Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; Funding Priorities; Notice of proposed priorities; (OSERS)

FR Doc 06-1075

[Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 6317-6331]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07fe06-77]

[[Page 6317]]
Download:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Department of Education

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

National Institute on Disability Research Projects and Centers Program;
Funding Priorities; Notice

[[Page 6318]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program;
Funding Priorities

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes certain funding priorities for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program
administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes priorities for
Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs), including
Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs);
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs); and
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs). The Assistant
Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2006 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: We must receive your comments on or before March 9, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities to
Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20204-2700. If you
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use one of the
following addresses: donna.nangle@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``Proposed Priorities for DRRPs, RRTCs,
and RERCs'' in the subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle or Lynn Medley.
Telephone: (202) 245-7462 (Donna Nangle) or (202) 245-7338 (Lynn
Medley).
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priorities is in
concert with President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative (NFI)
and NIDRR's Proposed Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). The NFI
can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom.
The Plan, which was published in

the Federal Register on July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43522), can be accessed on
the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2005-3/072705d.html.

Through the implementation of the NFI and 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.
One of the specific goals established in the Plan is for NIDRR to
publish all of its proposed priorities, and following public comment,
final priorities, annually, on a combined basis. Under this approach,
NIDRR's constituents can submit comments at one time rather than at
different times throughout the year, and NIDRR can move toward a fixed
schedule for competitions and more efficient grant-making operations.
This notice, which proposes priorities NIDRR intends to use for DRRP,
RRTC, and RERC competitions in FY 2006 and possibly later years,
represents NIDRR's first step toward a notice of priorities that will
include its entire portfolio of research and related activities for the
year. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional
priorities, if needed.
In addition to this notice, on December 13, 2005, NIDRR published a
separate notice of proposed priorities for Spinal Cord Injury Model
Systems (SCIMS) Centers and for SCIMS multi-site research projects (70
FR 73738). NIDRR also intends to publish a separate notice of proposed
priorities for an additional DRRP with the focus on Individuals Who are
Blind and Visually Impaired this year. Moreover, for FY 2006
competitions using priorities that already have been established and
for which publication of a notice of proposed priority is unnecessary
(e.g., competitions for Field-Initiated Projects, Advanced
Rehabilitation Research Training Projects, Fellowships, and Small
Business Innovation Research Projects), NIDRR has published or will
publish notices inviting applications. More information on these other
projects and programs that NIDRR intends to fund in FY 2006 can be
found on the Internet at the following site: http://ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/nidrr/priority-matrix.html.

Invitation to Comment

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed
priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific proposed priority or topic that each comment
addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed priorities in room 6030, 550 12th Street,
SW., Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
We will announce the final priorities in one or more notices in the
Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after
considering responses to this notice and other information available to
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or
using additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.

Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications we

[[Page 6319]]

designate the priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational. 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 either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive preference priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets
the competitive preference 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 invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Priorities

In this notice, we are proposing 11 priorities for DRRPs (including
2 priorities for DBTACs), 1 priority for an RRTC, and 3 priorities for
RERCs.
For DRRPs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 1--General DRRP Requirements.
Priority 2--National Data and Statistical Center for the
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Model Systems.
Priority 3--National Data and Statistical Center for the
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model Systems.
Priority 4--Rehabilitation of Children with Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI).
Priority 5--Reducing Obesity and Obesity-Related Secondary
Conditions in Adolescents and Adults with Disabilities.
Priority 6--Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center
(MSKTC).
Priority 7--Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes Research
Project.
Priority 8--Mobility Aids and Wayfinding Technologies for
Individuals With Blindness and Low Vision.
Priority 9--Improving Employment Outcomes for the Low
Functioning Deaf (LFD) Population.
Priority 10--Disability Business Technical Assistance
Centers (DBTACs).
Priority 11--Disability Business Technical Assistance
Centers (DBTAC) Coordination, Outreach, and Research Center.
For the RRTC, the proposed priority is:
Priority 12--Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
on Effective Independent and Community Living Solutions and Measures.
For RERCs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 13--RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging.
Priority 14--RERC for Wheelchair Transportation Safety.
Priority 15--RERC for Wireless Technologies.

Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program

The purpose of the DRRP program is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and related 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. DRRPs
carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as
specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research,
development, demonstration, training, dissemination, utilization, and
technical assistance.
An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in
its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR
350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this
requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b).
Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.

Proposed Priorities

Priority 1--General Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRP) Requirements

Background
NIDRR proposes the following General DRRP Requirements priority
because it believes that the effectiveness of any DRRP (including any
DBTAC) depends on, among other things, how well the DRRP coordinates
its research efforts with the research of other NIDRR-funded projects,
involves individuals with disabilities in its activities, and
identifies specific anticipated outcomes that are linked to its
objectives in applying for DRRP funding. Accordingly, NIDRR intends to
use proposed Priority 1--General DRRP Requirements in conjunction with
each of the other DRRP priorities proposed in this notice (i.e.,
priorities 2 through 11).

Proposed Priority

To meet this priority, the Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects (DRRP) must:
(a) Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with
relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer;
(b) Involve individuals with disabilities in planning and
implementing the DRRP's research, training, and dissemination
activities, and in evaluating its work; and
(c) Identify anticipated outcomes (i.e., advances in knowledge or
changes and improvements in policy, practice, behavior, and system
capacity) that are linked to the applicant's stated grant objectives.

Priority 2--National Data and Statistical Center for the Spinal Cord
Injury (SCI) Model Systems

Background
It is estimated that the number of Americans living with traumatic
spinal cord injury (SCI) ranges from 222,000 to 285,000, with an
incidence of approximately 11,000 new cases each year (Spinal Cord
Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance, 2004).
NIDRR supports a variety of research projects that focus on the
wide range of needs of individuals with SCI. These projects include the
SCI Model Systems Centers funded through NIDRR's Model Systems Program.
The SCI Model Systems Centers establish and carry out innovative
projects for the delivery, demonstration, and evaluation of
comprehensive medical, vocational, and other rehabilitation services to
meet the wide range of needs of individuals with SCI.
The SCI Model Systems Centers have developed a national,
longitudinal database that contains information on approximately 23,000
people injured since 1973 (SCI Model Systems Database). The SCI Model
Systems Database is the most extensive source of information available
about the characteristics and life course of individuals with SCI. The
SCI Model Systems Database contains a sample that is demographically
representative of all cases that occur throughout the United States,
though the sample is not population-based (DeVivo, Go, & Jackson,
2002). The SCI Model Systems Database also can be used to examine
specific outcomes of SCI. NIDRR seeks to continue and build upon this
important source of data by funding a National Data and Statistical
Center for the SCI Model Systems (National SCI Model Systems Data
Center) that will

[[Page 6320]]

maintain the SCI Model Systems Database and improve the quality of
information that is entered into it.
The SCI Model Systems Database is a collaborative project in which
all of the SCI Model Systems Centers participate. The data for the SCI
Model Systems Database are collected by the SCI Model Systems Centers.
The Directors of the SCI Model System Centers, in consultation with
NIDRR, determine the parameters of the SCI Model Systems Database,
including the number and type of variables to be examined, and the
criteria for including Model Systems patients in the database.
To maximize the external validity of findings from the SCI Model
Systems Database, the SCI Model Systems Centers must achieve and
maintain high rates of retention and successful follow-up with database
participants. Accordingly, the central role of the National SCI Model
Systems Data Center will be to work with SCI Model Systems Centers to
increase follow-up rates and to ensure data quality.
Since the creation of the SCI Model Systems Database more than 30
years ago, the proportion of database participants from racial and
ethnic minority populations has grown steadily (Jackson, Dijkers,
DeVivo & Poczatek, 2004). This growth reflects the urban location of
many of the SCI Model Systems Centers, as well as the growing
proportion of racial/ethnic minorities in the general population. This
growth in the racial/ethnic diversity of the SCI Model Systems
population creates a vital technical assistance role for the National
SCI Model Systems Data Center. The National SCI Model Systems Data
Center will work with the SCI Model Systems Centers to ensure that the
data collected from these populations are of high quality and that the
data collection procedures used reflect sufficient knowledge about the
cultural backgrounds of patient populations and research participants.
The specifications of the SCI Model Systems Database as it is
currently implemented can be obtained from the National SCI Statistical
Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The National SCI
Statistical Center may be contacted on the World Wide Web at http://www.spinalcord.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=21446.

