[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 124 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35443-35447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12549]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program--
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs)

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

ACTION: Notice of final priority for a RRTC on Vocational 
Rehabilitation.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority on vocational 
rehabilitation under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The Assistant Secretary 
may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and 
later years. We take this action to focus research attention on areas 
of national need. We intend this priority to improve rehabilitation 
services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7462 or via Internet: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 35444]]

format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on 
request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.
    We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for NIDRR's 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, 
RRTC program, in the Federal Register on March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14263). 
The NPP included a background statement that described our rationale 
for the priority proposed in that notice.
    There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final 
priority (NFP) as discussed in the following section.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the NPP, eleven parties submitted 
comments on the proposed priority. An analysis of the comments and of 
any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priority.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon internal review of the NPP, NIDRR wishes to 
further clarify the focus of research related to ``best practices'' 
activities to be conducted under this priority. In the NPP, NIDRR 
proposed that an RRTC funded under the priority must contribute to 
several outcomes, including increased knowledge of ``best practices'' 
for prioritizing and providing services to individuals with the most 
significant disabilities. In the NPP, we proposed specifically that the 
research to be conducted to contribute to this outcome must focus on 
the ``extent to which individuals with the most significant 
disabilities are given priority for services by their respective State 
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) programs.'' We are revising this 
language to specifically reflect section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 
Rehabilitation Act, and related regulations under 34 CFR 361.36 to 
clarify that NIDRR and RSA are specifically interested in research on 
best practices for administering and implementing an order of selection 
in serving individuals with the most significant disabilities.
    Changes: NIDRR has revised the priority to clarify that the focus 
of best practices research to be conducted under paragraph (d) of the 
priority must be on the administration and implementation of an order 
of selection in serving individuals with the most significant 
disabilities.
    Comment: One commenter noted that a relatively low percentage of 
consumers of State VR programs who are blind or have low vision, and 
whose cases have been closed with an employment outcome, obtain 
competitive employment. Based on this finding, the commenter recommends 
that paragraph (e) of the priority be amended to include a focus on 
individuals who are blind or have low vision.
    Discussion: As described in the NPP, NIDRR and RSA have chosen to 
focus their research resources on individuals with developmental 
disabilities (DD) and individuals with mental illness (MI) because 
historically these individuals have had very low employment outcome 
rates. Individuals with MI have the lowest annual closure rate in the 
VR system. Individuals with DD also have low rates of closure relative 
to other subpopulations. These low closure rates, combined with the 
fact that individuals with DD and MI comprise about half of VR clients 
nationally, provide the strategic rationale for the proposed focus of 
paragraph (e).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters noted that the findings of the RRTC 
should be incorporated into training and ongoing educational 
requirements of VR personnel, and disseminated to individuals with 
disabilities. These commenters suggest that paragraph (f) of the 
priority be amended to include a requirement for a direct VR program 
delivery impact strategy.
    Discussion: We agree with this commenter's observation that the 
proposed priority unduly restricts dissemination efforts to ``State and 
Federal administrators of the VR program,'' and that applicants should 
disseminate the results of their research widely throughout the VR 
service delivery system as well as to individuals with disabilities. It 
is beyond the scope of this grant, however, to ensure that research 
findings are formally incorporated into training and education 
requirements of VR staff.
    Changes: NIDRR has revised paragraph (f) of the priority to require 
the RRTC to disseminate research results and provide training and 
technical assistance to all VR program personnel, as well as 
individuals with disabilities.
    Comment: Four commenters suggested that the priority be amended to 
incorporate specific research topics related to services provided to 
youth in transition from school to employment settings.
    Discussion: NIDRR and RSA have made a strategic decision to focus 
the work of this RRTC on the State-level structures and systems for 
providing employment services to individuals with disabilities. As 
described in the Background section in the NPP, the goal of this RRTC 
is to produce information that will properly contextualize future 
employment interventions and intervention studies. This new knowledge 
will help determine the real world applicability of those 
interventions, and the results of research on them. NIDRR and RSA 
believe that new knowledge will include information about many State-
level systems that serve individuals transitioning from school to 
postsecondary work activity and agree that this important area could 
benefit from additional research-based knowledge. NIDRR and RSA believe 
that

