[Federal Register: June 15, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 32675-32685]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn01-116]
[[Page 32675]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice of
Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 2001-2003 for Three
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
[[Page 32676]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research;
Notice of Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 2001-2003 for Three
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 2001-2003
for three Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We will announce final funding priorities for three
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) on Technology for
Successful Aging, Wheelchair Transportation Safety and Mobile Wireless
Technologies for Persons with Disabilities under the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for FY 2001-2003. We
take this action to focus research attention on areas of national need.
We intend these priorities to improve the rehabilitation services and
outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
DATES: These priorities take effect on July 16, 2001.
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:
Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.
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 in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains final priorities under
the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) on Technology
for Successful Aging, Transportation Safety and Mobile Wireless
Technologies for Persons with Disabilities under the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for FY 2001-2003.
The final 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/
offices/OSERS/NIDRR/#LRP.
National Education Goals
The eight National Education Goals focus the Nation's education
reform efforts and provide a framework for improving teaching and
learning.
This notice addresses the National Education Goal that every adult
American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship.
The authority for the program 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 (the Act),
as amended (29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764. Regulations governing this
program are found in 34 CFR part 350.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice
inviting applications is published in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
On April 10, 2001, we published a notice of proposed priorities in
the Federal Register (66 FR 18688). The Department of Education
received 13 letters commenting on the notice of proposed priorities by
the deadline date. Technical and other minor changes--and suggested
changes that we are not legally authorized to make under statutory
authority--are not addressed.
Priority 1: Technologies for Successful Aging
Comment: One commenter feels that this priority should address the
communication needs of older Americans with communication disabilities
in order to individualize their rehabilitation and optimize their
ability to communicate in their natural environments.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes the importance of addressing the
communication needs of all individuals with disabilities and currently
supports an RERC on Communication Enhancement that addresses
communications needs of the aging population. An applicant could
propose activities that address the communication needs of older
Americans and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants
should be required to address the communication needs of elderly
individuals with communication disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that a new activity should be
added that requires the RERC to develop new technologies in speech
generated devices (speech aids that provide individuals with severe
speech impairment the ability to meet their functional needs) and
accessories such as mounting systems, switches, and access devices.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities to develop new
technologies in speech generated devices and the peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis
to determine that all applicants should be required to develop new
technologies in speech generated devices.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that a new activity should be
added that requires the RERC to develop new technologies in hearing
aids, assistive listening devices, and cochlear implants to assist
those individuals with severe hearing loss.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes the importance of addressing the
hearing needs of all individuals with disabilities and currently
supports an RERC on Hearing Enhancement and Assistive Devices that
addresses hearing needs of a broad range of individuals with hearing
loss. An applicant could propose activities to develop hearing
technologies that would benefit older Americans with hearing
impairments and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants
should be required to develop hearing technologies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that a new activity should be
added that requires the RERC to focus on the cultural and linguistic
diversity of the aging population.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities that focus on
cultural and linguistic diversity of the aging population and the peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR
has no basis to determine that all applicants should be required to
focus on the cultural and linguistic diversity of the aging population.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that adding the words ``and other
service providers'' after ``home health'' would strengthen the fourth
activity.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that adding ``and other service
providers'' to the fourth activity would strengthen the priority.
Changes: The fourth activity has been modified to include the words
``and other service providers'' after ``home health.''
Comment: One commenter suggested that the emphasis in this priority
on home-based monitoring and communication technologies is very
[[Page 32677]]
similar to the types of activities being conducted at the RERC on
Telerehabilitation and suggested that it made more sense for the RERC
on Technology for Successful Aging to collaborate with the RERC on
Telerehabilitation in these areas and to focus on topics not currently
funded. Specifically, the RERC should be required to: Investigate
factors that limit access to community resources and socialization by
older Americans with disabilities; analyze strategies (both AT and non-
AT) that have the potential to prevent loss of function in home and
community; investigate personal and public transportation issues that
impact the safety and integration of older Americans in their
communities, as well as the amount of care required to keep them home;
collaborate with the RERC on Ergonomic Solutions for Employment to
enhance knowledge of human factors issues in home and community
environments affecting the safety and function of older Americans in
these environments; and collaborate with the RERC on Telerehabilitation
to develop and expand the application of telemonitoring and measure the
impact on health as well as community integration and socialization.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the RERC on telerehabilitation and
the RERC on Technology for Successful Aging should be encouraged to
collaborate with one another. NIDRR also recognizes that there are
similarities between the two RERCs, specifically activities dealing
with the development of monitoring technologies. The RERC on
Telerehabilitation is responsible for identifying and developing
technologies capable of supporting rehabilitation services for
individuals who do not have access to comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation services. The RERC on Technology for Successful Aging is
required to focus on technological solutions that promote health,
safety, independence, active engagement and quality of life of older
persons with disabilities. All of the proposed activities contained in
this comment are within the scope of the priority and could be proposed
by an applicant to achieve the general purpose of this priority. The
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However,
there is insufficient evidence to warrant requiring all applicants to
carry out the activities suggested in this comment.
Changes: The last bulleted activity has been modified to include
``the RERC on Telerehabilitation'' as a potential NIDRR-funded project
with which this RERC may collaborate.
Comment: The scope of this priority should be expanded beyond
technologies for monitoring and communications to include technologies
for automating tasks (such as rehabilitation robotics) and smart
mobility aids (such as power wheelchairs that help the user perform
specific tasks like passing through narrow doorways, walkers that keep
track of a person's location within his or her home, and manual
wheelchairs that automatically avoid obstacles).
