[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9182-9186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4259]



[[Page 9181]]

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

Part VI





Department of Education





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



National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice of 
Proposed Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years (FY) 2000-2001 for 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs); Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2000 / 
Notices  

[[Page 9182]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 
Notice of Proposed Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years (FY) 2000-2001 
for Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs)

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education 
and Rehabilitative Services proposes funding priorities for three 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) under the National 
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for FY 
2000-2001. This notice contains proposed priorities for one RRTC 
related to rehabilitation for persons with long-term mental illness and 
two RRTCs related to independent living. The Assistant Secretary takes 
this action to focus research attention on areas of national need. 
These priorities are intended to improve rehabilitation services and 
outcomes for individuals with disabilities. The proposed priorities 
refer to NIDRR's Long Range Plan (the Plan). The plan can be accessed 
on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/1999-12/68576.htm

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed priorities should be 
addressed to Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue, S.W., room 3414, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-2645. 
Comments may also be sent through the Internet: [email protected]
    You must include the term ``Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects and Centers'' in the subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205-
5880. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475. Internet: 
[email protected]
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding 
paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation To Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
priorities.
    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 that 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 this priority in room 3414, Switzer Building, 330 C 
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 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, you may call (202) 205-
8113 or (202) 260-9895. If you use a TDD, you may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
    These proposed priorities support the National Education Goal that 
calls for every adult American to possess the skills necessary to 
compete in a global economy.
    The authority for the Secretary to establish research priorities by 
reserving funds to support particular research activities is contained 
in sections 202(g) and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 
amended (29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764). Regulations governing this program 
are found in 34 CFR part 350.
    We will announce the final priorities in a notice 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 funding 
additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which the Assistant Secretary chooses to use any of these proposed 
priorities, we invite applications through a notice published in the 
Federal Register. When inviting applications we designate each 
priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

    The authority for the RRTC program is contained in section 
204(b)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 
764(b)(2)). Under this program the Secretary makes awards to public and 
private organizations, including institutions of higher education and 
Indian tribes or tribal organizations for coordinated research and 
training activities. These entities must be of sufficient size, scope, 
and quality to effectively carry out the activities of the Center in an 
efficient manner consistent with appropriate State and Federal laws. 
They must demonstrate the ability to carry out the training activities 
either directly or through another entity that can provide that 
training. The Assistant Secretary may make awards for up to 60 months 
through grants or cooperative agreements. The purpose of the awards is 
for planning and conducting research, training, demonstrations, and 
related activities leading to the development of methods, procedures, 
and devices that will benefit individuals with disabilities, especially 
those with the most severe disabilities.

Description of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

    RRTCs are operated in collaboration with institutions of higher 
education or providers of rehabilitation services or other appropriate 
services. RRTCs serve as centers of national excellence and national or 
regional resources for providers and individuals with disabilities and 
the parents, family members, guardians, advocates or authorized 
representatives of the individuals.
    RRTCs conduct coordinated, integrated, and advanced programs of 
research in rehabilitation targeted toward the production of new 
knowledge to improve rehabilitation methodology and service delivery 
systems, to alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, and to promote 
maximum social and economic independence of individuals with 
disabilities.
    RRTCs provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to assist individuals to more effectively provide 
rehabilitation services. They also provide training including graduate, 
pre-service, and in-service training, for rehabilitation research 
personnel and other rehabilitation personnel.
    RRTCs serve as informational and technical assistance resources to 
providers, individuals with disabilities,

[[Page 9183]]

and the parents, family members, guardians, advocates, or authorized 
representatives of these individuals through conferences, workshops, 
public education programs, in-service training programs and similar 
activities.
    RRTCs disseminate materials in alternate formats to ensure that 
they are accessible to individuals with a range of disabling 
conditions.
    NIDRR encourages all Centers to involve individuals with 
disabilities and individuals from minority backgrounds as recipients of 
research training, as well as clinical training.
    The Department is particularly interested in ensuring that the 
expenditure of public funds is justified by the execution of intended 
activities and the advancement of knowledge and, thus, has built this 
accountability into the selection criteria. Not later than three years 
after the establishment of any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or more 
reviews of the activities and achievements of the Center. In accordance 
with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued funding depends at 
all times on satisfactory performance and accomplishment.