References
DeVivo, M., Go, B., & Jackson, A. (2002). Overview of the
National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center Database. The Journal
of Spinal Cord Medicine. 25(4): 335-338.
Jackson, A., Dijkers, M, DeVivo, M., & Poczatek, R. (2004). A
Demographic Profile of New Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries: Change
and Stability Over 30 Years. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation. 85(11): 1740-1748.
Spinal Cord Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance. (2004).
Retrieved July 6, 2005 from the National Spinal Cord Injury
Statistical Center Web site: http://www.spinalcord.uab.edu.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for the establishment of a National SCI
Model Systems Data Center that advances medical rehabilitation by
increasing the rigor and efficiency of scientific efforts to
longitudinally assess the experience of individuals with SCI. To meet
this priority, the National SCI Model Systems Data Center's research
and technical assistance must be designed to contribute to the
following outcomes:
(a) Maintenance of a national longitudinal database for data
submitted by each of the SCI Model Systems Centers (SCI Model Systems
Database). This database must provide for confidentiality, quality
control, and data-retrieval capabilities, using cost-effective and
user-friendly technology.
(b) High-quality, reliable data in the SCI Model Systems Database.
The National SCI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this
outcome by providing training and technical assistance to SCI Model
Systems Centers on subject retention and data collection procedures,
data entry methods, and appropriate use of study instruments, and by
monitoring the quality of the data submitted by the SCI Model Systems
Centers.
(c) High-quality data collected from database participants of all
racial/ethnic backgrounds. The National SCI Model Systems Data Center
must contribute to this outcome by providing knowledge, training, and
technical assistance to the SCI Model Systems Centers on culturally
appropriate methods of longitudinal data collection and participant
retention.
(d) Rigorous research conducted by SCI Model Systems Centers and
all investigators who are analyzing data from the SCI Model Systems
Database. The National SCI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to
this outcome by making statistical and other methodological
consultation available for research projects that use the SCI Model
Systems Database, as well as center-specific and collaborative projects
of the SCI Model Systems Program.
(e) Enhanced continuity of the SCI Model Systems Database. The
National SCI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this outcome
by establishing and implementing a mechanism for continued collection
of follow-up data from individuals who were enrolled by SCI Model
Systems Centers that no longer receive Model Systems Program funding.
This mechanism must focus on continued collection of data from up to
four SCI Model Systems Centers that were funded during the most recent
five-year grant cycle, but that do not receive subsequent funding under
the Model Systems Program.
(f) Improved quality and efficiency of the SCI Model Systems
Database operations through collaboration with the National Traumatic
Brain Injury Model Systems Data Center and the National Burn Model
Systems Data Center.

Priority 3--National Data and Statistical Center for the Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI) Model Systems

Background
It is estimated that at least 5.3 million Americans are living with
disability as a result of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Approximately
1.4 million Americans sustain a TBI each year, and 230,000 of these
injuries lead to hospitalization (Traumatic Brain Injury: Facts and
Figures, 2005).
NIDRR supports a variety of research projects that focus on the
wide range of needs of individuals with TBI. These projects include the
TBI Model Systems Centers funded through NIDRR's Model Systems Program.
The TBI Model Systems Centers establish and carry out innovative
projects for the delivery, demonstration, and evaluation of
comprehensive medical, vocational, and other rehabilitation services to
meet the wide range of needs of individuals with TBI.
The TBI Model Systems Centers have developed a national,
longitudinal database of information about the characteristics and life
course of individuals with TBI (TBI Model Systems Database). The TBI
Model Systems Database also can be used to examine specific outcomes of
TBI. NIDRR seeks to continue and build upon this important source of
data by funding a National Data and Statistical Center for the TBI
Model Systems (National TBI Model Systems Data Center) that will
maintain the TBI Model Systems Database and improve the quality of
information that is entered into it.
The TBI Model Systems Database is a collaborative project in which
all of the TBI Model Systems Centers participate. The data for the TBI
Model Systems Database are collected by the TBI Model

[[Page 6321]]

Systems Centers. The Directors of the TBI Model Systems Centers, in
consultation with NIDRR, determine the parameters of the TBI Model
Systems Database, including the number and type of variables to be
examined, and the criteria for including TBI Model Systems patients in
the database.
To maximize the external validity of findings from the TBI Model
Systems Database, the TBI Model Systems Centers must achieve and
maintain high rates of retention and successful follow-up with database
participants. Accordingly, the central role of the National TBI Model
Systems Data Center will be to work with TBI Model Systems Centers to
increase follow-up rates and ensure data quality.
The TBI Model Systems Database contains a disproportional number of
participants from minority backgrounds, relative to the general
population (Burnett et al. 2003). The disproportional representation of
racial/ethnic minorities reflects the urban location of many of the TBI
Model Systems Centers. The racial/ethnic diversity of the TBI Model
Systems population creates a vital technical assistance role for the
National TBI Model Systems Data Center. The National TBI Model Systems
Data Center will work with the TBI Model Systems Centers to ensure that
the data collected from these populations are of high quality and that
the data collection procedures used reflect sufficient knowledge about
the cultural backgrounds of patient populations and research
participants.
The specifications of the TBI Model Systems Database as it is
currently implemented can be obtained from the TBI National Data Center
at the Kessler Medical Rehabilitation Research and Education
Corporation (see http://www.tbindsc.org/).

References
Burnett, D., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S., Slater, D., Stringer, A.,
Bushnik, T., Zafonte, R., and Cifu, D. (2003). Ethnographic Analysis
of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients in the National Model Systems
Database. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 84(2):
263-267.
Traumatic Brain Injury: Facts and Figures (2005). Retrieved July
6, 2005 from the Traumatic Brain Injury National Data Center Web
site: http:www.tbindc.org/registry/pdf/ff_winter2005.pdf.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for the establishment of a National TBI
Model Systems Data Center that advances medical rehabilitation by
increasing the rigor and efficiency of scientific efforts to
longitudinally assess the experience of individuals with TBI. To meet
this priority, the National TBI Model Systems Data Center's research
and technical assistance must be designed to contribute to the
following outcomes:
(a) Maintenance of a national longitudinal database for data
submitted by each of the TBI Model Systems Centers (TBI Model Systems
Database). This database must provide for confidentiality, quality
control, and data-retrieval capabilities, using cost-effective and
user-friendly technology.
(b) High-quality, reliable data in the TBI Model Systems Database.
The National TBI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this
outcome by providing training and technical assistance to TBI Model
Systems Centers on subject retention and data collection procedures,
data entry methods, and appropriate use of study instruments, and by
monitoring the quality of the data submitted by the TBI Model Systems
Centers.
(c) High-quality data collected from database participants of all
racial/ethnic backgrounds. The National TBI Model Systems Data Center
must contribute to this outcome by providing knowledge, training, and
technical assistance to the TBI Model Systems Centers on culturally
appropriate methods of longitudinal data collection and participant
retention.
(d) Rigorous research conducted by TBI Model Systems Centers and
all investigators who are analyzing data from the TBI Model Systems
Database. The National TBI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to
this outcome by making statistical and other methodological
consultation available for research projects that use the TBI Model
Systems Database, as well as center-specific and collaborative projects
of the TBI Model Systems program.
(e) Enhanced continuity of the TBI Model Systems Database. The
National TBI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this outcome
by establishing and implementing a mechanism for continued collection
of follow-up data from individuals who were enrolled by TBI Model
Systems Centers that no longer receive Model Systems Program funding.
This mechanism must focus on continued collection of data from up to
four TBI Model Systems Centers that were funded during the most recent
five-year grant cycle, but that do not receive subsequent funding under
the Model Systems Program.
(f) Improved quality and efficiency of the TBI Model Systems
Database operations through collaboration with the National Spinal Cord
Injury Model Systems Data Center and the National Burn Model Systems
Data Center.