Discussion: An applicant could propose to explore technologies for
automating tasks and smart mobility aids and the peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis
to determine that all applicants should be required to propose to
explore technologies for automating tasks and smart mobility aids.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believes that the priority should consider
the need to marshal the forces of capitalism and the marketplace to
encourage industry to develop products based on the solutions created
by the proposed RERC.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter and points out that the
RERC is required under the fifth activity to explore strategies for
strengthening partnerships with industry to facilitate the transfer of
technologies and applications developed by this RERC.
Changes: None.
Comment: The fourth activity should be expanded to promote
knowledge beyond awareness of new and existing technologies and include
educational activities designed to teach how the technology is used.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter about the importance of
including educational activities on how newly developed technologies
are used and believe the fourth activity adequately supports this
point.
Changes: None.
Comment: Particular attention must be given to the ethical
implications of the technologies developed by this RERC. For example,
examining technology outcomes, such as ease of task performance or
control of daily living activities must be studied in tandem with
issues such as: Who has access to data about how I spend my time? Is
turning off the monitoring device under my control?
Discussion: All RERCs are required to obtain human subjects
approval through their respective Institutional Review Boards (IRB) and
show evidence of such approval to the U.S. Department of Education
prior to commencing with any research that includes human subjects. As
part of the informed consent process, researchers are required to abide
by strict confidentiality rules that protect the identity of all
participating subjects. However, once a product (i.e., a monitoring
device) has moved beyond the laboratory and is being used by the
general public, human subject protection may or may not be valid. For
instance, if a person is being monitored (using a newly developed
monitoring device developed by the RERC) by a health care institution,
patient confidentiality laws apply. This would not be the case if
family members are monitoring a loved one. This type of policy issue
goes beyond the scope of this RERC.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the RERC use the services of
the ``highly developed'' Geriatric Education Centers, which are
dispersed nationwide, for education, training, and disseminating
efforts.
Discussion: Applicants are required under the first bulleted
activity of this priority to develop and implement a plan to
disseminate the RERC research results to various constituents. NIDRR
believes applicants should have the discretion to determine the best
way to disseminate their information. An applicant could propose to
include the Geriatric Education Centers as part of its plan and the
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However,
NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants should be required
to use the Geriatric Education Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters feel that the high tech requirement of the
RERC should be balanced with a public policy activity that targets
reimbursement of assistive devices, including high tech communication
and monitoring technologies, and health care policy.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees there are complex policy issues that
affect reimbursement of assistive technologies, both high and low tech,
for all persons with disabilities. The Assistive Technology Act of 1998
(AT Act) funds projects to identify, describe and work to remove
barriers that confront all persons with disabilities in their attempt
to acquire assistive technologies. NIDRR will expect this RERC to work
closely with relevant AT Act projects in addressing complex policy
issues surrounding reimbursement of AT devices that would benefit the
aging population.
Changes: The last bullet has been modified to include ``AT Act
projects''
[[Page 32678]]
as potential NIDRR-funded projects with which this RERC may
collaborate.
Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be beneficial if the
RERC was required to quantifiably measure outcome variables that could
be used for determining utilization outcomes for each product developed
by the RERC. Such measures, according to the commenter, would be very
useful to show policymakers the effectiveness of new approaches and
devices.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to explore ways to
incorporate mechanisms that would quantifiably measure outcome
variables and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants
should be required to propose to explore mechanisms that would
quantifiably measure outcome variables.
Changes: None.
Priority 2: Wheelchair Transportation Safety
Comment: One commenter suggested that an activity should be added
to this priority that addresses the transportation safety needs of
manual wheelchair users who are capable of transferring onto a vehicle
seat rather than having to be transported while seated in their
wheelchair.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that issues remain to be addressed with
regard to wheelchair transportation safety. An applicant could propose
to address the transportation safety needs of manual wheelchair users
who transfer into vehicles and the peer review process will evaluate
the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine
that all applicants should be required to propose to explore
transportation safety needs of manual wheelchair users who transfer
into vehicles.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that an activity should be added
to the priority that specifically addresses the unique safety issues
associated with wheelchair users who drive.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenters that issues remain to
be addressed with regard to wheelchair transportation safety. An
applicant could propose to address the unique safety issues of
wheelchair users who drive and the peer review process will evaluate
the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine
that all applicants should be required to propose to address the unique
safety issues of wheelchair users who drive.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested the title of this priority be
changed to better reflect the emphasis on wheelchair user
transportation safety or broaden the scope to include the
transportation safety needs of other groups of individuals with
disabilities.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that the title of the
RERC should be reworded to better reflect the emphasis on wheelchair
users. NIDRR further agrees that there are many other disability groups
(e.g., individuals who are visually, hearing, or cognitively impaired)
who could benefit from an RERC that focused its research and
development efforts on transportation safety needs. However, NIDRR
feels that requiring this RERC to research the transportation safety
needs for such a broad array of disability groups would require greater
resources than have been allocated for this priority. Based upon the
foregoing, an applicant could propose to address the transportation
safety needs of wheelchair users who also have other disabilities and
the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal.
Changes: The title has been changed to the ``RERC on Wheelchair
Transportation Safety.''
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the first activity should be
expanded to require the RERC to gather additional information such as
the cause of accident, the type of incident (i.e., normal driving
maneuver, emergency maneuver, vehicle impact magnitude and direction),
the cause of injury (i.e., wheelchair failure, securement or restraint
failure, or improper securement), and the type of vehicle or
transportation service involved (i.e., school bus, transit bus,
paratransit, personal van).
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that additional
information about vehicle accidents involving wheelchair users would be
beneficial and could ultimately lead to improvements in securement and
vehicle adaptations.