[[Page 35445]]

an applicant could propose research on transition-related service 
delivery structures under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the priority. 
However, we have no basis for requiring that all applicants focus their 
research in this manner.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Four commenters suggested that the term ``home-based 
employment'' utilized in paragraph (c) of the priority be broadened to 
include self-employment and entrepreneurship.
    Discussion: NIDRR and RSA are specifically interested in the extent 
to which State VR systems use home-based employment options to provide 
VR services. Under paragraph (c) the priority allows applicants to 
propose research that examines a wide variety of VR program 
characteristics. The list of characteristics in paragraph (c) was not 
intended to be exhaustive. Accordingly, an applicant could propose to 
focus research on the broader categories of self-employment and 
entrepreneurship. However, NIDRR has no basis for requiring that all 
applicants focus on self-employment or entrepreneurship in responding 
to the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Referring specifically to paragraph (a) of the priority, 
three commenters suggested that NIDRR require applicants to explore the 
interaction between State procurement policies and choice provisions 
that are spelled out in the Rehabilitation Act.
    Discussion: To the extent that research literature on this topic 
exists, applicants may propose to include it in their literature review 
and synthesis. Applicants may also propose to examine this topic under 
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the priority. However, NIDRR has 
no basis for requiring that all applicants focus on the interaction 
between state procurement policies and the choice provisions described 
in section 102(d) of the Rehabilitation Act.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that paragraph (b) of the 
priority be expanded to require research on specific disability 
employment service topics such as interagency agreements, VR 
connections to One-Stop Centers, VR connections to apprenticeship 
programs, policies related to needs-based financing of postsecondary 
education, and VR connections to programs for military veterans.
    Discussion: The priority allows applicants to propose studies 
examining these specific characteristics of disability employment 
services, as well as many others. However, NIDRR has no basis for 
requiring that all applicants focus on these factors in responding to 
the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that paragraph (c) of the 
priority be expanded to require research on specific VR program 
characteristics such as extended evaluations and trial work 
experiences, VR agreements with agencies providing long-term services 
and employment supports, characteristics of individuals denied VR 
services, and different types of purchase-of-service agreements.
    Discussion: In paragraph (c), we described the characteristics we 
thought applicants should examine in their studies, but as noted 
previously the list of characteristics was not intended to be 
exhaustive. Accordingly, under paragraph (c), an applicant could 
propose to examine the characteristics suggested by the commenters, as 
well as many others. However, NIDRR has no basis for requiring that all 
applicants focus on the additional characteristics recommended by the 
commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether best-practices research on 
serving people with MI and DD, under paragraph (e) of the priority, 
could focus on services provided by non-VR agencies.
    Discussion: Under paragraph (e) of the priority, best practices 
research must be coordinated with and informed by research conducted 
under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the priority. Under paragraph (b), the 
RRTC must research the role of community non-governmental organizations 
and government entities in the delivery of services to individuals with 
disabilities. Accordingly, an applicant's research could include best 
practices from non-VR service providers. NIDRR and RSA are ultimately 
interested in application of these best-practices findings within the 
VR system, regardless of their source.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether NIDRR would consider 
applications that propose randomized controlled intervention designs.
    Discussion: As described in the Background section of the NPP, and 
clearly outlined in the proposed priority, the purpose of this RRTC is 
to conduct research that is largely descriptive, in order to provide 
the contextual basis for future interventions and intervention studies. 
A randomized-controlled trial would not produce information that 
fulfills this purpose. NIDRR will not consider proposals that are not 
responsive to paragraphs (a) through (f).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked NIDRR to define the term ``best 
practices'' that is used in the priority.
    Discussion: Generally, the term ``best practices'' refers to the 
notion that there are methods or processes that are more closely 
associated with achieving a desired goal than others. The goal 
identified in paragraph (d) is the prioritization of services to those 
with the most significant disabilities. The goal identified in 
paragraph (e) of the priority is achieving a high rate of placing or 
retaining individuals from specific disability subpopulations in jobs. 
NIDRR and RSA are specifically interested in research that will help 
identify current practices, interventions, or service-delivery 
structures that are associated with achieving these goals.
    Changes: NIDRR has revised the priority to include the following 
definition of best practices: ``For purposes of this priority, best 
practices are defined as current practices, interventions, or service-
delivery structures that are associated with achievement of a 
particular goal.''
    Comment: One commenter asked whether NIDRR would consider systemic 
change strategies that enhance the adoption of evidence-based research, 
as a best practice for serving individuals with MI or DD.
    Discussion: NIDRR requires that best practices research under 
paragraphs (d) and (e) be coordinated with research activities under 
paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraphs (b) and (c) require research on the 
structural and systemic characteristics of the States' disability 
employment services networks, and the States' VR programs, 
respectively. To the extent that successful systemic change strategies 
currently exist within these employment service-delivery structures, 
applicants are free to examine them in their research on best practices 
under paragraphs (d) and (e).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR require applicants to 
identify specific strategies for collaboration with the Helen Keller 
National Center under paragraph (d) of the priority, given the unique 
employment challenges of individuals who are deaf-blind.
    Discussion: While the priority requires a RRTC to conduct research 
to help determine best practices for prioritizing and providing 
services to individuals with the most significant disabilities, it does 
not require the RRTC to address the needs of any particular disability 
group in meeting this requirement. Accordingly, applicants may propose 
to collaborate with any