Proposed Priority 1: Long-term Mental Illness

Background

    The Surgeon General estimates that approximately 20 percent of the 
U.S. population experience a mental disorder in any given year, that 9 
percent of the adult population have a diagnosable major mental 
illness, and that a subpopulation of 5.4 percent of the population is 
considered to have a significant mental illness (Kessler, et. al. 1994, 
1996). The costs to society of mental illness are substantial. The 
indirect costs of mental illness in 1990, stemming from lost 
productivity at work, school, or home, were estimated at $78.6 billion 
(Rice and Miller, 1996). As the population grows, the needs of a 
growing number of individuals with a significant mental illness are not 
being met. Only one in four adults with a diagnosable mental disorder 
receives treatment and one third of children and adolescents needing 
mental health services are treated (Manderscheid & Henderson, 1998). 
The lives of individuals with long-term mental illnesses are 
complicated by inadequate community resources, lack of access to new 
medications and psychosocial treatments, unemployment, and lack of 
options for long-term care. Many individuals also experience 
homelessness, family disruptions, chronic medical conditions, alcohol 
and substance abuse, incarceration, and social isolation, as well as 
the potential for periodic exacerbation.
    Quality is an important factor in the delivery of effective mental 
health services. Defining quality services is not an easy task, nor is 
there ready consensus on all components of the concept. The Institute 
of Medicine states that quality of services is ``the degree to which 
health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood 
of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional 
knowledge'' (Marder, 1999). However, measuring the quality of services 
provided to individuals with significant mental illness, as well as 
measuring outcomes, present numerous challenges because of the periodic 
and chronic nature of the illness, and the ongoing need for intensive 
therapeutic services and long-term support. Practitioners, policy 
makers, and consumers continue to ask questions about how to adequately 
meet the multifaceted needs of individuals with significant mental 
illness.
    Generally, family members and consumers want community-based 
support services and treatment programs that are accessible and 
designed to meet long-term needs. The potential for individuals with 
serious mental illness to be maintained in the community rather than in 
institutions, work productively, live independently, and participate in 
rehabilitation planning is increased when a comprehensive support 
system is available in community settings. Research on consumer 
participation and community-based programs has provided evidence that 
there is a positive relationship between the level of consumer 
participation and therapeutic outcomes (Kent & Read, 1998).
    Proponents of community-based service programs and support systems 
long have advocated that consumers be empowered to participate in the 
decisionmaking process. However, one reason individuals with 
disabilities have limited opportunities to participate in decisions 
about their services are related to the lack of consensus on a 
definition for self-determination. Self-determination is defined and 
implemented differently (Ward, 1999) depending on the program, 
philosophy, and purposes for implementing a self-determination model. 
However, there are some common concepts in the definitions for self-
determination; NIDRR includes factors such as consumer control, choice, 
self-direction, empowerment, leadership, and self-advocacy (Ward & 
Roger, 1999) as potential elements of self-direction. While most mental 
health professionals support the concept of self-determination, not all 
agree that individuals with psychiatric disabilities should have 
control over or participate in planning and decisionmaking activities 
(Kent & Read, 1998).
    Individuals with psychiatric disabilities are not yet full 
participants in the disability self-determination movement. It is 
widely alleged that professionals in the psychiatric disabilities 
community continue to use medical compliance as a control mechanism and 
as a determining factor for awarding patients certain privileges. The 
right to choose among treatment options is often regarded as a 
privilege that is earned through medical compliance (Chamberlain & 
Powers, 1999).
    Obstacles to the development and implementation of self-
determination efforts include controversy over whether severe mental 
illness is a lifelong process or whether recovery is possible. Some 
discussants of this issue suggest that the need for extensive, lifelong 
support and the severity of the illness preclude using a self-
determination approach. In addition, the impact of self-determination 
approaches on quality of services are unknown. Methodologies, 
indicators, and standards for measuring quality of care within self-
determination models would facilitate understanding the impact of this 
approach on rehabilitation outcomes. In particular, research that 
addresses questions about the ability of individuals with serious 
mental illnesses to make decisions about treatment and medication 
management is lacking. Traditionally, program planning and treatment 
decisions in the mental health field have been made by clinicians, and 
often involve maintaining patients on medication without consumer input 
or choice.
    Policies and service systems tend to be based on a paternalistic 
model that restricts consumer control and input. However, there is 
evidence that consumer and family involvement in decisionmaking and 
program planning have the potential to foster higher quality services 
and responsiveness from providers. The effectiveness service models 
incorporating self-determination and their relationship to 
rehabilitation outcomes has not been evaluated. There has not been 
adequate study of the impact of elements of self-determination models 
on the rehabilitation process. Similarly, there have not been adequate 
studies of the impact of the various components of self-determination 
models on the rehabilitation process.