Changes: The first activity has been modified to include ``the
cause of accident,'' ``the cause of injury,'' and ``the type of vehicle
or transportation service involved.''
Comment: A great deal of work has been done on independent
securement that need not be repeated. What's needed is to build on the
existing body of knowledge and incorporate advances made during the
last decade in both wheelchair design and transit system vehicles.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter and expects all
applicants to be knowledgeable about the methodology and literature of
pertinent subject areas and to demonstrate an awareness of the state-
of-the-art in technology.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the development of integrated
occupant restraint systems but feels it is important to require these
efforts to be integrated with all wheelchair securement efforts,
including the universal securement interfaces developed under the third
activity.
Discussion: The fifth activity requires applicants to investigate
integrated occupant restraint systems that are ``independent of the
vehicle.'' NIDRR believes that, in order to be independent of the
vehicle, the integrated occupant restraint system must also be
independent of wheelchair securement systems given that wheelchair
securement systems are attached to vehicles. However, NIDRR does agree
with the commenter's general concern that integrated occupant restraint
systems developed by this RERC should not interfere with, or in any way
compromise, the integrity of currently marketed wheelchair securement
devices or those developed under the third activity.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the third activity is too
limiting in that it refers only to development of a universal
securement interface that would enable users to safely and
independently secure their wheelchairs and scooters. Other securement
options need to be investigated that may be more feasible, more rapidly
commercialized and more widely accepted while achieving the goal of
being safer and easier to operate.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that the concept of a universal
securement interface capable of being independently operated by most
wheelchair users is an important concept that must be investigated. An
applicant is free to propose to investigate other securement options
and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal.
However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants should be
required to propose to investigate other securement options.
Changes: None.
Comment: Traditional dynamic testing is fairly straight forward but
quite expensive given that it requires a test sled. Emphasis of the
fourth activity should be on the development of lower cost tests, both
static and dynamic, that are adequate to define the crashworthiness of
wheelchairs as either acceptable or not acceptable. In
[[Page 32679]]
addition, this effort should include research to define the level of
modification at which a wheelchair must be retested.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that it is important to
investigate low-cost methods for testing the crashworthiness of
wheelchairs and after-market and customized wheelchair seating systems
and peripheral devices. NIDRR agrees that issues remain to be addressed
with regard to wheelchair testing and retesting. An applicant could
propose research to define the level of modification at which a
wheelchair must be retested and the peer review process will evaluate
the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine
that all applicants should be required to propose research to define
the level of modification at which a wheelchair must be retested.
Changes: The fourth activity has been modified to include ``* * *
methods, including low-cost methods, for testing, both static and
dynamic, the crashworthiness * * *''.
Comment: Performance standards are an essential part of the process
of implementing good securement and restraint practices on a wide
scale. However, before starting work on new standards, the RERC should
carefully study the response of manufacturers, transit agencies, and
the public to the newly established standards on belt-type securement.
Discussion: The seventh activity requires the RERC to investigate
the use of new or existing voluntary performance standards that would
address problems associated with wheelchair-seated occupants.
Development and implementation of new or existing voluntary performance
standards are very time consuming and require input from a broad array
of constituents, including those mentioned by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter feels that the requirement for applicants to
develop a plan for ensuring that all new and improved technologies are
successfully transferred to the marketplace is a bit strong. The
commenter went on to suggest that perhaps a better statement might be
``* * * provide evidence that a good effort has been made to transfer *
* *'' and that levels of success in technology transfer should be
clearly defined.
Discussion: Technology transfer is a critical activity that
requires effort and planning. NIDRR believes that requiring all RERCs
to develop a plan within the first year of the grant cycle promotes
consideration of technology transfer issues throughout the life of the
grant. NIDRR does not believe that the requirement as stated is too
``strong.''
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter feels that the requirement for the RERC to
conduct a state-of-the-science conference is one way to disseminate
information but experience has shown it to be very limited in value.
The commenter went on to suggest that an alternative might be to
demonstrate active dissemination efforts (e.g., direct contact of user
groups, regional meetings, e-mail publicity about a web-site as opposed
to the passive approach of building a web-site that only curious people
find, etc.).
Discussion: In addition to the mandatory state-of-the-science
conference, applicants are required under the first bulleted activity
of this priority to develop and implement a plan to disseminate the
RERC research results to various constituents. NIDRR believes
applicants should have the discretion to determine the best way to
disseminate their information.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the priority be expanded to
include all aspects of transportation safety for individuals with
physical disabilities including the various modes of public and private
transportation (e.g., roads, rails, air, and water) and high-risk
activities such as boarding, exiting, and vehicle maneuvers.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenters that issues remain to
be addressed with regard to other aspects of transportation safety for
individuals with physical disabilities. However, NIDRR feels that
requiring this RERC to research the transportation safety needs for all
public and transportation modes as well as high-risk activities would
require greater resources than have been allocated for this priority.
An applicant could propose to address the transportation safety needs
of individuals with physical disabilities in addition to those
published in this priority and the peer review process will evaluate
the merits of the proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believes that, before NIDRR establishes an
activity investigating integrated occupant restraint systems, the
relative merits of integrated restraints should be evaluated,
considering their impact on non-travel activities, wheelchair design,
compatibility with other required postural supports, and medical issues
in addition to the biomechanics of crash safety.
Discussion: As noted in the background statement, there are
numerous problems associated with anchoring vehicle-mounted occupant
restraint systems for wheelchair-seated occupants, thereby justifying
NIDRR's requirement to investigate the concept of integrated occupant
restraint systems that are independent of the vehicle.
Changes: None.