[[Page 35446]]

organizations that they believe will help achieve the desired outcomes 
under this priority. However, NIDRR has no basis for requiring that all 
applicants collaborate with the Helen Keller National Center or any 
other particular organization.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the statutory definition of 
``individual with a significant disability'' includes language that 
restricts this population to those with multiple VR service needs. The 
commenter notes that this definition precludes prioritization of VR 
services for people with significant disabilities who only need one VR 
service. The commenter recommends that NIDRR remove language from the 
priority that refers to ``significant'' disability, so that the 
statutory definition of significant disability does not limit research 
on the VR prioritization process to those who fit that definition.
    Discussion: Title I of the Rehabilitation Act requires State 
agencies to give priority to those individuals with the most 
significant disabilities if it cannot serve all eligible individuals. 
Through this priority, NIDRR seeks to sponsor research that is directly 
relevant to the VR State agencies and requirements that govern the 
operation of the VR program. Making the change suggested by the 
commenter would not further this goal.
    Changes: None.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we 
designate the priority 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)).

    Note: This NFP is in concert with President George W. Bush's New 
Freedom Initiative (NFI) and the 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 February 
15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following 
site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
    Through the implementation of the 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.

Priority

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Vocational 
Rehabilitation (VR)

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services establishes a priority for the funding of a Rehabilitation 
Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 
Services. The RRTC must conduct research on the complex employment 
service delivery structures for individuals with disabilities, 
investigate ``best practices'' in certain critical areas, and provide 
training and technical assistance in order to improve VR services and 
employment outcomes among individuals with disabilities. For purposes 
of this priority, best practices are defined as current practices, 
interventions, or service-delivery structures that are associated with 
achievement of a particular goal. Under this priority, the RRTC must 
contribute to the following outcomes:
    (a) A foundation of available knowledge about the VR program's 
characteristics and outcomes. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome 
by conducting a literature review and creating a synthesis of previous 
research on the system-level characteristics of the VR program, and 
outcomes associated with those characteristics. This review and 
synthesis will inform the subsequent research, training, and evaluation 
efforts of the RRTC.
    (b) Increased knowledge about the broad constellation of Federal 
and State policies and programs through which employment services are 
delivered to individuals with disabilities, and the characteristics of 
individuals with disabilities who are receiving those services. The 
RRTC must contribute to this outcome by researching and providing a 
detailed State-by-State description of the larger employment services 
network and the role of the VR program within it. This research must 
identify and describe key characteristics of Federal, State and local 
government entities and community non-governmental organizations that 
either directly deliver or directly purchase employment services for 
individuals with disabilities.
    (c) Increased knowledge of the structure and operations of VR 
service delivery practices at the State level. The RRTC must contribute 
to this outcome by researching and providing a detailed description of 
the key characteristics of each State's VR system. These 
characteristics should include, but not be limited to, VR service 
delivery structure and practices, patterns of resource allocation, 
patterns of internal and external provision of services, the extent to 
which the VR agency uses cooperative agreements with other agencies to 
deliver services, operational definitions of ``individuals with the 
most significant disabilities,'' characteristics of clients, employment 