[[Page 9184]]

    Better understanding of the implications of self-determination for 
rehabilitation outcomes potentially will answer questions related to 
competency, patient rights, recovery, outcomes, and policies. Research 
addressing these issues, describing standards for quality, and 
establishing outcome measures for consumer driven decisions is lacking 
in the research literature. Studies evaluating self-determination will 
potentially further the understanding of the rehabilitation process for 
individuals with significant mental illness, and identify strengths, 
weaknesses, and needed improvements in the existing models.
    The Plan emphasizes the importance of independent living and 
community integration. Central to independent living is the recognition 
that each individual has a right to independence that comes from 
exercising maximal control over his or her life. These activities 
include making decisions involved in managing one's own life, 
sustaining the ability and opportunity to make choices in performing 
everyday activities, and minimizing physical and psychological 
dependence on others. Independent living is a concept that also 
emphasizes participation and equity in the right to share in the 
opportunities, risks, and rewards available to all citizens.

Proposed Priority 1: Improving Service and Supports for Individuals 
with Long-Term Mental Illness

    The Assistant Secretary, in collaboration with the Substance Abuse 
and Mental Health Services Administration and the Center for Mental 
Health Services, proposes to establish an RRTC for the purpose of 
improving services and supports for individuals with long-term mental 
illness. In carrying out these purposes, the Center must:
    (1) Develop measures that can be applied to evaluate self-
determination activities in terms of rehabilitation outcomes, quality 
of services, and availability of community resources;
    (2) Identify and assess self-determination direction theories, 
models, and activities, as well as the barriers to participation in 
self-determination activities for individuals with disabilities;
    (3) Develop and evaluate management tools to enable service 
providers to support self-determination;
    (4) Develop, conduct, and evaluate, training on self-determination 
and consumer choice to improve understanding and support of self-
determination; and
    (5) Assess policies of service providers and payers in terms of 
their implications for fostering or impeding self-determination, and 
identify strategies for policy improvements.
    In addition to the activities proposed by the applicant to carry 
out these purposes, the RRTC must:
    (1) Conduct in the third year of the grant, a state-of the-science 
conference on self-determination for persons with significant and 
persistent mental illness and publish a comprehensive report in the 
fourth year of the grant; and
    (2) Address in its research the specific needs of minority 
populations with LTMI.

Two Proposed Priorities on Independent Living

Background

    The mission of NIDRR emphasizes developing knowledge that will 
``improve substantially the options for disabled individuals to perform 
regular activities in the community, and the capacity of society to 
provide full opportunities and appropriate supports for its disabled 
the Plan, published on December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68575)).'' Much of 
NIDRR's work reflects the components of the Independent Living (IL) 
philosophy: consumer control, self-help, advocacy, peer relationships 
and peer role models, and equal access to society, programs, and 
activities. NIDRR has funded subject-specific RRTCs in IL since 1980 
and supports other projects that incorporate principles of IL.
    Most recently, NIDRR has funded one RRTC on Centers for Independent 
Living (CIL) management and services and a second on IL and disability 
policy. The last year of the five-year project period for the awards 
was 1999. In light of the research agenda established in the Plan, and 
input obtained from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 
and other Federal agencies and constituents, in various meetings that 
addressed related themes, NIDRR has identified critical issues in 
independent living to be addressed at this time. There is a continuing 
need to fund two Centers that study independent living and community 
integration.
    Living independently and achieving community integration to the 
maximum extent possible are issues at the crux of NIDRR's mission. 
NIDRR is committed to the creation of a theoretical framework with 
measurable outcomes that is based upon the experiences of individuals 
with disabilities. The new paradigm of disability embodied in the Plan 
requires analysis of the extent to which socioenvironmental factors 
help or hinder individuals with disabilities in attaining full 
participation in society. Questions as basic as defining independent 
living in the context of diverse socioeconomic factors must be 
addressed. Current challenges to independent living derive from the 
changing characteristics of both the IL service system and the 
disability population.
    Substantial administrative, advocacy, strategic and service-
delivery issues affect the daily activities of Centers for Independent 
Living (CILs). Critical issues include funding and resource management, 
quality staffing, and relationships with other agencies key to the 
success of CILs. The issue of financial management of CILs calls for a 
balanced approach to identify existing policies, regulations, models, 
and programs that serve to hinder or help in establishing sound fiscal 
operation. Financial management requires expertise in fiscal analysis, 
budgeting, understanding grant requirements and program rules, 
accounting, auditing, and fundraising.
    CILs, which spend substantial amounts of money on personnel, are 
subject to staffing problems typical of human service organizations and 
small businesses, including recruitment problems, training and 
competency development, and retention problems. Staffing problems may 
impede the ability of CILs to deliver individualized information and 
support services. An essential step in strengthening continuity in 
services is to recruit, train, and retain first line managers.
    CILs lack documentation of the competencies required for IL 
management. Awareness of competency needs is key to developing 
successful recruitment strategies and staff development programs. For 
example, innovative recruitment strategies are needed to attract youth 
with disabilities who are transitioning from school to independent 
living to work in CIL service programs. Creative efforts to attract 
young persons entering the job market as employees could assist the 
CILs in understanding the needs of youth with disabilities as consumers 
as well. Career development, with pathways to more responsible 
positions in CILs, can be a key to the retention of competent staff.
    CILs exist in a framework of public agencies, nonprofit 
organizations, and the local business sectors. The ability to form 
effective partnerships and cooperative working relationships with 
appropriate entities is essential to successful CIL operation. 
Historically, relationships with State Vocational Rehabilitation 
agencies, Statewide

