Special Demonstration Programs-Model Demonstrations for Assistive Technology Reutilization, 48436-48440 [06-7030]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48436-48440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7030]



[[Page 48435]]

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

Part IV





Department of Education





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



Grants and Cooperative Agreements; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 160 / Friday, August 18, 2006 / 
Notices

[[Page 48436]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Special Demonstration Programs--Model Demonstrations for 
Assistive Technology Reutilization

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

ACTION: Notice of final priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education 
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) announces final priorities under 
the Special Demonstration Programs administered by the Rehabilitation 
Services Administration (RSA). The Assistant Secretary may use one or 
more of these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2006 and 
later years. This notice announces two priorities--a priority for model 
demonstrations for assistive technology (AT) device reutilization and a 
priority for a National Assistive Technology Device Reutilization 
Coordination and Technical Assistance Center (Center). These priorities 
are intended to increase access to AT devices for individuals with 
disabilities. The term ``AT devices'' includes a wide range of AT, such 
as computers, durable medical equipment, augmentative and alternative 
communication, and other devices.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities are effective September 18, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Buzzell, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5025, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7319 or via Internet: 
Jeremy.Buzzell@ed.gov.
    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: The purpose of the Special Demonstration 
Programs is to provide financial assistance to projects that expand and 
improve the provision of rehabilitation and other services for 
individuals with disabilities. The projects to be supported under these 
priorities are intended to improve the provision of AT to individuals 
with disabilities.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program 
in the Federal Register on April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24800). The NPP 
included a background statement that described our rationale for each 
priority proposed in that notice. This notice of final priorities (NFP) 
contains several significant changes from the NPP. These changes are 
explained in the following Analysis of Comments and Changes.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17 parties submitted 
comments on the proposed priorities. An analysis of the comments and of 
any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows. We 
discuss substantive issues by topic under the number of the priority to 
which they pertain. Due to the nature and number of changes made in the 
priorities, OSERS significantly reorganized the priorities, including 
renumbering some sections and deleting others.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority.

Priority 1--Model Demonstrations for AT Device Reutilization

Priority 1--General
    Comments: Four commenters recommended that the amount of funds to 
cover indirect costs be limited to no more than 10 percent of the grant 
award in order to ensure that most of the grant funds are used for 
direct services.
    Discussion: It is not necessary to limit indirect costs in the 
final priority because 34 CFR 373.22 limits indirect costs to 10 
percent of the total direct cost base or the grantee's actual indirect 
costs, whichever is less.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested greater specificity about 
requiring grantees to provide plans for sustaining their projects 
beyond the project period of this grant.
    Discussion: Programs can be sustained in many ways, so OSERS agrees 
that a clarification of what is meant by this requirement will be 
helpful to potential applicants.
    Change: OSERS replaced section (c) of Priority 1 with a new section 
(a)(ii) of Priority 1 to clarify that the project must be designed to 
sustain itself through its own activities beyond the project period of 
the grant.
Priority 1--Eligibility Requirements
    Comments: Three commenters suggested that interstate collaborations 
be allowed to apply for grants under Priority 1.
    Discussion: Eligible parties already are allowed to apply as a 
group pursuant to 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and 34 CFR 373.2(a)(6).
    Change: OSERS replaced section (b) of Priority 1 with new sections 
(a)(iii) and (a)(iv) of Priority 1 to clarify that projects may serve a 
State or group of States.
    Comments: Three commenters suggested that grants be limited to one 
per State. One of these commenters would allow an exception if one 
project involved a single State and another involved that same State in 
a multi-State or regional project.
    Discussion: Limiting grants to one per State may undermine the 
competitive grant process and reduce the quality of services to 
individuals with disabilities, because high quality applications from 
one State would be passed over for low quality applications from 
another State. Additionally, as is stated elsewhere in this notice, 
statewide delivery of services will not be a requirement of applicants. 
Limiting the grants to one per State may prevent a State from achieving 
more comprehensive services through multiple grants.
    Change: None.
Priority 1--Scope of Services
    Comments: Two commenters recommended that rather than requiring 
projects under Priority 1 to include all types of AT, serve people with 
all types of disabilities, and be statewide, that grantees be allowed 
to determine what AT they will reutilize, what types of disabilities 
will be served, and whether they will serve the entire State.
    Discussion: OSERS understands that different capacities and 
expertise are required to reutilize particular types of devices. 
Additionally, it is possible that a project can best meet the needs of 
individuals with disabilities in particular areas of a State rather 
than on a statewide basis. Therefore, OSERS agrees that projects should 
have discretion to determine what types of devices they will reutilize 
and whether they have the capacity to serve statewide. However, 
individuals with diverse disabilities can benefit from similar devices; 
therefore, it is not appropriate to give States the discretion to limit 
the type of disability served.
    Change: OSERS has removed language from section (a) of Priority 1 
requiring that projects be statewide and recycle all types of AT.
Priority 1--Requirements for Project Operations
    Comments: Three commenters recommended that grantees under Priority 
1 be required to use