outcomes and settings, the level of integration of work settings, the 
extent of use of home-based employment, and means of addressing 
transportation barriers. This research must describe elements internal 
to each State's VR agency or agencies, and provide a base upon which 
future researchers can analyze the operational consequences and 
outcomes of different internal arrangements and agency decisions.
    (d) Increased knowledge of ``best practices'' for prioritizing and 
providing services to individuals with the most significant 
disabilities, when the State VR agency cannot serve all eligible 
individuals. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting 
research on the administration and implementation of an order of 
selection in serving individuals with the most significant disabilities 
by their respective State VR programs, and identifying best practices 
among State VR programs for ensuring that individuals with the most 
significant disabilities receive services on a priority basis. 
Collection and analysis of data for this research must be coordinated 
with and informed by research on the disability employment service and 
VR structures described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this priority. 
This

[[Page 35447]]

coordination will allow best practices findings to be properly 
contextualized, and therefore more likely to be successfully applied in 
other States or agencies.
    (e) Increased knowledge of ``best practices'' for helping 
individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) and individuals with 
mental illness (MI) obtain and retain employment. The RRTC must 
contribute to this outcome by conducting research to determine best 
practices for placing or retaining individuals with DD or MI in jobs. 
Collection and analysis of data for this best practices research must 
be coordinated with and informed by research on the disability 
employment service and VR structures described in paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this priority. This coordination will allow best practices 
findings to be properly contextualized, and therefore more likely to be 
successfully applied in other States or agencies.
    (f) Enhancement of the knowledge base of: (1) State and Federal VR 
program personnel, (2) personnel of other employment programs for 
individuals with disabilities, and (3) individuals with disabilities, 
by disseminating research results and providing training and technical 
assistance based on the new knowledge about the disability employment 
service structures described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
priority, and best practices knowledge described in paragraphs (d) and 
(e) of this priority.
    In addition, this RRTC must:
     Collaborate with RSA's technical assistance mechanisms to 
effectively disseminate best practices materials developed in the 
research component of this RRTC.
     Coordinate its research, dissemination, training, and 
technical assistance efforts with grantees in NIDRR's Employment 
domain, as appropriate.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final priority 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 priority 
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 
determined as necessary for administering these programs effectively 
and efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this notice of final priority, we have determined 
that the benefits of the final priority justify the costs.

Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The potential costs associated with this final priority are minimal 
while the benefits are significant.
    The benefits of the Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers 
have been well established over the years in that similar projects have 
been completed successfully. This final priority will generate new 
knowledge and technologies through research, development, 
dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance projects.
    Another benefit of this final priority is that the establishment of 
a new RRTC conducting research projects will support the President's 
NFI and will improve the lives of persons with disabilities. This RRTC 
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.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 Number 84.133B, 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers Program)

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

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E7-12549 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P