Priority 4--Rehabilitation of Children with Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI)

Background
The Department's regulations implementing the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) define traumatic brain injury as ``*
* * an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical
force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or
psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child's
educational performance'' (34 CFR 300.7(c)(12)). The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention report that among children up to 14
years of age, TBI results annually in an estimated 2,685 deaths, 37,000
hospitalizations, and 435,000 emergency department visits (Langlois,
Rutland-Brown, & Thomas, 2004). These estimates do not include children
who sustained a TBI and did not seek medical care or were seen only in
private doctors' offices. Because most survivors of moderate to severe
TBI experience chronic, life-long disabilities with varying degrees of
dependence, the costs of these disabilities in terms of individual
suffering, family burden, and financial burden to society are quite
significant (Carney, Maynard, Davis-O'Reilly, Zimmer-Gembeck, Krages, &
Helfand, 1999).
The effects of TBI can be pervasive, but researchers who have begun
to document the functional outcomes in children with TBI have
encountered several obstacles. For example, assessments of injury
characteristics have rarely included measures of the location, depth,
or severity of brain insult; environmental, family, and child
characteristics (including pre-injury functioning) have received
insufficient attention; and follow-up assessments have largely included
outcomes of TBI at only a single point in time several years after
injury (Taylor, 2004). These and other limitations must be addressed in
order to better understand and improve outcomes for children with TBI.
There also is little high quality evidence regarding the
effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for children with TBI
(Carney, Maynard, Davis-O'Reilly, Zimmer-Gembeck, Krages, & Helfand,
1999; Chen, Heinemann, Bode, Granger, & Mallinson, 2004). When children
who have sustained a TBI are discharged from emergency and acute care
facilities, they may continue to receive treatment, including medical

[[Page 6322]]

services; physical, occupational, and speech therapy; cognitive
rehabilitation; social and behavioral interventions; and educational
and family interventions. These interventions, however, have largely
not been validated through experimental design or in carefully
controlled observational studies. Further, there is a well-documented
and unmet need for intensive, ongoing services and supports for
families and school staff as children with TBI transition from medical
and rehabilitation systems to community and school systems (Ylvisaker
et al, 2005).
In addition to the lack of interventions research and limited
availability of family and school support services, there is
insufficient information available to ensure the appropriate
identification of children with TBI who are in need of special
education and related services. Many children who have sustained a TBI
and reenter the school system fail to receive the services that they
need and that are mandated by IDEA, in part, because they fail to be
identified or their needs are not associated with the injury. In fact,
the number of children reported by States to be receiving special
education and related services under the TBI label is much lower than
would be expected based on the numbers of children who sustain a TBI
each year (Langlois & Rutland-Brown, 2005). All of these problems faced
by children with TBI, their families, and service providers demonstrate
the need for further studies and research.
References
Carney, N., Maynard, H., Davis-O'Reilly, C., Zimmer-Gembeck, M,
Krages, K. P., & Helfand, M. (February, 1999). Supplement to the
evidence report on rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury:
Children and adolescents (Contract 290-97-0018 to Oregon Health
Sciences University). Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy
and Research.
Chen, C.C., Heinemann, A.W., Bode, R.K., Granger, C.V., &
Mallinson, T. (2004). Impact of pediatric rehabilitation services on
children's functional outcomes. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 58(1), 44-53.
Langlois, J.A., & Rutland-Brown, W. (2005). Traumatic brain
injury in the United States: The future of registries and data
systems. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Langlois, J.A., Rutland-Brown W., & Thomas K.E. (2004).
Traumatic brain injury in the United States: Emergency department
visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control.
Taylor, G.H. (2004). Research on outcomes of pediatric traumatic
brain injury: Current advances and future directions. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 25(1-2), 199-225.
Ylvisaker, M., Adelson, P.D., Braga, L.W., Burnett, S.M., Glang,
A., Feeney, T., Moore, W., Rumney, P., & Todis, B. (2005).
Rehabilitation and ongoing support after pediatric TBI: Twenty years
of progress. Journal of Health Trauma Rehabilitation, 20(1), 95-109.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on the Rehabilitation of Children with Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI). Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to
contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved physical, cognitive, social/behavioral, family,
educational, or employment outcomes for children with TBI by
development or testing of rehabilitation interventions.
(b) Improved transition of children from health care facilities to
school and community by development or testing of effective transition
strategies.
(c) Improved TBI screening and special education services for
children by development or testing of methods and procedures for use in
school settings.

Priority 5--Reducing Obesity and Obesity-Related Secondary Conditions
in Adolescents and Adults With Disabilities

Background
Approximately two out of three adults in the United States are
classified as overweight or obese, and obesity is now the second
leading cause of mortality in this country (Flegal et al., 2002). As
disturbing as the obesity prevalence is for the general U.S.
population, rates of obesity among adolescents and adults with pre-
existing disabilities are even more alarming. A recent study based on
pooled self-report data from the 1994-1995 National Health Interview
Survey (NHIS), the 1994-1995 Disability Supplement (NHIS-D), and the
1995 Healthy People 2000 Supplement reports a 66 percent higher rate of
obesity among people with disabilities compared to the general
population (Weil et al., 2002). Similarly, a recent regional study,
based on actual measurements of height and weight, reported that
extreme obesity (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or larger) was
approximately four times higher among persons with disabilities
compared to the general population (Rimmer & Wang, 2005).
Obesity has a profoundly negative effect on the overall health
status and quality of life of individuals with disabilities. First,
like the population at large, for whom obesity is typically a primary
health condition, obesity among individuals with disabilities leads to
higher-risks for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension,
osteoarthritis, and certain cancers. Second, for people with pre-
existing disabilities, obesity constitutes a significant secondary
condition leading to new physical impairments and increased mobility
limitations, which in turn further undermine an individual's functional
abilities and negatively impact opportunities for employment and
participation in the community (Kinne, Patrick, & Doyle, 2004). There
also is growing evidence that many of these chronic health problems and
functional impairments occur earlier and with more severity among
people with existing disabilities than in the general adult population
(Campbell, Sheets, & Strong, 1999). Notwithstanding this information,
there remains a lack of knowledge about both the antecedents to obesity
in adults and adolescents with disabilities and the rehabilitation
interventions that could be successful in treating or preventing this
condition.
Lack of routine and timely screening for obesity by medical
providers also contributes to the magnitude of the obesity epidemic in
this country, particularly among adults with disabilities who face
well-documented barriers to accessing primary health care services
(Iezzoni, McCarthy, Davis, & Siebens, 2001). To address this problem,
the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published
guidelines recommending that clinicians screen all adult patients for
obesity based on BMI and offer appropriate behavioral interventions and
intensive counseling to promote sustained weight loss for those who are
obese (``Screening for Obesity in Adults: Recommendations and
Rationale,'' November 2003). Further information, however, is needed to
assess the effectiveness of screening and diagnostic procedures and the
interventions that medical providers are recommending.
References
Campbell, M.L., Sheets, D., & Strong, P.S. (1999). Secondary
health conditions among middle-aged individuals with chronic
physical disabilities: implications for unmet needs for services.
Assist Technology, 11(2), 105-122.
Flegal, K.M., Carroll, M.D., Ogden, C.L., & Johnson, C.L.
(2002). Prevalence and trends in obesity among U.S. adults, 1999-
2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2888,1723-1727.

[[Page 6323]]

Iezzoni, L.I., McCarthy, E.P., Davis, R.B., & Siebens, H.
(2001). Mobility impairments and use of screening and preventive
services. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 955-961.
Kinne, S., Patrick, D.L., & Doyle, D.L. (2004). Prevalence of
Secondary Conditions Among People With Disabilities. American
Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 443-445.
Screening for Obesity in Adults: Recommendations and Rationale
(November 2003). U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/obesity/obesrr.htm.