[[Page 48437]]

professional technicians to refurbish the recycled devices.
    Discussion: Existing device reutilization projects use various 
models to successfully reutilize AT devices and rely on a wide range of 
expertise. Given the diversity of programs nationally and the lack of 
agreed-upon best practices for device reutilization, imposing such a 
requirement would unfairly restrict applications from viable programs. 
However, OSERS agrees that it is important to encourage the 
establishment of best practices in the field of AT device 
reutilization.
    Changes: OSERS deleted sections 1(d) and 2(a) of Priority 2 and 
added sections (a)(ii), (a)(iv), and (b)(iv) to Priority 2 to require 
the Center to investigate and nationally disseminate best practices and 
to explore the need for and feasibility of developing standards of 
practice.
Priority 1--Collaboration
    Comments: Four commenters suggested that every grantee under 
Priority 1 be required to collaborate with the Statewide Assistive 
Technology Program (Statewide AT Program) funded under the Assistive 
Technology Act of 1998, as amended (AT Act), in their State, and two 
commenters recommended requiring an assurance from the Statewide AT 
Program in their State that the grantee's application supplements and 
coordinates with the Statewide AT Program's reutilization activities.
    Discussion: Because Statewide AT Programs conduct reutilization 
activities, OSERS agrees that projects funded under Priority 1 should 
collaborate with Statewide AT Programs to ensure better services to 
individuals with disabilities in their States. However, requiring an 
applicant under Priority 1 to provide an assurance in its application 
from the Statewide AT Program in its State that the application 
supplements and coordinates these reutilization activities would 
unfairly limit applications and undermine the competitive process. 
Requiring such an assurance from the Statewide AT Program would allow 
the Statewide AT Program to determine what entities can apply under 
Priority 1 by agreeing to or refusing to provide an assurance to an 
entity.
    Change: OSERS replaced section (b) of Priority 1, with a new 
section (a)(iii), which requires that grantees coordinate and 
collaborate with reutilization activities funded under the AT Act. 
However, an assurance from the grantee under the AT State Grant program 
will not be required as part of the application. OSERS also included in 
section (a)(iii) language from section (h) in the NPP requiring that 
funds be used to supplement and not supplant the efforts of the 
Statewide AT Program.
    Comments: One commenter recommended including a list of partners 
with whom grantees funded under Priority 1 should be required to 
collaborate, including AT Act programs, alternative financing programs, 
vocational rehabilitation agencies, education agencies, and vendors. An 
additional two commenters suggested that grantees be required to 
partner with manufacturers and suppliers of AT to conduct 
reutilization.
    Discussion: OSERS agrees that collaboration is important for 
projects funded under Priority 1.
    Change: OSERS replaced section (b) with a new section (a)(iv), 
which requires that grantees collaborate with relevant entities as 
appropriate, including the National Assistive Technology Device 
Reutilization Coordination and Technical Assistance Center funded under 
Priority 2, as well as State agencies that fund AT, alternative 
financing programs, vendors and manufacturers of AT, and other relevant 
entities and organizations.
Priority 1--Compliance with Regulations and Standards of Practice
    Comments: Two commenters want to require grantees under Priority 1 
to collaborate with manufacturers to establish standards for useful 
life by device type, minimum training and expertise for refurbishing 
and repair staff, and guidelines for training and education of clients 
and caregivers.
    Discussion: OSERS agrees that it may be important to establish 
standards or best practices in device reutilization. However, if each 
project funded under Priority 1 works separately with manufacturers to 
establish standards, the standards will be inconsistent.
    Change: OSERS added section (a)(iv) to Priority 2 to require the 
Center to explore the need for and feasibility of developing standards 
of practice.
    Comments: Two commenters recommended that all grantees under 
Priority 1 be required to submit an assurance of compliance with all 
appropriate State and Federal requirements pertinent to the reuse, 
recycling, and sanitization of devices.
    Discussion: While OSERS understands that projects may need 
assistance in understanding the appropriate State and Federal 
requirements, Priority 1 projects are subject to State and Federal 
requirements regardless of an additional assurance. Therefore, such an 
assurance is unnecessary. We believe it would be appropriate for the 
Center funded under Priority 2 to provide technical assistance to 
Priority 1 grantees on State and Federal requirements.
    Change: OSERS has added sections (a)(iii) and (b)(iii) to Priority 
2 requiring the Center funded under Priority 2 to disseminate 
information and to provide technical assistance related to relevant 
State and Federal requirements to projects funded under Priority 1.
    Comments: Three commenters requested a requirement that all model 
demonstrations develop and maintain standards of practice and develop 
protocols for referrals to AT practitioners to provide evaluations.
    Discussion: OSERS agrees that it may be important to develop 
standards of practice or procedures for referral. However, if each 
project funded under Priority 1 works separately to develop standards 
of practice or procedures for referrals, the standards and procedures 
will be inconsistent.
    Change: OSERS added section (a)(iv) to Priority 2 to require the 
Center to explore the need for and feasibility of developing standards 
of practice for AT device reutilization nationally.
Priority 1--Data Collection and Reporting
    Comments: Three commenters recommended that projects under Priority 
1 be required to report to manufacturers when a reuse project has 
possession of a device and when a device has been involved in an injury 
or death.
    Discussion: We agree that these types of reports may be beneficial. 
However, if each project funded under Priority 1 works separately with 
manufacturers to provide that information, reporting will not be 
standardized or reliable.
    Change: OSERS added section (a)(v) to Priority 2 to require the 
Center to explore the necessity, feasibility, and development of 
reporting to AT manufacturers by Priority 1 grantees.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that one data collection system 
be formed by RSA, the Center funded under Priority 2, and the grantees, 
rather than having each grantee form its own system. An additional 
commenter recommended that grantees under Priority 1 use common 
measurement standards that are developed by the Center under Priority 
2.
    Discussion: OSERS agrees that a unified system of measuring and 
collecting data should be developed, which was intended by the NPP.
    Change: OSERS replaced section (d) in Priority 1 and section 1(g) 
in Priority 2 with a new section (b)(i) of Priority 1