Comment: The terminology ``use of new or existing standards'' is
unclear. There are incompatibilities between existing standards that
need to be addressed without additional crashworthy requirements that
may not be justified by injury data but would place undue burden on
consumers, clinicians, and manufacturers.
Discussion: NIDRR's reference to ``existing standards'' in the
seventh activity is based upon the background statement where two of
voluntary performance standards (i.e., ANSI/RESNA WC-19 and SAE J2249)
were discussed. These voluntary standards were developed by a diverse
group, including researchers, manufacturers, relevant federal agencies,
and consumers, as an attempt to improve transportation safety for
wheelchair-seated travelers. NIDRR recognizes that there are some
inconsistencies between these standards. NIDRR also recognizes the
importance of obtaining quality injury and accident data of accidents
involving wheelchair-seated travelers (see activity one). NIDRR
believes that the required activities of this RERC will provide a solid
foundation for research, development, testing, and information
dissemination related to the development and implementation of
voluntary standards aimed at improving transportation safety for
wheelchair-seated travelers.
Changes: None.
Comment: The proposed priority did not make any distinction between
children and adults, so we assume that both are to be included in RERC
projects. In particular, there are special safety issues that are
primarily related to children in wheelchairs that need to be addressed.
Discussion: The priority purposefully does not distinguish between
children and adults. NIDRR agrees with the commenter that there are
special safety issues related to children in wheelchairs (i.e., design
requirements for restraints used with smaller children and the types of
head support that are suitable and safe for use by children during
transportation). An applicant could propose activities that focus
specifically on children, adults, or both and the peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: The detailed quantitative data on motor-vehicle crashes
needed to
[[Page 32680]]
determine the incidence and extent of injuries to wheelchair-seated
occupants in relation to the vehicle, occupant, restraint factors, and
crash are not available, and will not be available for the foreseeable
future. A code to identify wheelchair'seated occupants was recently
added to the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) data set, but
because of the representative sampling strategy used in the NASS, it
will be many years before this database provides a useful number of
crashes involving wheelchair-seated occupants. What is needed now is a
program that is aimed specifically at conducting in-depth
investigations of as many motor-vehicle crashes involving wheelchair-
seated occupants as possible in order to identify injury modes and
risks that are unique to wheelchair-seated occupants in different types
of crashes and to provide real-world feedback regarding the performance
and effectiveness of equipment that complies with voluntary safety
standards.
Discussion: An applicant could propose a program that is aimed
specifically at conducting in-depth investigations of motor vehicle
crashes involving wheelchair-seated occupants under the first activity
and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal.
Changes: None.
Priority 3: Mobile Wireless Technologies for Persons With Disabilities
On April 18, 2001, we published a notice of proposed priority in
the Federal Register (66 FR 20078). The Department of Education
received 3 letters commenting on the notice of proposed priorities by
the deadline date. Technical and other minor changes--and suggested
changes we are not legally authorized to make under statutory
authority--are not addressed.
Comment: An important outcome of an RERC is a body of objective
knowledge that is archived for widespread use. The publication of
results in peer reviewed literature that is appropriate for the
constituencies of the center should be included as an option in the
RERC's dissemination plan.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter and supports the use of
peer-reviewed journals as one means for disseminating RERC research
results. NIDRR points out that the second bulleted activity does
include ``appropriate journals'' as part of the dissemination plan
requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: The review process should include consideration of how the
applicant will conduct work that will promote long-term impact on the
accessibility of wireless technologies after the conclusion of the
grant.
Discussion: As the background statement suggests, the information
technology field, including mobile wireless technologies, is evolving
at such a high rate that it would virtually be impossible to determine
the long-term impact on the accessibility of mobile wireless
technologies after conclusion of this grant.
Changes: None.
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center Program
The authority for RERCs is contained in section 204(b)(3) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 764(b)(3)). The
Assistant Secretary may make awards for up to 60 months through grants
or cooperative agreements to public and private agencies and
organizations, including institutions of higher education, Indian
tribes, and tribal organizations, to conduct research, demonstration,
and training activities regarding rehabilitation technology in order to
enhance opportunities for meeting the needs of, and addressing the
barriers confronted by, individuals with disabilities in all aspects of
their lives. An RERC must be operated by or in collaboration with an
institution of higher education or a nonprofit organization.
Description of Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
RERCs carry out research or demonstration activities by:
(a) Developing and disseminating innovative methods of applying
advanced technology, scientific achievement, and psychological and
social knowledge to (1) solve rehabilitation problems and remove
environmental barriers, and (2) study new or emerging technologies,
products, or environments;
(b) Demonstrating and disseminating (1) innovative models for the
delivery of cost-effective rehabilitation technology services to rural
and urban areas, and (2) other scientific research to assist in meeting
the employment and independent living needs of individuals with severe
disabilities; or
(c) Facilitating service delivery systems change through (1) the
development, evaluation, and dissemination of consumer-responsive and
individual and family-centered innovative models for the delivery to
both rural and urban areas of innovative cost-effective rehabilitation
technology services, and (2) other scientific research to assist in
meeting the employment and independent needs of individuals with severe
disabilities.
Each RERC must provide training opportunities to individuals,
including individuals with disabilities, to become researchers of
rehabilitation technology and practitioners of rehabilitation
technology in conjunction with institutions of higher education and
nonprofit organizations.
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 RERC, 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.
Priority 1: RERC on Technology for Successful Aging
Background
Americans are living longer, and because of this demographic
revolution the landscape of disability is also changing. Since 1900,
average life expectancy has increased dramatically from less than 50
years of age to approximately 76 years, and centenarians now represent
the fastest growing age group in the United States (Bureau of the
Census, ``Current Population Reports,'' pgs. 70-73, 1993). During this
same time period, the percentage of Americans who are 65 years or older
has more than tripled (from 4.1% in 1900 to 12.7% in 1999) and the
actual number increased eleven times from 3.1 million to 34.5 million.