Weil, E., Wachterman, M., McCarthy, E., Davis, R., Iezonni, L.,
& Wee, C. (2002). Obesity among adults with disabling conditions.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 228,1265-1268.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Disability and Obesity: Reducing Obesity and Obesity-
Related Secondary Conditions in Adolescents and Adults with
Disabilities. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to
contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Enhanced understanding of the antecedents and consequences of
obesity as a secondary condition among adolescents and adults with
different types of pre-existing physical, sensory, cognitive, and
behavioral-health impairments.
(b) Improved obesity screening and diagnosis among adolescents and
adults with different types of disabilities by developing or testing
effective screening and diagnostic methods and procedures.
(c) Improved outcomes for adolescents and adults with disabilities
with obesity by development or testing of prevention strategies and
treatments.

Priority 6--Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center (MSKTC)

Background
NIDRR's Model Systems Programs were originally developed to
demonstrate the value of a comprehensive integrated continuum of care
for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), traumatic brain injury
(TBI), and burn injury (Burn). Currently, NIDRR's Model Systems
Programs include 36 centers that conduct or sponsor research activities
designed to improve rehabilitative and pharmacological interventions
that can help optimize levels of community participation, employment,
and overall quality of life for individuals with SCI, TBI, and Burn.
Research sponsored by the Model Systems Programs has led to a wealth of
publicly available, retrievable information about SCI, TBI, and Burn.
Additionally, research conducted by Model Systems Programs grantees has
advanced knowledge regarding, and led to changes in, clinical practice
and policy in the fields of SCI, TBI, and Burn.
The usefulness of NIDRR-funded SCI, TBI, and Burn research and
development findings and products depends on how well potential users
can assess the strength and relevance of these findings and products,
as applied to their particular needs. End-users with limited scientific
training, in particular, may need assistance in order to understand
competing research claims or determine the relevance of particular
findings to their individual situations. In addition, given the nature
of scientific study, practical information often is based on cumulative
knowledge, not upon the results of any one study.
The following proposed priority for an MSKTC is intended to ensure
that information and products developed and identified through NIDRR-
funded SCI, TBI, and Burn research are of high quality, are based on
scientifically rigorous research and development, and are disseminated
effectively. To this end, the proposed priority embraces a newer
concept, knowledge translation (KT), to shape the effective
dissemination and utilization of disability and rehabilitation research
results critical to achieving NIDRR's mission. KT encompasses the
exchange, synthesis, and ethically sound application of knowledge
within a complex system of relationships among researchers and users.
See, for example, the Knowledge Translation Overview of Canadian
Institutes of Health Research Web site at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/7518.html.

Acting as a centralized resource center, the proposed MSKTC would
establish coordinated, collaborative relationships among the three
Model Systems Programs (i.e., SCI, TBI, and Burn Model Systems
Programs) to identify effective dissemination strategies and to help
other Federal agencies and national organizations use new information
and discoveries emanating from NIDRR-funded SCI, TBI, and Burn
research.
References
Knowledge Translation Overview. Canadian Institutes of Health
Research. 2005, from href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/7518.html">http://www/cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/7518.html Campbell Collaboration. 2005, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/.

Cochrane Collaboration. 2005, from http:www.cochrane.org/ Department of Education What Works Clearinghouse from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/.

National Rehabilitation Information Center. 2005, from http://www.naric.com/
.

National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research.
2005, http://www.ncddr.org/.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project to serve as the Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center
(MSKTC). Under this priority, the MSKTC must be designed to contribute
to the following outcomes:
(a) Enhanced understanding of the quality and relevance of NIDRR's
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Burn Injury
(Burn) Model Systems Programs' findings. The MSKTC must contribute to
this outcome by identifying and applying appropriate standards and
methods for conducting research syntheses. This will allow the Model
Systems Programs to bridge gaps in evidence-based practice and
research.
(b) Enhanced knowledge of advances in SCI, TBI, and Burn research
among consumers, clinicians, and other end users of such information.
The MSKTC must contribute to this outcome by (1) identifying effective
strategies for, and guiding targeted dissemination of, SCI, TBI, and
Burn Model Systems Programs' findings about available services and
interventions for individuals with SCI, TBI, and Burn; and (2)
developing partnerships and collaborating with key constituencies and
groups conducting similar work.
(c) Centralization of SCI, TBI, and Burn Model Systems resources
for effective and uniform dissemination and technical assistance. The
MSKTC must contribute to this outcome by serving as a centralized
resource for the SCI, TBI, and Burn Model Systems Centers.

Priority 7--Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes Research Project

Background
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended (29 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.), defines an assistive technology (AT) device as ``any item, piece
of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially,
modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve
functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities'' (29 U.S.C.
3001(3)(4)). AT serves a broad and diverse range of functional needs
among people with an expansive range of potentially disabling
conditions. AT devices and AT services are provided in many contexts,

[[Page 6324]]

including rehabilitation programs, schools, employment programs, and
residential and independent living programs.
Current NIDRR-sponsored AT Outcomes Research Projects are creating
and classifying new outcomes measures to help determine and describe
the impact that various AT devices and services have on the lives of
people with disabilities (Jutai, Fuhrer, Demers, Scherer, & DeRuyter,
2005). While the ability to measure potential outcomes of AT use is
maturing through this NIDRR-sponsored research, the ability to measure
key characteristics of AT interventions is still in its infancy.
To advance AT outcomes research beyond a collection of ad hoc
evaluations of specific products, it is necessary to develop a commonly
shared means of classifying all aspects of AT interventions.
Standardization of intervention measurement would promote the
replicability of AT interventions that are shown by rigorous research
to be associated with positive outcomes. A valid classification of AT
interventions would capture key characteristics of the device or
device-type being provided, as well as information about key
characteristics of AT provision, including setting, assessment, fit/
customization, user training, and device maintenance (Fuhrer, 2001;
Edyburn, 2003).
In addition to the creation and classification of new outcomes
measures, current AT Outcomes Research Project grantees have developed
conceptual frameworks to guide future AT outcomes research (Fuhrer,
Jutai, Scherer, & DeRuyter, 2003). These grantees have designed
sophisticated data-collection interfaces to bring new efficiencies to
the collection of data on AT interventions, key contextual factors, and
outcomes. To facilitate the development of rigorous evidence-based
knowledge in the AT field, these conceptual frameworks and data
collection technologies must be applied more broadly and
systematically. More systematic application of these tools would allow
the AT field to move beyond a series of limited ad hoc evaluations of
single AT products, towards a scientific body of knowledge regarding
expected outcomes associated with the delivery of a wide variety of AT
interventions.
References
Edyburn, D. (2003). Measuring Assistive Technology Outcomes: Key
Concepts. Journal of Special Education Technology. 18(1): 53-55.
Fuhrer, M., Jutai, J., Scherer, M., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). ``A
Framework for the Conceptual Modeling of Assistive Technology Device
Outcomes.'' Disability and Rehabilitation. 25: 1243-1251.
Fuhrer, M. (2001). Assistive Technology Outcomes Research:
Challenges Met and Yet Unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation. 80(7): 528-535.
Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M., Demers, L., Scherer, M., & DeRuyter, F.
(2005). Toward a Taxonomy of Assistive Technology Device Outcomes.
American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 84(4):
294-302.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) for an Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes Research
Project. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to contribute
to the following outcomes:
(a) Improvement of the AT field's ability to measure the impact of
AT on the lives of people with disabilities by continuing to develop AT
outcomes measures and measurement systems.
(b) Improvement of the AT field's ability to measure the impact of
AT on the lives of people with disabilities by developing validated
methods for measuring and classifying AT interventions, including key
characteristics of both the AT device and AT provision (e.g., setting,
assessment, fit/customization, user-training, and device maintenance).
(c) Enhanced understanding of the impact of AT on the lives of
people with disabilities by conducting at least one research project
that systematically applies state-of-the-science measures of AT
interventions, outcomes, and data collections mechanisms.
(d) Collaboration with the relevant NIDRR-sponsored projects, such
as the Rehabilitation Research Training Center on Measuring
Rehabilitation Outcomes and relevant projects within the Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center program, as identified through consultation
with the NIDRR project officer.