[[Page 9185]]

Independent Living Councils, and State Consumer Advocacy Organizations 
have been at the heart of CIL operations and responsibilities. Recent 
developments in the area of employment services and entitlement 
benefits for individuals with disabilities pose additional challenges 
for CILs by introducing new actors, new clients, and new rules. Passage 
of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999 might provide new opportunities for CILs to 
play a role in the process of vocational rehabilitation.
    A challenge to facilitating independent living and community 
integration is the changing universe of disability. Demographic, social 
and environmental trends affect the prevalence and distribution of 
various types of disability as well as the demands of those 
disabilities on social policy and service systems. Within the universe 
of disabilities are: (1) changing etiologies for existing disabilities; 
(2) growth in segments of the population with higher prevalence rates 
for certain disabilities; (3) the consequences of changes in public 
policy and in health care services and technologies; and (4) the 
appearance of new disabilities.
    The CILs and consumer organizations can prepare to address changing 
needs of diverse populations with attention to the infrastructure of 
resource availability and management strategy. At the same time, there 
is a need to frame the history and role of the independent living 
movement within the context of theories of society and social movements 
and organizational and group structure. Such a framework could identify 
ways to: (1) reach out to underserved populations, (2) collaborate with 
key organizations that might not be perceived as traditional disability 
advocates, and (3) recognize the role of environmental factors on 
successfully living independently and achieving community integration. 
A sound theoretical base can be drawn upon to develop policy and 
service-delivery models that can help maximize social participation for 
individuals with disabilities.
    Researchers have identified an association between disabilities and 
poverty, especially among youth (Fujiura G et al., ``Disability Among 
Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the United States,'' Journal of 
Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pgs. 112-130, 1998). The 
growing number of individuals aging with long-standing disabilities, as 
well as the increase in the population of older persons who acquire 
disabilities as they age, is another aspect of a changing disability 
population. Newer etiologies of disability, such as HIV/AIDS, multiple 
chemical sensitivity and environmental illness, challenge IL concepts, 
services, and research. CILs and other organizations can serve as a 
resource to teach youth, aging persons, and underserved populations 
about independent living. There may be an opportunity for CILs to 
develop strong alliances with parent information training centers and 
schools (from pre-school through postsecondary programs) and with the 
aging and underserved populations through appropriate partnerships.
    As an example of the role of demographic factors, disability has a 
disproportionate impact upon African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and 
American Indians. An array of culturally-sensitive service-delivery 
models, community organizations, and other resources is necessary to 
provide services to individuals from minority backgrounds. 
Organizations with grassroots orientations, including CILs, are in a 
unique position to help identify the specific needs of individuals from 
those affected populations. Model strategies in other countries might 
be adapted to reach unserved and underserved populations in the United 
States.
    Physical environment, including the built environment, can pose 
numerous obstacles that confound living independently. Individuals with 
disabilities living in rural communities may be isolated from CILs and 
vocational rehabilitation services. Isolation resulting from distance, 
lack of available transportation, lack of monetary resources to support 
social services, limited job opportunities, lack of a health care 
delivery system, and unavailability of accessible and affordable 
housing can be problems for rural Americans. Similar problems may 
confront persons from minority backgrounds in inner cities and remote 
areas, persons who are homeless, and migrants. For all populations, and 
for all salient issues that affect independent living and community 
integration, the social and economic costs and benefits of various 
strategies must be evaluated.
    The Plan discusses research on physical inclusion, including the 
identification and evaluation of models that facilitate housing that 
are consistent with consumer choice. In addition to physical and 
economic accessibility, model housing approaches must maximize 
community integration and ability to participate in a range of 
normative activities.

