notice, we are announcing four priorities for RRTCs and
three priorities for RERCs.
For RRTCs, the final priorities are:
Priority 1--Improved Employment Outcomes for Individuals
With Psychiatric Disabilities.
Priority 2--Transition-Age Youth and Young Adults With
Serious Mental Health Conditions.
Priority 3--Improving Measurement of Medical
Rehabilitation Outcomes.
Priority 4--Developing Strategies to Foster Community
Integration and Participation for Individuals With Traumatic Brain
Injury.
For RERCs, the final priorities are:
Priority 5--Telerehabilitation.
Priority 6--Telecommunication.
Priority 7--Cognitive Rehabilitation.
RRTC Program
The purpose of the RRTC program is to improve the effectiveness of
services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
through advanced research, training, technical assistance, and
dissemination activities in general problem areas, as specified by
NIDRR. Such activities are designed to benefit rehabilitation service
providers, individuals with disabilities, and the family members or
other authorized representatives of individuals with disabilities. In
addition, NIDRR intends to require all RRTC applicants to meet the
requirements of the General Rehabilitation Research and Training
Centers (RRTC) Requirements priority that it published in a NFP in the
Federal Register on February 1, 2008 (72 FR 6132).
Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at: http://
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements of RRTCs
RRTCs must--
Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation
research;
Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively
provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;
Provide technical assistance to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested
parties;
Demonstrate in their applications how they will address,
in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from
minority backgrounds;
Disseminate informational materials to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested
parties; and
Serve as centers of national excellence in rehabilitation
research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives,
providers, and other interested parties.
Final Priorities
Priority 1--Improved Employment Outcomes for Individuals With
Psychiatric Disabilities
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC) on Improved Employment Outcomes for Individuals
with Psychiatric Disabilities. The RRTC must conduct rigorous research,
training, technical assistance, and knowledge translation activities
that contribute to improved employment outcomes for individuals with
psychiatric disabilities. Under this priority, the RRTC must be
designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved models, programs, and interventions to enable
individuals with psychiatric disabilities to obtain, retain, and
advance in competitive employment of their choice. The RRTC must
contribute to this outcome by--
(1) Identifying or developing, and testing, innovative
interventions and employment accommodations using scientifically based
research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended). These interventions
and employment accommodations must include an emphasis on consumer
control, peer supports, and community living, and address the needs of
individuals from traditionally underserved groups (e.g., individuals
from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, and different
geographic areas, and individuals with multiple disabilities).
(2) Conducting research to identify barriers to, and facilitators
of, effective partnerships between State vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agencies, the Social Security Administration, State and local mental
health programs, and consumer-directed programs, and collaborating with
these entities to develop new models for effective partnerships.
(3) Developing, testing, and validating adaptations of evidence-
based interventions to enhance the effectiveness of those interventions
for
[[Page 37198]]
individuals from traditionally underserved groups (e.g., individuals
from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, and geographic
areas, and individuals with multiple disabilities). Current evidence-
based approaches include but are not limited to supported employment.
(b) Increased incorporation of research findings related to
employment and psychiatric disability into practice or policy. The RRTC
must contribute to this outcome by coordinating with appropriate NIDRR-
funded knowledge translation grantees to advance their work in the
following areas:
(1) Developing, evaluating, or implementing strategies to increase
utilization of research findings related to employment and psychiatric
disability.
(2) Conducting training, technical assistance, and dissemination
activities to increase utilization of research findings related to
employment and psychiatric disability.
In addition to contributing to these outcomes, the RRTC must:
Collaborate with state VR agencies and other stakeholder
groups (e.g., consumers, families, advocates, clinicians, policymakers,
training programs, employer groups, and researchers) in conducting the
work of the RRTC. Research partners in this collaboration must include,
but are not limited to, the NIDRR-funded RRTC for Vocational
Rehabilitation Research, the Disability Rehabilitation Research Project
on Innovative Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization for Disability
and Professional Organizations and Stakeholders, and other relevant
NIDRR grantees.