Priority 8--Mobility Aids and Wayfinding Technologies for Individuals
With Blindness and Low Vision

Background
Three of the most challenging and dangerous problems faced by
individuals with blindness and low vision are travel related: (1)
Negotiating complex transit stations; (2) locating bus and metro train
stops; and (3) crossing light-controlled intersections safely and
efficiently (Crandall, Bentzen, Myers, & Brablyn, 2001). To address
these challenges, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
requires that transportation plans and projects include, where
appropriate, consideration of pedestrian safety issues, including
installation of audible traffic signals and signs at street crossings
(23 U.S.C. 217(g)(c)). Our knowledge about the effectiveness of the
range of technology solutions developed in response to this law and
other intervention strategies for safety, travel, location, and
mobility issues is limited, particularly with regard to subpopulations
within the blind and visually impaired community.
Navigation and travel related challenges are most often addressed
by two primary approaches, orientation and mobility (O&M) and
wayfinding technology solutions. O&M is the conventional approach
designed to provide instruction and experience in independent travel in
the community, including the use of public transportation. Orientation
refers to an individual's ability to monitor his or her position in
relation to the environment, and mobility refers to an individual's
ability to travel safely, detecting and avoiding obstacles and other
potential hazards. Advanced technologies designed to assist individuals
with blindness and low vision in attaining the body of knowledge
relative to the location of spaces through which they travel is known
as wayfinding or ``environmental literacy.'' Whereas many O&M tools,
such as white canes, are designed to address a traveler's mobility
safety concerns, wayfinding or environmental literacy tools, such as
talking signs located at street crossings, are designed to provide a
traveler with orientation information. Some O&M aids are worn on the
body and often are designed to detect and identify obstacle features.
Wayfinding or environmental systems are technologies that are typically
embedded in the texture of spaces and that provide ``location-based''
information (access to some kind of ``knowledge sharing network'' or
``geographic data base'')--for example, manually activated audible
pedestrian signals embedded in intersection traffic lights (Baldwin,
D., 2005).
Although O&M and wayfinding techniques are widely used by
individuals with vision loss, there is ongoing controversy about
whether newly developed wayfinding technologies should supplement
rather than supplant already accepted O&M aids such as white canes and
guide dogs. Currently, no empirically based studies examining or
comparing differences between outcomes for O&M

[[Page 6325]]

users and outcomes for wayfinding technology users exist.
There is a paucity of sound scientific studies examining the
effectiveness of both O&M and wayfinding solutions and intervention
approaches in varied situations, conditions, and functional capacities,
but the literature that is available identifies specific problems with
existing technology and supports the need for better wayfinding and O&M
solutions. For example, bird-call type signals do not provide
unambiguous information about which crosswalk has the walk interval.
Signals comprised only of a bird-call and bell do not indicate the
presence or location of a pedestrian push button and, therefore, do not
solve one of the most important problems associated with push buttons:
the difficulty in knowing whether pedestrian action is required
(Bentzen, Barlow, & Franck, 2000). Although advances have been made to
address some of these problems, there is no consensus about whether
available solutions are adequate to address the travel needs of
individuals with blindness and low vision. Research leading to
development of innovative and effective solutions that will help
individuals with blindness and low vision to safely and independently
navigate their surroundings, and a better understanding of technology
applications would increase our capacity to improve disability and
rehabilitation outcomes for these individuals.
References
Baldwin, D. Navigational Technology Textbook Current Wayfinding
Technology. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from http://www.wayfinding.net/iibnNECtextcurrent.htm
.

Bentzen, B.L., Barlow, J.M., & Franck, L., 2000. Addressing
barriers to blind pedestrians at signalized intersections. Institute
of Transportation Engineers, 70-9, 32-35.
Crandall, W., Bentzen, B.L., Myers, L., & Brablyn, J. (2001).
New orientation and accessibility option for persons with visual
impairment: Transportation applications for remote infrared audible
signage. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 84:3 120-131.
National Eye Institute http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/ (2004).

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Mobility Aids and Wayfinding Technologies for
Individuals With Blindness and Low Vision. To meet this priority, the
DRRP must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Effective technology solutions and intervention approaches that
can enable blind and low vision individuals to safely and independently
navigate their surroundings. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome
by identifying or developing and testing methods, models, and measures
that will inform the technology solutions and intervention approaches.
(b) Improved understanding about the effectiveness of wayfinding
technology and orientation and mobility (O&M) techniques for navigation
and travel problems. The DRRP must be designed to contribute to this
outcome by, at a minimum, conducting comparative analysis of outcomes
for specific subpopulations of individuals with blindness and low
vision who use O&M techniques and wayfinding technology.
(c) Increased technical and scientific knowledge about the
applications of navigation and travel technologies for individuals with
blindness and low vision, leading to more effective use of technologies
and intervention strategies, through the development of knowledge
translation and utilization activities.
(d) Coordination of research activities. The DRRP must contribute
to this outcome by collaborating and consulting with relevant Federal
agencies responsible for the administration of public laws that address
access to and usability of transportation and transit-related systems
and environmental structures for individuals with disabilities, such as
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Transit Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and relevant NIDRR-funded research projects as
identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.

Priority 9--Improving Employment Outcomes for the Low Functioning Deaf
(LFD) Population

Background
Current population estimates indicate that there are approximately
53 million individuals with disabilities in the United States and an
estimated 8 million of these individuals are deaf or hard of hearing
(McNeil, 1994; 1995). The pervasiveness of a hearing problem and its
impact on every aspect of life, including employment status, is well
documented (Stika, 1997; Hetu, Lalonde, and Getty, 1994).
Within the population of individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing there is an even smaller sub-population, estimated at between
125,000 and 165,000 persons referred to as ``low functioning deaf''
(LFD). While individuals considered LFD share the primary disability of
hearing loss, as a group, they also are compromised by a combination of
environmental risk factors and a lack of appropriate environmental and
social supports. Most LFD individuals have limited communication
skills, often are unable to live independently, cannot obtain or
maintain employment, and exhibit minimal social and emotional
competency.
Studies indicate that the functional capacity of individuals who
are LFD present unique challenges and complications at the individual
and systems levels. More specifically, significant difficulty with all
modes of communication, including the limited literacy proficiency that
characterizes the LFD population (Wheeler-Scruggs, 2002), is a
potentially important factor in disability and rehabilitation outcomes
across the lifespan and major life domains for these individuals.
While several factors influence employment outcomes for the general
population of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, the LFD
population is at particular risk for being underserved by
rehabilitation and vocational training systems. Most LFD individuals
are inadequately prepared for workforce participation due to limited
communication abilities and low literacy rates; often LFD adults read
below the second grade level and are unable to complete high school.
Additionally, the majority of existing social supports and services are
targeted to deaf and hard of hearing youth able to participate in
college and other postsecondary vocational programs where a certain
level of academic achievement is presumed (National Association for the
Deaf, 2004). Thus, LFD individuals are at a distinct disadvantage in
their ability to access and benefit from existing employment and
vocational services and supports.
Further, although the literature in this field documents the impact
of hearing problems on functional outcomes, there is limited
understanding about the unique employment needs of the LFD population.
Past research on LFD and employment has not extensively examined the
various elements of job readiness, job placement, and retention in
relation to the impact that programs such as Supplemental Security
Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, and welfare have on long-
term employment outcomes for individuals who are LFD.

[[Page 6326]]

The complexity of the employment issues facing individuals who are
LFD presents a unique opportunity for researchers to expand the current
knowledge base and facilitate development of the most effective
methods, approaches, and intervention strategies to improve employment
outcomes for the LFD population (Dew, 1999). Research is needed to
inform policy, program planning, and development activities and to
assist with improving systems and individual level outcomes for the LFD
population.
References
Dew, Donald. Serving Individuals Who Are Low Functioning Deaf.
25th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues, The George Washington
University, Washington DC, 1999.
Hetu, R., Lalonde, M., & Getty, L. (1987). Psychosocial
disadvantages associated with occupational hearing loss as
experienced by the family. Audiology, 26, 141-152.
McNeil J.M. ``Americans with disabilities, 1994--95''.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1997. (Current population reports; series P70, no. 61).
National Association for the Deaf, 2004. LFD Strategic Work
Group (2004). A Model for a National Collaborative Service Delivery
System: Position Paper. Washington DC. Retrieved from NAD Web site:
http://www.nad.org/lfd.