[[Page 48438]]

and section (b)(v) of Priority 2 to clarify that RSA, the Center in 
Priority 2, and projects funded under Priority 1 will work together to 
develop a unified system of measuring and collecting data and to 
identify appropriate outcome measures and methods of collecting data.
    Comments: Four commenters recommended that the data collection 
requirements for Priority 1 be the same as the data collection 
requirements for device reutilization programs under the AT Act. An 
additional three commenters wanted to require that Priority 1 projects 
identify and collect data to measure clinical outcomes of individuals 
served by device reutilization programs.
    Discussion: OSERS believes that developing appropriate data 
collection requirements and identifying outcomes is important. OSERS 
agrees that data reported by projects funded under Priority 1, at a 
minimum, should meet the data collection requirements for device 
reutilization under the AT Act. However, restricting the data 
collection requirements solely to the requirements under the AT Act 
would limit the data collection before the full data needs of projects 
funded under Priority 1 have been explored. Additionally, while OSERS 
agrees that measuring outcomes, including clinical outcomes, of those 
served by reutilization programs may be important, outcome measurement 
will be inconsistent if grantees under Priority 1 separately develop 
methods of outcome measurement.
    Change: OSERS eliminated specific data collection requirements by 
deleting sections (e) through (g) of Priority 1. Instead, OSERS added 
sections (b)(i) and (b)(ii) to Priority 1 and sections (b)(v) and 
(b)(vi) to Priority 2 to require that the Center funded under Priority 
2 and projects funded under Priority 1 work together with RSA to 
develop a data collection system, including identifying appropriate 
outcomes and outcome measures.