This number is expected to double by the year 2030 (Administration on
Aging, ``Profile of Older Americans, 2000,'': http://www.aoa.dhhs.gov/
aoa/stats/profile/).
In 1994-1995 more than half of those 65 and older (52.5%) reported
having at least one disability and it is estimated that one-third of
this population has a severe disability. Over 4.4 million (14%) have
difficulty in carrying out activities of daily living (ADLs), which
includes bathing, dressing, eating, and getting around the house, and
6.5 million (21%) reported difficulty in carrying out instrumental
activities of daily living (IADLs) such as preparing of meals,
shopping, managing money, using the telephone, doing housework, and
taking medication. However, despite the increased risks of disability
associated
[[Page 32681]]
with aging, ninety-five percent of older Americans choose to remain in
their own homes, use public services and function independently as they
age (Current Population Reports, ``Americans with Disabilities, 1994-
1995,'' http://www.census.gov/main/cprs.html).
Although there are many similarities between younger and older
persons with disabilities (e.g., the goal of independent living), there
are also important differences. Younger persons with disabilities are
much more likely to experience impairment or disability in only one
area (e.g., cognitive, hearing, vision, or mobility), whereas older
persons tend to have multiple chronic conditions, presenting a mix of
symptoms, impairments, and functional limitations. Older persons with
disabilities also differ from their younger counterparts in that they
are predominantly female, have lower income, and have a smaller network
of social support.
As the baby boomer generation ages, the challenge for policymakers
and industry is to fully leverage advances in information,
communications, sensors, advanced materials, lighting, and many other
technologies to optimize existing public and private investments and to
create new environments that respond to an aging society's needs
(Coughlin, J.F., ``Technology Needs of Aging Boomers,'' Issues in
Science and Technology Online: http://bob.nap.edu/issues/16.1/
coughlin.htm, pg. 5, 1999). There is a need for an integrated
infrastructure for independent aging that should include a safe home, a
productive workplace, personal communications, and lifelong
transportation.
The NIDRR Long-Range Plan suggests that aging of the disabled
population in conjunction with quality of life issues dictates a
particular focus on prevention and alleviation of secondary
disabilities and coexisting conditions and on health maintenance over
the lifespan. Research in this area must focus on the development and
evaluation of environmental options in the built environment and the
communications environment, including such approaches as universal
design, modular design, and assistive technology that enable
individuals with disabilities and society to select the most
appropriate means to accommodate or alleviate limitations (NIDRR, Long-
Range Plan: 1999-2003, pg. 49).
Home environmental interventions and assistive and universally
designed technologies have the potential to increase independence for
community-based older persons with disabilities. A new generation of
home-based monitoring and communication technologies could enable
caregivers at any distance to monitor and respond to the needs of older
friends, family, residents, and patients. Systems that make full use of
the existing telecommunications infrastructure could be used to ensure
that medicine has been taken, that physical functions are normal, and
that minor symptoms are not indicators of a larger problem. They could
provide early identification of problems that, if left untreated, may
result in hospitalization for the individual and higher health care
costs to society (Coughlin, J.F., op cit., pg. 7, 1999).
The fact that most older adults choose to remain in their own homes
as they age is a cost effective option from a public policy perspective
provided that the home can be used as a platform to ensure overall
wellness and community integration. For example, introduction of a new
generation of appliances, health monitors, and related devices that can
safely support independence and remote caregiving could make the home a
viable alternative to long-term care for many older adults. Research
should go beyond questions of design and physical accessibility to the
development of an integrated home that is attractive to us when we are
younger and supportive of us as we age (Coughlin, J.F., op cit., pg. 6,
1999).
In the emerging, evolving field of assistive technology, there are
gaps in the research. This is particularly true for older adults with
disabilities. To create enabling home environments, research is needed
on assistive and universally designed technologies and environmental
interventions that are safe, affordable, support independence and
social participation, and involve the integration of information
technology and ergonomic principles. As part of achieving this goal,
there is a need to develop appropriate devices that unobtrusively
monitor key needs (i.e., taking medications, eating, and drinking), as
well as critical events (i.e., falls or stove left on). There is also a
need for research to determine the most effective ways to inform
professionals, families, and consumers about new and emerging assistive
and universally designed technologies, the best ways to use them, and
ways to pay for them.
Another important area relates to the needs of older persons with
cognitive impairments. This population presents the greatest challenge
to creating enabling environments. According to recent findings,
individuals with cognitive impairment use the fewest numbers of
assistive devices but could benefit from the development of ``smart''
environments--devices that anticipate needs, suggest (or actually
provide) alternatives, and limit the amount of sensory input and
decision making required (Mann, W., Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation
8(2), pgs. 35-52, 1993).
Priority
We will establish an RERC on technologies for successful aging that
will focus on technological solutions to promote the health, safety,
independence, active engagement and quality of life of older persons
with disabilities. The RERC must:
(a) Identify, assess, and evaluate current and emerging needs, and
barriers to meeting those needs, for home-based monitoring and
communication technologies that promote health, independence, and
active engagement of older persons with disabilities in the community
and with family and friends;
(b) Investigate, develop, and evaluate home-based monitoring and
communication technologies to promote health independence, and active
engagement of older persons with disabilities;
(c) Investigate, develop, and evaluate technologies that can be
used to create ``smart'' environments that anticipate needs, suggest
(or actually provide) alternatives, and limit the amount of sensory
input and decision making required of older persons with multiple types
of impairments, including sensory, mobility, and cognitive;
(d) Identify, develop and evaluate strategies and training
materials to promote knowledge about new and existing technologies for
use by caregivers, home health and other service providers, case
managers and by older persons with disabilities; and
(e) Develop and explore various strategies for strengthening
partnerships with industry to facilitate the development of new
technologies and applications that are appropriate for use by older
persons with multiple types of impairments and functional capabilities.