Stika, C.J. (1997). Living with hearing loss--focus group
results: Family relationships and social interactions. Hearing Loss,
September/October, November/December.
Wheeler-Scruggs, K. Assessing the employment and independence of
people who are deaf and low functioning. American Annals of the
Deaf, October, 2002.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Improving Employment Outcomes for the Low Functioning
Deaf (LFD) Population. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed
to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Enhanced knowledge about the unique functional and
communication characteristics of the LFD population and the extent to
which these characteristics affect disability and rehabilitation
outcomes, including labor force participation and employment
preparation. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by developing and
testing protocols that accurately measure population characteristics;
and psychometrically sound instruments that measure predictors of
disability, rehabilitation, and employment outcomes.
(b) Improved employment outcomes and reduction of barriers to labor
force participation for individuals who are LFD. The DRRP must
contribute to this outcome by developing theory-based intervention
strategies and methods that help to enhance functional skills, social
interaction, communication and literacy competencies, and
scientifically-sound approaches for identifying barriers to labor force
participation.
(c) Collaboration with NIDRR-sponsored projects, including the
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Measuring
Rehabilitation Outcomes and other relevant projects within NIDRR's RRTC
and Field Initiated programs.

Priority 10--Disability Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs)

DBTAC's activities vary, but all regional DBTACs provide technical
assistance and training, disseminate materials, provide information and
referral services, build public awareness, and work to build local
capacity to promote technical assistance and training on the ADA.
DBTACs provide their services via telephone calls (including toll-free
``800'' number calls), the World Wide Web, workshops and other training
sessions. Services provided by DBTACs in 2004 included providing
training on employment issues for State human resource personnel;
collaborating with a State agency to develop an ADA reference guide for
agencies within the State; providing training on accessible Web design
for city and State personnel; assisting in the development of State
policies regarding the accessibility of information technology procured
and used by State agencies; providing training to local health
departments on accessibility of medical services; development of a
training curriculum on workplace accommodations for employers;
conducting Web casts for public and private employers on disability-
related employment policies and job accommodations; and surveying
polling places to determine accessibility.
NIDRR is proposing this priority to support the funding of 10
regional DBTACs to provide technical assistance on the ADA and other
assistance designed to improve employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities. Despite past attempts to reduce unemployment rates and
increase workforce participation, individuals with disabilities
continue to be employed at much lower rates than individuals without
disabilities. The 2003 American Community Survey, for example, found
that approximately 37.8 percent of adults age 21 to 64 with
disabilities were employed, compared to approximately 77.5 percent of
adults without disabilities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Identifying
strategies for improving employment outcomes is critical if such
disparities are to be reduced.
Knowledge gained from the DBTAC program about the ADA, employers,
and employment issues suggests that research and research-based
information are needed to help employers, State and local governments,
other public entities, private entities, and postsecondary institutions
better achieve the objectives of the ADA and improve outcomes for
individuals with disabilities. Through this proposed priority, NIDRR
seeks to advance the DBTAC program beyond a strict focus on compliance
with the ADA and expand the focus to include assistance in identifying
and implementing a variety of more effective intervention approaches
and more cost-effective strategies to help individuals with a variety
of disabilities reach their full potential on the job. NIDRR also
intends that this proposed priority will improve the research capacity
of the regional DBTACs so that the DBTACs can identify areas where
research is warranted and conduct targeted research and development
that would be of benefit to employers and to individuals with
disabilities.
We are proposing that each of the 10 regional DBTACs will provide
technical assistance to increase the capacity of other organizations to
provide technical assistance; identify problematic areas where research
or informational campaigns might aid in the avoidance of

[[Page 6327]]

or solution to problems associated with compliance with the ADA in
their region; and conduct research to inform program planning,
development, policy, and practice.
Finally, in order to prevent duplication of effort, NIDRR intends
to fund, under a separate priority, a center that will be responsible
for taking the lead in making available, through a central Web site,
information about the ADA that is of interest nationally and would be
useful across all regions. This center, the DBTAC Coordination,
Outreach, and Research Center (DBTAC CORC), will be expected to serve
several functions, including overall coordination of activities among
the regional DBTACs, conducting research, and facilitating research
capacity building and dissemination.
Reference
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2003 Data
Profile, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2003/ACS/Tabular/010/01000US2.htm.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes to fund, under its Disability Rehabilitation Research
Projects program, 10 Disability and Business Technical Assistance
Centers (DBTACs), 1 within each of the 10 U.S. Department of Education
regions. Each DBTAC must be designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(a) Improved understanding about rights and responsibilities under
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq. (ADA), as well as developments in case law, policy, and
implementation through rigorous research and technical assistance
activities.
(b) Improved employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
by conducting activities that help to increase accommodations, access
to technology, and supports in the workplace, especially in high growth
industries.
(c) Enhanced ADA information dissemination, awareness, and referral
activities by establishing effective, coordinated local, regional, and
national resource networks. The DBTAC will contribute to this outcome
by, among other activities, partnering with the DBTAC Coordination,
Outreach and Research Center (DBTAC CORC) and other regional DBTACs to
develop, implement and evaluate these networks.
(d) Enhanced capacity of entities at the local and State levels and
within specific industries to provide technical assistance and training
on the ADA through dissemination of information that promotes awareness
of the ADA.
(e) Identification of impediments to compliance with the ADA and
individuals' access to technology, postsecondary education, and the
workforce, and of tested solutions and innovative approaches for
eliminating these impediments by conducting targeted, rigorous research
activities in at least one of the following areas: employment,
technology and postsecondary education, technology and school-to-work
transition, and participation and community living.
(f) Enhanced quality and relevance of information, and
dissemination of research-based information through adherence to
standards and guidelines that are consistent with evidence-based
practices for research dissemination and evaluation (see http://www.cebm.net, http://www.cochrane.org, http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/guide.flow.pdf, http://www.ngc.gov,

http://www.science.gov/).

(g) Improved technical assistance and research capacity through
development and application of effective coordination strategies within
the network of relevant NIDRR Rehabilitation Research and Training
Centers, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects, Assistive Technology and Outcomes
Research Projects, NIDRR-funded knowledge translation and dissemination
centers, employers, industries, and community entities.
(h) Improved research capacity through scientifically sound data
collection and analysis leading to identification of research topics
and submission of a preliminary research proposal to the DBTAC CORC
beginning in the first year of the project period, and conducting
rigorous, high quality research beginning in the second year of the
project period.
(i) Improved knowledge about the provision of ADA and employment-
related technical assistance, implementation of the ADA, and employment
outcomes through submission of region-specific information and data to
the DBTAC CORC for analysis and reporting.

Proposed Priority 11--Disability Business Technical Assistance Centers
(DBTAC) Coordination, Outreach, and Research Center

Background
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq. (ADA), prohibits discrimination against individuals with
disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodations,
State and local government services, and telecommunications. Since
1991, NIDRR has supported 10 regional Disability and Business Technical
Assistance Centers (DBTACs) that have provided technical assistance and
training, and disseminated information on the requirements of the ADA
to entities covered by the law and individuals with disabilities. (See
the background statement and priority for Proposed Priority 10--
Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) for
additional information on DBTAC activities.) Despite past efforts,
however, unemployment rates for individuals with disabilities remain
high. For that reason, NIDRR seeks to advance the DBTAC program beyond
a strict focus on compliance with the ADA and expand the focus to
include assistance in identifying and implementing research-based
interventions.
NIDRR is proposing this priority to support the funding of an
entity to take the lead in conducting activities to improve the
capacity of the regional DBTACs to use research-based information to
help achieve the objectives of the ADA and improve employment outcomes
for individuals with disabilities. This entity, the DBTAC Coordination,
Outreach, and Research Center (DBTAC CORC), will serve several
functions, including overall coordination of activities among the
regional DBTACS, conducting research, facilitating research capacity
building, and information dissemination. The key goals of the DBTAC
CORC are improving ADA and employment-related technical assistance to
employers, State and local governments, and other public entities;
enhancing understanding and knowledge about the ADA, employers, and
employment issues; and improving research capacity related to the ADA
and employment. Accomplishing these goals will require a coordinated
effort to facilitate partnerships and collaborative research and
development activities that respond to the state of the science and
national needs. All 10 regional DBTACs are expected to provide region-
specific information and contribute data to the DBTAC CORC to support
this effort.
The regional DBTACs and the DBTAC CORC will share some
responsibilities; however, they each play a distinct role within the
DBTAC program. For example, regional DBTACs provide frontline technical
assistance to help with implementation of the ADA and conduct research
that leads to improved employment outcomes for individuals