Priority 2-- National AT Device Reutilization Coordination and 
Technical Assistance Center

Priority 2--Eligibility and Collaboration with Stakeholders
    Comments: Three commenters wanted to require entities that apply 
under Priority 2 to have direct experience reutilizing devices in order 
to be eligible.
    Discussion: While OSERS agrees that the expertise from those with 
direct experience reutilizing devices is important, eligibility 
requirements are established in section 303(b)(2)(A) of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 34 CFR 373.2.
    Change: None.
    Comments: Four commenters recommended that under Priority 2 the 
grantee be required to create an advisory and oversight committee 
comprised of stakeholders. An additional three commenters wanted to 
limit eligibility under Priority 2 to applicants who constitute a 
collaborative of entities that are stakeholders in reutilization of AT.
    Discussion: OSERS agrees that the Center funded under Priority 2 
should work with a variety of stakeholders. However, while the 
eligibility requirements established in 34 CFR 373.2 allow applications 
by consortia, OSERS does not believe it is appropriate to restrict 
applications to consortia of stakeholders. In addition, while OSERS 
believes that the Center should be required to collaborate with 
stakeholders, effective collaboration with stakeholders can be achieved 
in many ways. Therefore, OSERS does not believe that it is necessary to 
require the Center to have an advisory committee. The grantee should 
have discretion as to the method by which it collaborates and with whom 
it collaborates.
    Changes: OSERS replaced sections 2(c) and 2(e) of Priority 2 with 
new sections (a) and (c)(v) of Priority 2 to clarify that collaboration 
with stakeholders is a requirement of the Center funded under Priority 
2.
Priority 2--Scope of Work
    Comments: Two commenters recommended that the Center be used to 
identify regulatory issues and ensure compliance.
    Discussion: OSERS agrees that the identification and dissemination 
of State and Federal requirements governing device reutilization is 
important and that this should be a key responsibility of the Center 
funded under Priority 2. However, while a Center can disseminate and 
provide technical assistance about requirements, it cannot enforce 
these requirements.
    Change: OSERS replaced section 1(a) of Priority 2 with a new 
section (b), which includes (b)(iii) requiring the Center to 
disseminate information and provide technical assistance on compliance 
with State and Federal requirements regarding AT device utilization.
    Comment: One commenter suggested funding Priority 2 prior to 
funding Priority 1 to identify regulatory issues and standards of 
practice prior to the operation of model demonstrations under Priority 
1.
    Discussion: There are many device reutilization projects already in 
existence, and there are many instances in which developing or 
expanding reutilization represents an immediate need for States. 
Further, OSERS believes that the projects funded under Priority 1 must 
be able to provide input into the development of any standards of 
practice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to delay the funding 
of projects under Priority 1.
    Change: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: OSERS believes that reutilization of AT devices can be 
an important part of a national strategy to respond to the needs of 
individuals with disabilities involved in natural disasters. The Center 
funded under Priority 2 and the projects funded under Priority 1 
present an opportunity to develop a coordinated effort to collect and 
distribute reutilized AT devices following a natural disaster.
    Change: OSERS added section (c)(vi) to Priority 2 requiring the 
Center to develop a plan for device reutilization to meet the AT needs 
of individuals with disabilities who are affected by natural disasters.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting 
applications we designate each 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 priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the 
competitive 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

Priority 1--Model Demonstrations for AT Device Reutilization

    This priority supports projects that propose model demonstrations 
to establish or expand AT device