Proposed Priority 2: Improved Management of CIL Programs and 
Services

    The Assistant Secretary proposes to establish an RRTC on IL 
management, services and strategies that will conduct research and 
training activities and develop and evaluate model approaches to 
enhance the capacity of CILs to operate and manage effective advocacy 
and service programs and maintain effective external partnerships. In 
carrying out this purpose, the Center must:
    (1) Develop a database of existing CIL funding and economic 
resources, and identify innovative and best practices in creating 
secure economic foundations for CILs;
    (2) Working in collaboration with appropriate entities, design and 
test several options for generating funding from alternative sources, 
including business development strategies and analyze policy-related 
and programmatic consequences of various funding options, especially 
those independent of public financing;
    (3) Identify best practices and develop and test programs for CILs 
in expanding services to youth with disabilities and their families, 
including those from diverse cultural backgrounds, and in interfacing 
with education and transition programs to prepare children and youth 
for independent living;
    (4) Develop and test strategies to enable CILs to benefit from 
management models of other successful community-based organization or 
organizations. Develop and test innovative models of cost-effective 
training to improve core competency skills in geographically dispersed 
and culturally and linguistically diverse CIL staff, including but not 
limited to those from Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and 
evaluate strategies for improved recruitment and retention of CIL staff 
from diverse backgrounds;
    (5) Review CIL and vocational rehabilitation agency policies 
related to collaborations, and design strategies for innovative 
partnerships to promote employment outcomes for individuals with 
disabilities;
    (6) Coordinate activities with and provide instruments, curricula, 
methodologies, and resource guides, as well as research findings, 
including but not necessarily limited to distance learning and web-
based technologies, to the RSA training and technical assistance 
provider under Part C of Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act; and
    (7) Provide training and information for CILs, policy makers, 
administrators, and advocates on research findings and identified 
strategies.

[[Page 9186]]

    In carrying out these purposes, the Center must coordinate with 
other NIDRR and OSERS grantees and community-based organizations that 
focus upon independent living and with the National Center for the 
Dissemination of Disability Research. The RRTC on improved management 
of CIL programs and services will be funded jointly by NIDRR and RSA 
and will be required to work closely with the RSA grantee providing 
training, technical assistance, and transition assistance to CILs and 
Statewide Independent Living Councils under Part C of Title VII of the 
Rehabilitation Act.

Proposed Priority 3: IL and the New Paradigm of Disability

    The Assistant Secretary proposes to establish an RRTC on IL and the 
New Paradigm of Disability that will facilitate the development of 
innovative independent living strategies to meet the challenges of the 
21st century. This Center will promote an understanding of independent 
living concepts and practices in the context of the physical and social 
environments noted in the new paradigm of disability, including 
assessment of the application of independent living to the changing 
universe of disability. In carrying out these purposes, the Center 
must:
    (1) Develop an analytical framework for research on living 
independently that incorporates the definition of IL, the contextual 
framework of disability and an accessible community, and the changing 
universe of disability as articulated in the Plan, and is grounded in 
social science theory and methods;
    (2) Identify and evaluate strategies to promote accessible cost-
effective advocacy and generic community services for individuals with 
significant disabilities, and address specifically at least one 
changing universe population;
    (3) Evaluate the use of peer networks and communication channels to 
assist individuals with disabilities to maintain wellness, access 
community services, and participate in community life;
    (4) Assess the concept and application of independent living for 
diverse populations of cultural and linguistic minorities, including 
but not limited to those from Indian tribes and tribal organizations, 
and identify and evaluate culturally appropriate independent living 
approaches and strategies to assist individuals within these groups to 
attain self-determined independent living goals; and
    (5) Provide training and information for CILs, policy makers, 
administrators, and advocates on research findings and identified 
strategies.
    In carrying out these purposes, the project must coordinate with 
other NIDRR and OSERS grantees and community-based organizations that 
focus on independent living, the Center on Emergent Disability, the 
National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, and the 
RSA training and technical assistance provider under Part C of Title 
VII of the Rehabilitation Act.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR Part 350.
    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-762.
    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 either of the 
following sites:

    http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
    http://www.ed.gov/news.html

    To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with 
Search, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If 
you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government 
Printing Office (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.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.133B, 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers)

    Dated: February 17, 2000.
Curtis L. Richards,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 00-4259 Filed 2-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U