[[Page 6328]]

with disabilities. While the DBTAC CORC does not have oversight
responsibility for the regional DBTACs, it provides technical
assistance to the regional DBTACs to increase their research capacity
and generate evidence to inform practice, based on scientifically-sound
research.
The Department intends to have substantial and sustained
involvement in the activities of the DBTAC CORC to be funded through
this proposed priority, including by shaping the grantee's priorities,
activities, and major products to meet the purposes of this program.
The details and parameters of the Department's expectations and
involvement with the DBTAC CORC will be included in the Department's
cooperative agreement with the grantee that receives an award under
this proposed priority. This project will work closely with NIDRR
through a cooperative agreement.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes to provide funding, under its Disability
Rehabilitation Research Projects program, for a DBTAC Coordination,
Outreach, and Research Center (DBTAC CORC). The DBTAC CORC must be
designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Improved public access to information relating to the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
(ADA), through development and maintenance of a public Web site that
includes relevant information that is of interest nationally and that
would be useful across all DBTAC regions, preparation of documents in a
format that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for
accessibility, and establishment of a DBTAC database to support
regional DBTAC activities.
(b) Improved technical assistance, collaboration, information
dissemination, knowledge translation and training materials through a
national, coordinated process for developing materials to address
topics that are relevant across regions; and use of a document review
board to assist with development and review of collaborative products
and research activities.
(c) Increased research capacity building and high quality research
through synthesis and analysis of ADA information and data provided by
the regional DBTACs, and review of literature and related information
from other sources, in order to produce evidence reports, generate
topics for the regional DBTAC research activities, identify areas where
additional research is warranted, conduct relevant research, and
enhance understanding of ADA compliance and implementation issues on a
national level.
(d) Enhanced capacity of regional DBTACs to assist with improving
employment outcomes, workplace supports and accommodations, and ADA
compliance by producing evidence reports, conducting rigorous analyses
of regional DBTAC data, and evaluating products and proposed
publications. The DBTAC CORC will contribute to this outcome by (1)
establishing a document review board to review regional DBTAC plans for
new research activities, products, and publications and to conduct
systematic reviews linked to a set of evidence questions based on
scientific studies and standards (see http://www.cebm.net,
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/guide.flow.pdf,
http://www.ngc.gov, http://www.science.gov/); (2) establishing
guidelines for submission of information to the DBTAC CORC; and (3)
providing technical assistance to regional DBTACs.
(e) Improved knowledge of and contribution to the state of the
science within the subject areas covered by the regional DBTACs by
serving as a consultant to regional DBTACs to support research capacity
building, facilitating development of a coordinated national research
agenda, and working cooperatively with regional DBTAC grantees to
assist with the development of research topics and activities.
(f) Enhanced coordination of information dissemination on DBTAC
activities, research findings, publications, products, and tools
through coordination of the network of appropriate NIDRR research
projects, including Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers,
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects, Field-Initiated
Projects, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, and NIDRR
dissemination centers, including the National Rehabilitation
Information Center (http://www.naric.com) and the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (http://www.ncddr.org).

(g) Increased use of DBTAC-generated products and information by
developing strategies to promote the use of developed products and
improved relevance and quality of the products through assessment of
their effectiveness and impact on practice and policy.
(h) Increased application of research findings and products through
translation of DBTAC evidence reports into practice guidelines, quality
improvement products, and technical assistance tools.
(i) Enhanced understanding about the state of the science and
improved program planning, development and evaluation by hosting a
DBTAC biannual program development and planning meeting beginning in
year one of the project period; and an annual conference leading to a
report of proceedings in years three through five of the project
period.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs)

RRTCs conduct coordinated and integrated advanced programs of
research targeted toward the production of new knowledge to improve
rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, alleviate or
stabilize disability conditions, or promote maximum social and economic
independence for persons with disabilities. Additional information on
the RRTC program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.

General 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.

Priority 12--Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on
Effective Independent and Community Living Solutions and Measures

Background
Advances in technology and research have helped to enhance our
understanding about disability and to improve outcomes for individuals
with

[[Page 6329]]

disabilities. However, there are numerous barriers that prevent
individuals with disabilities from full participation in society. Data
indicate that there are large gaps in participation in home, community,
education, and workplace activities between individuals with and
individuals without disabilities. Compared to individuals without
disabilities, individuals with disabilities are more likely to be
homebound due to lack of transportation (Department of Transportation,
2003). Also, compared to individuals without disabilities, individuals
with disabilities are less likely to own a home (internal NIDRR
analysis of U.S. Census 2000) and less likely to be employed (Waldrop,
J. & Stern, S., 2003). Individuals with disabilities also are less
likely to socialize or engage in a number of other activities (National
Organization on Disability, 2004).
A variety of factors may account for disparities between
individuals with and individuals without disabilities; these include
differences in functional abilities, health and well-being, access to
assistive technology and personal supports, economic resources, and a
variety of physical, social, cultural, and environmental barriers.
However, we have limited understanding about the effects that
environmental barriers and facilitators at the systems and individual
levels have on opportunities for participation for people with
disabilities, particularly with respect to differences in outcomes for
specific disability populations and within specific environmental
conditions.
Laws protecting the civil rights of individuals with disabilities
and various disability policies have helped to promote the inclusion of
and participation by individuals with disabilities and foster change.
For example, Executive Order 13217, ``Community-based Alternatives for
Individuals with Disabilities,'' requires Federal agencies to implement
the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C. (527 U.S.
581) (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/olmstead/default.asp). However, barriers

to implementation of the Olmstead decision and to full participation
(e.g., lack of affordable, accessible housing and reliable, accessible
transportation; difficulty obtaining well-qualified personal
attendants; and frequent social isolation) are preventing the inclusion
of and participation by individuals with disabilities in society.
Consequently, research is needed to inform development of new,
validated strategies, supports, programs, interventions, guidelines,
and policies to achieve improved community living outcomes for
deinstitutionalized individuals or those diverted from potential
institutionalization.
Additionally, the demand for evidence-based practice requires the
development, evaluation, and use of scientifically sound measures to
evaluate the effectiveness and impact of programs and interventions
intended to alleviate disparities in participation. Given the scarcity
of economic resources, research is also needed to understand the costs
and benefits of investments intended to maximize independence and
participation. Research can help to inform the development of the next
generation of measures that can be easily utilized to drive decisions
made by key stakeholders and improve understanding about environmental,
systems, and individual level factors that influence the participation
of individuals with disabilities in society across their lifespan.
References
National Council on Disability, 2003. ``Olmstead: Reclaiming
Institutionalized Lives''. Washington, DC.
National Organization on Disability (2004). ``2004 N.O.D./Harris
Survey of Americans with Disabilities, detailed results''. Retrieved
from the Web. http://www.nod.org/Resources/harris2004/harris2004_data.pdf
.

Fox-Grage, W., Folkemer, & Lewis, J. (2003). ``The states'
response to the Olmstead decision: How are states complying?''
Denver, CO: National Conference on State Legislatures.
Sheets, D.J., Liebig, P.S. & Campbell, M.L. (2002). ``State
rehabilitation agencies, aging with disability, and technology:
Policy issue and implications''. Northridge, CA: 2003 Technology and
Persons with Disabilities Conference, Center on Disabilities,
California State University, Northridge.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, (2003). ``BTS Issue Brief''. Washington DC. Retrieved
from the Web. http://www.bts.gov/publications/issue_briefs/number_03/pdf/entire.pdf

Waldrop, J. and Stern, S. (2003). ``Disability Status: 2000,
Census 2000 Brief''. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau.