[[Page 48439]]

reutilization to serve consumers in a State or group of States. 
Projects funded under this priority must--
    (a) Establish a new AT device reutilization project, expand an 
existing AT device reutilization project, or coordinate a partnership 
of AT device reutilization projects in a State or group of States, 
that--
    (i) Meets the AT needs of individuals with disabilities without 
regard to type of disability;
    (ii) Is designed to sustain itself through its own activities 
beyond the project period of the grant;
    (iii) Coordinates and collaborates directly with, and supplements 
but does not supplant, reutilization activities in that State or group 
of States funded under section 4 of the Assistive Technology Act of 
1998, as amended; and
    (iv) Coordinates and collaborates with providers of AT devices and 
AT services in the State or group of States and other relevant entities 
as appropriate, including the National AT Device Reutilization 
Coordination and Technical Assistance Center (Center) funded by the 
Department, as well as State agencies that fund AT, alternative 
financing programs, vendors and manufacturers of AT, and other relevant 
entities and organizations; and
    (b) Participate in data collection by--
    (i) Working with RSA and the Center to develop a unified data 
collection system, including identifying appropriate outcomes and 
outcome measures; and
    (ii) Collecting and reporting data on activities and outcomes as 
determined by RSA.

Priority 2--National AT Device Reutilization Coordination and Technical 
Assistance Center

    This priority supports a National AT Device Reutilization 
Coordination and Technical Assistance Center that will address issues 
of national significance in AT device reutilization; provide technical 
assistance to AT device reutilization projects funded by the Department 
under the Model Demonstrations for AT Device Reutilization priority 
(Model Demonstrations Projects) and from other sources; and coordinate 
and network AT device reutilization projects funded both under the 
Model Demonstrations Projects and from other sources.
    (a) To address issues of national significance in AT device 
reutilization, the Center funded under this priority must collaborate 
with public and private AT stakeholders (including providers of AT 
devices, AT services, and funding for AT at the State and Federal 
level; vendors and manufacturers of AT; and other relevant entities and 
organizations) to--
    (i) Identify national issues that affect AT device reutilization;
    (ii) Investigate the national scope, trends, best practices, and 
impact of AT device reutilization;
    (iii) Identify Federal and State policies that affect AT device 
reutilization;
    (iv) Explore the need for and feasibility of developing standards 
of practice for AT device reutilization nationally;
    (v) Explore the necessity, feasibility, and development of 
reporting information to AT manufacturers; and
    (vi) Address issues on the national level, such as building 
relationships among AT device vendors and manufacturers and projects 
funded under Model Demonstration Projects and working on liability and 
reimbursement issues.
    (b) To provide technical assistance to reutilization projects 
funded both under Model Demonstrations Projects and from other sources, 
the Center funded under this priority must--
    (i) Assist AT device reutilization projects with establishment, 
expansion, improvement, and sustainability by disseminating information 
about best practices and successful models for AT device reutilization;
    (ii) Conduct follow-up activities that are designed to enable AT 
device reutilization programs to continue beyond the three years of 
Federal funding;
    (iii) Disseminate information on Federal and State policies that 
affect AT device reutilization and how projects should ensure 
compliance with these policies;
    (iv) Disseminate information on standards of practice in AT device 
reutilization, if applicable;
    (v) Work with projects funded under Model Demonstrations Projects, 
stakeholders, and RSA to identify appropriate outcome measures and 
methods of collecting data; and
    (vi) Work with RSA and grantees under Model Demonstrations Projects 
to develop a unified data collection system for use by these grantees.
    (c) To coordinate and network reutilization projects funded under 
Model Demonstrations Projects and from other sources, the Center must--
    (i) Establish a national network of statewide AT device 
reutilization systems funded under Model Demonstration Projects and 
supported by other entities;
    (ii) Facilitate information and resource exchange among grantees;
    (iii) Encourage interstate activities among grantees;
    (iv) Nationally market and promote AT device reutilization to 
individuals with disabilities and other stakeholders;
    (v) Collaborate with relevant national organizations and national 
networks; and
    (vi) Develop a plan for how AT device reutilization projects can 
meet the AT needs of individuals with disabilities who are affected by 
natural disasters.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final 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 final 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 final priorities, we have determined 
that the benefits of the final priorities justify the costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The potential costs associated with these final priorities are 
minimal, while the benefits are significant. Grantees will increase the 
number of individuals with disabilities who obtain the AT they need. 
Grantees may anticipate costs associated with completing the 
application process in terms of staff time, copying, and mailing or 
delivery. The use of electronic application technology reduces mailing 
and copying costs significantly.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 373.

[[Page 48440]]

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: 
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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.235V Special 
Demonstration Programs)

    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 773(b).

    Dated: August 16, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 06-7030 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P