In addition to activities proposed by the applicant to carry out
these purposes, the RERC must:
Develop and implement in the first year of the grant, and
in consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate the
RERC's research results to all relevant target audiences including, but
not limited to, clinicians, engineers, manufacturers, service
providers, older persons with
[[Page 32682]]
disabilities, families, disability organizations, technology service
providers, case managers, businesses, and appropriate journals;
Develop and implement in the first year of the grant, and
in consultation with the NIDRR-funded RERC on Technology Transfer, a
utilization plan for ensuring that all new and improved technologies
developed by this RERC are successfully transferred to the marketplace;
Conduct in the third year of the grant a state-of-the-
science conference on home-based monitoring and communication
technologies to promote the health, independence, and active engagement
of older persons with disabilities and publish a comprehensive report
on the final outcomes of the conference in the fourth year of the
grant; and
Collaborate on research projects of mutual interest with
NIDRR-funded projects, such as the RERCs on Universal Design and the
Built Environment, Mobile Wireless Technologies, Information Technology
Access, Telecommunications Access, Telerehabilitation, the RRTC on
Aging with a Disability, and Assistive Technology Act projects as
identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.
Priority 2: RERC on Wheelchair Transportation Safety
Background
Americans live in a very mobile society where access to, and use
of, public and private transportation services is essential to daily
living. There are roughly 1.7 million Americans living outside of
institutions who use wheelchairs and scooters (Kaye, H.S., Kang, T.,
and LaPlante, M.P., ``Mobility Device Use in the United States,''
Disability Statistics Report, (14), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education, NIDRR, June, 2000), including those who rely heavily on
public and private transportation services to commute to work and
school, participate in recreational activities, and carry out daily
activities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
requires that children with disabilities, including those who use
wheelchairs, must be transported safely to educational settings. The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires that all public
and private transportation systems, including trains, buses, and
subways be accessible to persons with disabilities, including those who
use wheelchairs. (The ADA does not address air transportation and
school buses.) However, in a recent report eighty-two percent of
wheelchair users stated they have difficulty accessing their local
public transportation system (Kaye, H.S., Kang, T., and LaPlante, M.P.,
``Mobility Device Use in the United States.'' Disability Statistics
Report, (14), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, NIDRR,
June, 2000).
Many wheelchair users are not capable of transferring into a
vehicle seat and instead are required to travel seated while in their
wheelchairs. However, most wheelchairs are not designed to function as
vehicle seats, thus putting wheelchair-seated travelers at greater risk
of injury compared to those who sit in standard vehicle seats
(Bertocci, G.E., et. al., ``Computer Simulation and Sled Test
Validation of a Powerbase Wheelchair and Occupant Subjected to Frontal
Crash Conditions,'' IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering,
Vol. 7, No. 2, pg. 234, June, 1999). Providing effective occupant
protection in a motor vehicle is a multifaceted problem that involves
the vehicle seat, how the seat is anchored to the vehicle, and an
occupant restraint system (seatbelts, airbags, etc). Manufacturers of
motor vehicle seats are required to perform extensive testing to ensure
that vehicle seating systems are designed and constructed to provide
support for the occupant under crash conditions (Department of
Transportation, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, ``Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Seating Systems,'' U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC, 49 CFR 571.207). However, wheelchairs
used as motor vehicle seats are not necessarily designed for such use
and must rely upon after-market products to secure or anchor the
wheelchair to the vehicle. Unfortunately, tie-down systems are not
afforded the same scrutiny as vehicle seating systems thereby
increasing the likelihood that the tie-down systems could fail and the
wheelchair and its occupant could become a projectile in crash
settings.
Laboratory research has dramatically demonstrated the potential
danger for wheelchair riders not adequately secured using wheelchair
tie-down and restraint systems (WTORS) during vehicle collisions
(Benson, J.B. and Schneider, L.W., ``Improving the crashworthiness of
restraints for handicapped children,'' In: Advances in belt restraint
systems, design, performance, and usage: Society of Automobile
Engineers Technical Paper #840528, Warrandale, PA., pgs. 389-404,
1984). Although there has been an increased awareness about wheelchair
rider safety, there is a paucity of information regarding the risk to
wheelchair riders while riding in motor vehicles. In an effort to
better characterize wheelchair rider risk, an analysis of motor vehicle
accident data for the general public was conducted. According to Shaw,
the most readily accessible and quantifiable information regarding
vehicle accidents involving onboard wheelchairs was found in the
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database that is
maintained by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC staff
collected information from a sample of 95 (out of an estimated 6,000)
hospitals nationwide that are equipped to accommodate emergency visits.
Based upon data collected from January 1988 through September 1996, an
estimated 1,320 wheelchair riders were injured as a result of vehicle
accidents (Shaw, G., ``Wheelchair rider risk in motor vehicles: A
technical note,'' Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development,
Vol. 37, No. 1, Pgs. 89-100, January and February, 2000).
Similar results were found in a different study that looked at
NEISS data from 1986 to 1990. In that study, an estimated 2,200
wheelchair riders were injured and the author concluded that ``improper
securement accidents generally occur when the vehicle stops too quickly
or makes a sharp turn.'' Furthermore, the author could only find the
record of one fatality between 1973 and 1991 that resulted from an
occupant falling from the wheelchair due to a sudden stop (Richardson,
H.A., ``Wheelchair occupants injured in motor vehicle-related
accidents,'' U.S. Department of Transportation National Center for
Statistics and Analysis, Mathematical Analysis Division, Washington, DC
1991).