Priority 2--Transition-Age Youth and Young Adults With Serious Mental
Health Conditions
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC) on Transition-Age Youth and Young Adults with
Serious Mental Health Conditions (SMHC). This RRTC must conduct
research that contributes to improved transition outcomes for youth and
young adults with SMHC, including youth and young adults with SMHC from
high-risk, disadvantaged backgrounds. The research conducted by this
RRTC must focus on family and consumer-guided care. For purposes of
this priority, the term ``youth and young adults with SMHC'' refers to
individuals between the ages of 14 and 30, inclusive, who have been
diagnosed with either serious emotional disturbance (for individuals
under the age of 18 years) or serious mental illness (for those 18
years of age or older). Under this priority, the RRTC must contribute
to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved and developmentally appropriate interventions for
youth and young adults with SMHC. The RRTC must contribute to this
outcome by identifying or developing, and evaluating, innovative
interventions that meet the needs of youth and young adults with SMHC
using scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section
9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended). In carrying out this research, the RRTC must utilize
recovery-based outcome measures, including improved employment,
education, and community integration, among youth and young adults with
SMHC. The RRTC must involve youth and young adults with SMHC, and their
families or family surrogates, in the processes of identifying or
developing, and evaluating, interventions.
(b) New knowledge about interventions for youth and young adults
with SMHC who are from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., backgrounds
involving foster care, poverty, abuse, or substance abuse). The RRTC
must contribute to this outcome by conducting scientifically based
research to identify or develop, and evaluate effective interventions,
for these at-risk youth and young adults with SMHC.
(c) Improved coordination between child and adult mental health
services. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting
research to identify and evaluate innovative approaches that address
financial, policy, and other barriers to smooth system integration
between the child and adult mental health service systems.
(d) Improved capacity building for service providers. The RRTC must
provide training and technical assistance with a particular emphasis on
graduate, pre-service, and in-service training and curriculum
development designed to prepare direct service providers for work with
youth and young adults with SMHC.
(e) Increased translation of findings into practice or policy. The
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by coordinating with the RRTC on
Vocational Rehabilitation and with appropriate NIDRR-funded knowledge
translation grantees to--
(1) Collaborate with State VR agencies and other stakeholder groups
(e.g., State educational agencies, youth and young adults with SMHC,
families, family surrogates, and clinicians) to develop, evaluate, or
implement strategies to increase utilization of findings in programs
targeted to youth and young adults with SMHC; and
(2) Conduct dissemination activities to increase utilization of the
RRTC's findings.
Priority 3--Improving Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC) on Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation
Outcomes. This RRTC must create and implement state-of-the-art measures
for medical rehabilitation outcomes and identify the cognitive and
environmental factors that shape those outcomes. Under this priority,
the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) New tools and measures that facilitate research to promote
improved clinical practice in the field of medical rehabilitation. The
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by developing valid and reliable
measures of cognitive function for individuals who receive post-acute
medical rehabilitation, as well as measures to assess environmental
factors that affect outcomes among individuals with disabilities living
in the community. The RRTC may also develop medical rehabilitation
outcome measures in other areas where a demonstrated need has been
identified in the literature. In order to promote efficient collection
of outcomes data, this RRTC must develop and apply data collection
strategies for newly developed measures. These strategies must include,
but are not limited to, item response theory and computer adaptive
testing techniques, as appropriate. Measures developed by the RRTC must
be designed to improve the capacity of researchers and practitioners to
measure medical rehabilitation outcomes in a wide variety of settings
and across disability groups.
(b) Improved capacity to conduct rigorous medical rehabilitation
outcomes research. The RRTC must contribute to this capacity by
providing a coordinated and advanced program of training in medical
rehabilitation research that is aimed at increasing the number of
qualified researchers working in the area of medical rehabilitation
outcomes research. This program must focus on research methodology and
outcomes measurement development, provide for experience in conducting
applied research, and, where appropriate, include multidisciplinary
approaches from a broad range of professions and interests.
[[Page 37199]]
(c) Collaboration with relevant projects, including NIDRR-sponsored
projects, such as the Disability Rehabilitation Research Project on
Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions,
and other projects identified through consultation with the NIDRR
project officer.