Proposed Priority

The Assistant Secretary proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Effective Independent and
Community Living Solutions and Measures. To meet this priority, the
RRTC's research must be designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(a) Enhanced participation by individuals with disabilities at
home, in the community, or in educational or workplace activities
through development of effective theory-based intervention methods and
outcome measures.
(b) Improved intervention approaches and guidelines that help to
remove or reduce barriers to full community integration and
participation for individuals with disabilities. The RRTC must
contribute to this outcome by conducting rigorous research examining
the implementation of the Olmstead decision and practices that serve as
facilitators or barriers to independent and community living.
(c) Improved understanding about the economic utility of existing
or proposed policies and practices to maximize independence and
participation for individuals with disabilities through development of
scientifically sound, valid and reliable methods and measures to assess
these policies and practices.

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Program General
Requirements of Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (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; or
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 independence needs of individuals
with severe disabilities.
Each RERC must provide training opportunities, in conjunction with
institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations, to assist
individuals, including individuals with disabilities, to become
rehabilitation technology researchers and practitioners.

[[Page 6330]]

Additional information on the RERC program can be found at:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.

Priorities 13, 14, and 15--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
(RERCs) for Technologies for Successful Aging (Priority 13), Wheelchair
Transportation Safety (Priority 14), and Wireless Technologies
(Priority 15)

Background
Individuals with disabilities regularly use products developed as
the result of rehabilitation and biomedical research to achieve and
maintain maximum physical function, live independently, study and
learn, and attain gainful employment. The range of engineering research
encompasses not only assistive technology but also technology at the
systems level (i.e., the built environment, information and
communication technologies, transportation, etc.) and technology that
interfaces between the individual and system and is basic to community
integration.
The NIDRR RERC program has been a major force in the development of
technology to enhance independent function for individuals with
disabilities. The RERCs are recognized as national centers of
excellence in their respective areas and collectively represent the
largest federally supported program responsible for advancing
rehabilitation engineering research. For example, the RERC program was
an early pioneer in the development of augmentative communication and
has been at the forefront of prosthetics and orthotics research for
both children and adults. RERCs have played a major role in the
development of voluntary standards that the medical equipment and
technology industries use when developing wheelchairs, wheelchair
restraint systems, information technologies, and the World Wide Web.
RERCs also have been a driving force in the development of universal
design principles that can be applied to the built environment,
information technology, and consumer products.
Advancements in basic biomedical science and technology have
resulted in new opportunities to enhance further the lives of people
with disabilities. Specifically, recent advances in biomaterials
research, composite technologies, information and telecommunication
technologies, nanotechnologies, micro electro mechanical systems
(MEMS), sensor technologies, and the neurosciences provide a wealth of
opportunities for individuals with disabilities and could be
incorporated into research focused on disability and rehabilitation.
Through the following proposed priorities, NIDRR intends to fund
RERCs that advance rehabilitation engineering research in the following
priority research areas: Technologies for Successful Aging, Wheelchair
Transportation Safety and Wireless Technologies.

(a) RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging

More than half of Americans age 65 and older report having at least
1 disability and it is estimated that one-third of this population has
a severe disability. Despite the increased risks of disability
associated with aging, ninety-five percent of older Americans choose to
remain in their own homes, use public services, and function
independently as they age. Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC
that focuses on improving the quality of life of older persons with
disabilities and promote health, safety, independence and active
engagement.

(b) RERC for Wheelchair Transportation Safety

There are roughly 1.7 million Americans living outside of
institutions who use wheeled mobility devices (Kaye, Kang, & LaPlante,
2000), including those who rely heavily on public and private
transportation services to commute to work and school, participate in
recreational activities, and carry out daily activities. However, most
wheelchairs are not designed to function as vehicle seats, thus putting
wheelchair-seated travelers at greater risk of injury compared to those
who sit in standard vehicle seats (Bertocci, Szobota, Hobson, & Digges,
1997). NIDRR, therefore, seeks to fund an RERC that researches and
develops innovative technologies to improve the current state of the
science, design guidelines and performance standards, and usability of
wheeled mobility devices and wheelchair seating systems.
References
Bertocci, G.E., Szobota, S., Hobson, D.A., & Digges, K. (1999).
Computer simulation and sled test validation of a powerbase
wheelchair and occupant subjected to frontal crash conditions. IEEE
Trans Rehabil Eng, 7(2), 234-44.
Kaye, H.S., Kang, T., & LaPlante, M.P. (2000). Mobility device
use in the United States. Disability Statistics Report 14.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Wireless technologies allow connection of communication,
information, and control devices to local, community, and nationwide
networks without wires. These wireless devices support a wide range of
applications spanning voice and data communication, remote monitoring,
and position finding, and offer tremendous potential for assisting
people with disabilities. Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC that
facilitates equitable access to, and use of, future generations of
wireless technologies for individuals with disabilities.

Proposed Priorities

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes the following three priorities for the establishment
of (a) an RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging, (b) an RERC for
Wheelchair Transportation Safety, and (c) an RERC for Wireless
Technologies. Within its designated priority research area, each RERC
will focus on innovative technological solutions, new knowledge, and
concepts that will improve the lives of persons with disabilities.
(a) RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging. Under this
priority, the RERC must research, develop and evaluate innovative
technologies and approaches that will improve the quality of life of
older persons with disabilities and promote health, safety,
independence, and active engagement.
(b) RERC for Wheelchair Transportation Safety. Under this priority,
the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies
and strategies that will improve the safety and independence of
wheelchair users who remain seated in their wheelchairs while using
public and private transportation services. The RERC must research and
develop innovative technologies and strategies that will improve the
current state of the science, design guidelines and performance
standards, and usability of wheeled mobility devices and wheelchair
seating systems.
(c) RERC for Wireless Technologies. Under this priority, the RERC
must research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies that
facilitate equitable access to, and use of, future generations of
wireless technologies for individuals with disabilities of all ages.
Under each priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the
following programmatic outcomes:
(1) Increased technical and scientific knowledge-base relevant to
its designated priority research area.

[[Page 6331]]

(2) Innovative technologies, products, environments, performance
guidelines, and monitoring and assessment tools as applicable to its
designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute to this
outcome by developing 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, persons with
disabilities, and employers on policies, guidelines, and standards
related to its designated priority research area.
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;
Develop and implement in the first three months of the
project period 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;
Develop and implement in the first year of the project
period, in consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate its
research results to persons with disabilities, their representatives,
disability organizations, service providers, professional journals,
manufacturers, and other interested parties;
Develop and implement in the first year of the project
period, in consultation with the NIDRR-funded RERC on Technology
Transfer, a plan for ensuring that all new and improved technologies
developed by the RERC are successfully transferred to the marketplace;
Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its
designated priority research area in the third year of the project
period and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the
conference in the fourth year of the project period; and
Coordinate research projects of mutual interest with
relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer.

Executive Order 12866

This notice of proposed priorities 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 regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed
priorities 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 notice of proposed priorities, we have
determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify the
costs.

Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits

The potential costs associated with these proposed priorities are
minimal while the benefits are significant. Grantees may incur some
costs associated with completing the application process in terms of
staff time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of e-Application
technology reduces mailing and copying costs significantly.
The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that
similar projects have been completed successfully. These proposed
priorities will generate new knowledge and technologies through
research, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical
assistance projects.
Another benefit of these proposed priorities is that the
establishment of new DRRPs (including the new DBTACs), a new RRTC, and
new RERCs will support the President's NFI and will improve the lives
of persons with disabilities. The new DRRPs, RRTC, and RERCs will
generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will
improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform
regular activities in the community.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 part 79.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
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
.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.133A Disability
Rehabilitation Research Projects, 84.133D Disability Business
Technical Assistance Centers, 84.133B Rehabilitation Research and
Training Centers Program, and 84.133E Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Centers Program)

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g), 764(a), 764(b)(2), and
764(b)(3).

Dated: January 31, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 06-1075 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P