Both studies expressed the need for caution when using NEISS data
to define wheelchair rider injury risk. Although the NEISS data source
provides a perspective regarding the approximate number of incidents
and insight as to the kinds of injury-producing situations, it does not
provide sufficient specific detail such as a consistent reporting and
classification of vehicle type and size (i.e., large, heavy vehicles
versus small, lighter vehicles), the WTORS used, and the death and
injury rate per unit of exposure. This information is needed to
establish the risk and to evaluate the efficiency of risk-reduction
efforts (Shaw, G., op cit., 2000).
Voluntary standards have been developed to establish general design
and performance requirements for wheelchairs intended to also be used
as
[[Page 32683]]
a vehicle seat and for WTORS. The American National Standards
Institute/Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America (ANSI/
RESNA) wheelchair standard (hereafter referred to ANSI/RESNA WC-19)
provides wheelchair manufacturers with design and testing guidelines
under frontal impact conditions for wheelchairs intended to be used as
seats in motor vehicles (American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America (RESNA), ``WC/
Volume 1, Section 19: Wheelchairs used as seats in motor vehicles,''
RESNA standard, Arlington, VA: RESNA, 2000). Similarly, a standard
developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE J2249) provides
guidance for the installation and usage of WTORS (SAE, ``SAE J2249:
Wheelchair tie-downs and occupant restraints systems for use in motor
vehicles,'' Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 1996).
Although these voluntary standards address the safety needs of
wheelchair-seated travelers, there is still much that needs to be
accomplished. For instance, the ANSI/RESNA WC-19 standards are used to
assess the crashworthiness of complete wheelchair systems through a
variety of tests including dynamic frontal impact testing. However,
there are no requirements to test the crashworthiness of wheelchair
systems under varying impact directions, such as side or rear impact
crashes. Studies of both the biomechanics and kinematics of occupants
and wheelchairs subjected to side and rear impact crashes could lead to
a better understanding of injury risk for wheelchair-seated occupants
under these circumstances and improved design criteria and safety
standards.
The SAE J2249 standards recommend using four-point, strap-type
wheelchair tie-downs for securing wheelchairs to a vehicle. Devices
such as these have been used for some time and are effective if the
chair is designed to accommodate the strains and is secured properly.
However, strap-type tie-downs are cumbersome and time-consuming,
warranting the need for development of wheelchair tie-downs that are
both safe and easy to operate.
Finally, it is not uncommon for rehabilitation technology
professionals to order a wheelchair frame or base from one supplier and
add to it a separate seating system or other peripheral device, such as
a ventilator, that has been purchased from another supplier. Despite an
effort to evaluate the crashworthiness of a wheelchair system using the
ANSI/RESNA WC-19 standards, the common practice of adding after-market
or customized equipment invalidates the test results of a wheelchair
tested with originally manufactured components. Subsequently, the
after-market or customized equipment are not subjected to the same
dynamic impact testing used on the original wheelchair system to
evaluate its ability to withstand crash-level forces (Van Roosmalen,
L., et. al., ``Proposed Test Method for and Evaluation of Wheelchair
Seating System (WCSS) Crashworthiness,'' Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, Vol. 37, No. 5, Pgs. 543-553, September and
October, 2000).
Perhaps one of the most successful safety devices introduced by the
automobile industry is the safety belt, or occupant restraint system.
It is estimated that safety belts save 9,500 lives every year (National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``America's Experience with Seat
Belt and Child Seat Use,'' January 2, 2001: www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/
injury/airbags/presbelt/america_ seatbelt.html) and many States now
make it mandatory for occupants riding in private vehicles to wear
safety belts. Traditional vehicle seating systems protect their
occupants through properly positioned occupant restraint systems and
crashworthy seat design (Department of Transportation, U.S. National
Center for Health Statistics, ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Seating Systems,'' U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 49
CFR 571.207). Unfortunately, individuals who must remain seated in
their wheelchairs while traveling in motor vehicles are unable to
benefit from traditional seating systems. According to the SAE J2249
standards, the current practice for wheelchair-seated occupant pelvic
restraints (lap belts) is to anchor the belts to the vehicle floor or
to rear wheelchair tie-downs. Current practice for the shoulder
restraint is to anchor one end of the belt on the vehicle wall or
ceiling and the lower end to the pelvic restraint belt (Society of
Automotive Engineers, ``SAE J2249: Wheelchair tie-downs and occupant
restraints (WTORS) for use in motor vehicles,'' 1996). ANSI/RESNA WC-19
recommends an additional wheelchair integrated pelvic restraint on
wheelchairs that are used in motor vehicles (American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North
America (RESNA), ``WC/ Volume 1, Section 19: Wheelchairs used as seats
in motor vehicles,'' RESNA Standard, Arlington, VA: RESNA, 2000).
However, there are numerous problems associated with anchoring vehicle-
mounted occupant restraint systems for wheelchair-seated occupants
including, but not limited to, the limited number of anchoring options
due to window locations, seating positions, and the vehicle's
structural integrity. In addition, all users, regardless of wheelchair
models, seat heights, etc., are required to use the same fixed occupant
restraint systems that have the potential of compromising safety belt
fit, comfort, and occupant safety.