Priority 4--Developing Strategies To Foster Community Integration and
Participation for Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC) for Developing Strategies to Foster Community
Integration and Participation (CIP) for Individuals with Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI). This RRTC must conduct rigorous research to examine
barriers to and facilitators of CIP for individuals with TBI; provide
training and technical assistance to promote and maximize the benefits
of this research; develop and validate a symptom-based, clinically and
scientifically useful system for classifying individuals with TBI after
discharge from inpatient medical or rehabilitative care; and develop,
implement, and evaluate interventions to improve long-term outcomes--
including return to work--for individuals with TBI. Under this
priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(a) New interventions to improve the level of CIP for individuals
with TBI. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or
developing, and then evaluating, specific interventions to improve the
CIP of individuals with TBI, using scientifically based research
methods.
(b) New knowledge about the full range of symptoms of TBI that are
experienced by individuals with TBI at any time after they exit
inpatient care and re-enter the community. The RRTC must contribute to
this outcome by developing and empirically validating a comprehensive
list of the symptoms of TBI that can exist after inpatient care and
that have the potential to affect CIP, and provide or develop
appropriate methods for their identification. These symptoms include,
but are not limited to, the following categories: neurological;
medical; cognitive; and behavioral.
(c) An improved research infrastructure for developing
interventions that facilitate CIP for individuals with TBI. The RRTC
must contribute to this outcome by developing a classification system
based on the symptoms identified in paragraph (b) of this priority for
use with individuals with TBI.
(d) Improved levels of CIP for individuals with TBI. The RRTC must
contribute to this outcome by--
(1) Developing a systematic plan for widespread dissemination of
informational materials related to the Center's TBI interventions
research and the symptom list and associated classification system to
researchers, individuals with TBI and their family members, clinical
practitioners, service providers, and members of the community. The
RRTC must work with its NIDRR project officer to coordinate outreach
and dissemination of research findings through appropriate venues such
as NIDRR's Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center, State agencies
and programs that administer a range of disability services and
resources, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health
Administration, the U.S. Department of Defense, and related veterans'
service organizations; and
(2) Establishing and maintaining mechanisms for providing technical
assistance to critical stakeholders, such as researchers, consumers and
their family members, clinical practitioners, service providers, and
members of the community to facilitate the use of knowledge generated
by the RRTC.
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)
General Requirements of RERCs
RERCs carry out research or demonstration activities in support of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by--
Developing and disseminating innovative methods of
applying advanced technology, scientific achievement, and psychological
and social knowledge to: (a) Solve rehabilitation problems and remove
environmental barriers; and (b) study and evaluate new or emerging
technologies, products, or environments and their effectiveness and
benefits; or
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; and
Facilitating service delivery systems change through: (a)
The development, evaluation, and dissemination of innovative consumer-
responsive and individual- and family-centered 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 independence needs of
individuals with severe disabilities.
Each RERC must be operated by, or in collaboration with, one or
more institutions of higher education or one or more nonprofit
organizations.
Each RERC must provide training opportunities, in conjunction with
institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations, to assist
individuals, including individuals with disabilities, to become
rehabilitation technology researchers and practitioners.
Each RERC must emphasize the principles of universal design in its
product research and development. Universal design is ``the design of
products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest
extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized
design'' (North Carolina State University, 1997. http://
www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm).
Additional information on the RERCs can be found at: http://
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.
Priorities 5, 6, and 7--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
(RERCs) on Telerehabilitation (Priority 5), Telecommunication (Priority
6), and Cognitive Rehabilitation (Priority 7)
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces the following three priorities for the establishment
of (a) An RERC on Telerehabilitation; (b) an RERC on Telecommunication;
and (c) an RERC on Cognitive Rehabilitation. Within its designated
priority research area, each RERC will focus on innovative
technological solutions, new knowledge, and concepts that will improve
the lives of individuals with disabilities.
(a) RERC on Telerehabilitation (Priority 5). Under this priority,
the RERC must conduct research on and develop methods, systems, and
technologies that support consultative, preventative, diagnostic and
therapeutic interventions and address the barriers to successful
telerehabilitation for individuals who have limited local access to
comprehensive medical and rehabilitation outpatient services. The RERC
must contribute to the continuing development of telerehabilitation
infrastructure and architecture, conduct research and development
projects on technologies that can be used to deliver telerehabilitation
services, address the barriers to successful telerehabilitation
[[Page 37200]]
to individuals who have limited access to rehabilitation services,
participate in the development of telerehabilitation standards, and
contribute, by means of research and development, to the use of
telerehabilitation on a larger scale.
(b) RERC on Telecommunication (Priority 6). Under this priority,
the RERC must research and develop technological solutions to promote
universal access to telecommunications systems and products, including
strategies for integrating current accessibility features into newer
generations of telecommunications systems and products. The RERC must
contribute to the continuing development of interoperable
telecommunications systems, items, and assistive technologies; conduct
research and development projects that enable access to emerging
telecommunications technologies; address the barriers to successful
telecommunication, including emergency communications access; and
participate in the development of telecommunications standards.
(c) RERC on Cognitive Rehabilitation (Priority 7). Under this
priority, the RERC must research and develop methods, systems, and
technologies that will improve: Existing assistive technology for
cognition; the integration of assistive technology for cognition into
assistive technology design; and the application of this technology in
vocational rehabilitation settings, career development programs,
postsecondary education facilities, and places of work. The RERC must
contribute to the development and testing of assistive technology
products that enhance cognitive functions needed to perform daily tasks
and activities at home, school, work, and in the community; and to the
development, testing, and implementation of cognitive assistive
technology training programs and materials for professional use as well
as for consumer use.
RERC Requirements
Under each priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the
following outcomes:
(1) Increased technical and scientific knowledge base relevant to
its designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute to this
outcome by conducting high-quality, rigorous research and development
projects.
(2) Innovative technologies, products, environments, performance
guidelines, and monitoring and assessment tools applicable to its
designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute to this
outcome through the development and testing of these innovations.
(3) Improved research capacity in its designated priority research
area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by collaborating with
the relevant industry, professional associations, and institutions of
higher education.
(4) Improved focus on cutting edge developments in technologies
within its designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute
to this outcome by identifying and communicating with NIDRR and the
field regarding trends and evolving product concepts related to its
designated priority research area.
(5) Increased impact of research in the designated priority
research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by providing
technical assistance to public and private organizations, individuals
with disabilities, and employers on policies, guidelines, and standards
related to its designated priority research area.
(6) Increased transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the
marketplace. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by developing and
implementing a plan for ensuring that all technologies developed by the
RERC are made available to the public. The technology transfer plan
must be developed in the first year of the project period in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project, Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
In addition, under each priority, the RERC must--
Have the capability to design, build, and test prototype
devices and assist in the transfer of successful solutions to relevant
production and service delivery settings;
Evaluate the efficacy and safety of its new products,
instrumentation, or assistive devices;
Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, a
plan that describes how it will include, as appropriate, individuals
with disabilities or their representatives in all phases of its
activities, including research, development, training, dissemination,
and evaluation;
Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate its
research results to individuals with disabilities, their
representatives, disability organizations, service providers,
professional journals, manufacturers, and other interested parties;
Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its
designated priority research area in the fourth year of the project
period, and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the
conference in the fifth year of the project period; and
Coordinate research projects with other relevant projects,
including NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation
with the NIDRR project officer.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866: This notice has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this final regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this final regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this final regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the final priorities justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this final regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
[[Page 37201]]
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
The benefits of the RRTC and RERC programs have been well
established over the years in that other RRTC and RERC projects have
been completed successfully. The priorities announced in this notice
will generate new knowledge through research, dissemination,
utilization, and technical assistance.
Another benefit of these final priorities is that establishing new
RRTCs and RERCs will improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities. These new RRTCs and RERCs will generate, disseminate, and
promote the use of new information that will improve the options for
individuals with disabilities to achieve improved education,
employment, and independent living outcomes.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 5075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/index.html.
Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated
authority to Andrew J. Pepin, Executive Administrator for the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, to perform the functions
of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
Dated: July 23, 2009.
Andrew J. Pepin,
Executive Administrator for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. E9-17924 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P