Priority
We will establish an RERC on transportation to improve the safety
of wheelchair users who remain seated in their wheelchairs while using
public and private transportation services and to investigate new
wheelchair securement technologies that might enable wheelchair users
to independently secure and release the wheelchair without the need for
a second person. The RERC must:
(a) Investigate and report on the incidence, extent, and nature of
injury of wheelchair riders due to motor vehicle accidents, making a
distinction between the cause of accident, the cause of injury, the
type of vehicle or transportation service involved, and the vehicle
size and weight, and include recommendations for ways to minimize
injury;
(b) Investigate and report on safety issues, including both
kinematics and biomechanics, related to wheelchair-seated occupants
subjected to side and rear impact crashes;
(a) Investigate, develop and evaluate universal securement
interfaces that would enable wheelchair and scooter users to safely and
independently secure their wheelchairs and scooters to motor vehicles;
(b) Investigate and compare methods, including low-cost methods,
for testing, both static and dynamic, the crashworthiness of after-
market and customized wheelchair seating systems and peripheral devices
and, if found to be viable, develop strategies for integrating these
methods into existing voluntary wheelchair performance standards;
(e) Investigate, develop, and evaluate integrated occupant
restraint systems that are independent of the vehicle and easy for
wheelchair-seated occupants to operate; and
(f) Investigate the use of new or existing voluntary performance
standards that would address problems associated with wheelchair-seated
occupants subjected to side and rear impact crashes and potential
benefits of
[[Page 32684]]
using integrated occupant restraint systems, universal securement
interfaces, and after-market and customized wheelchair seating systems
and peripheral devices.
In addition to the activities proposed by the applicant to carry
out the purposes, the RERC must:
Develop and implement in the first year of the grant, and
in consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate the
RERC's research results to clinicians, engineers, manufacturers,
persons with disabilities, disability organizations, technology service
providers, businesses, and appropriate journals;
Develop and implement in the first year, and in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded RERC on Technology Transfer, a
utilization plan for ensuring that all new and improved technologies
developed by this RERC are successfully transferred to the marketplace;
Conduct in the third year of the grant a state-of-the-
science conference on wheelchair transportation and publish a
comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference in the
fourth year of the grant;
Collaborate on research projects of mutual interest with
other projects, such as the NIDRR-funded RERC on Wheeled Mobility and
the Federal Transit Administration-funded Project Action, as identified
through consultation with the NIDRR project officer; and
Collaborate with relevant Federal agencies responsible for
the administration of public laws that address access to and usability
of public and private transportation for individuals with disabilities
including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Federal Transit Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and other relevant Federal agencies identified by the
NIDRR project officer.
Priority 3: RERC on Mobile Wireless Technologies for Persons With
Disabilities
Background
The information technology (IT) revolution is fundamentally
altering the way Americans work, purchase goods and services,
communicate, and play. Today, one can access information using any
number of electronic devices and networks, including computers
connected to ``plain old telephone lines'' (POTS), televisions
connected to cable or digital satellite networks, cellular telephones,
or wireless hand-held personal digital assistant devices. Unlike
earlier information technologies (i.e., print, radio, telephone,
television and telefax), mobile communications networks, the Internet
and the World Wide Web did not enter into our daily lives gradually--
rather, they exploded onto the scene. While the economic impact of this
transformation has not been fully evaluated at either the individual or
systems level, it is significant.
The proliferation of information technologies, including wireless
technologies, does not guarantee accessibility for persons with
disabilities. According to a recent study, only 23.9% of people with
disabilities have access to a computer at home compared to just over
half (51.7%) of their non-disabled counterparts. The gap in Internet
use is even more striking: roughly 10% of people with disabilities
connect to the Internet compared to almost 40% of those without
disabilities. Elderly people with disabilities are even less likely to
make use of these technologies. Among those 65 years of age or older,
only 10% of individuals with disabilities have computers at home and,
of those, only 2.2% use the Internet (Kaye, H.S., ``Computer and
Internet Use Among People with Disabilities,'' Disability Statistics
Report (14), U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Washington, D.C., 1999).
Chapter 5 of NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (64 FR 45768) discusses the
importance of making information technology accessible to persons with
disabilities of all ages, and includes a discussion of universal access
and the need for continued research and development in this area.
Unfortunately, while advances in computers and information technologies
create new opportunities for some individuals, they create barriers for
others. The proliferation of electronic visual and tactile displays
(i.e., LCD, LED, and touch screens) on home appliances, business
equipment, and public access terminals also poses a major problem for
individuals with sensory and motor deficits unless alternative methods
for accessing and using these devices are made available. Conversely,
audio cues (beeps) cannot convey information to individuals who are
deaf or hard of hearing. Of particular concern is that an increasing
number of functions are being integrated onto single chips or
motherboards, obviating the need for third party accessories such as
sound cards or voice input devices. This makes changes or modifications
to these built-in features difficult or even impossible.
Cellular communications are wireless communications that occur in
small ``cells'' or geographic areas on land. When one talks on a
cellular phone their voice is transmitted to a nearby tower (usually
within ten miles). Cellular phone calls are then passed from tower to
tower as cellular users move from one geographic area to the next. To
manage all the communications, the cellular phones and towers must
``speak'' the same language. The Internet and World Wide Web
revolutions began in the 1990's and, in less than a decade, have been
responsible for reshaping the way information is accessed and the way
commerce is conducted (Hjelm, J., Designing Wireless Information
Services, Wiley Computer Publishing, New York, pg. 2, 2000).
Technologies that launched the digital revolution are undergoing
rapid changes, resulting in a new generation of mobile information
systems. The Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) was developed in 1997
by numerous wireless companies in an attempt to make a common interface
for wireless devices to access the Internet (Hjelm, J., op cit., pg.
293, 2000). This standard is currently being implemented into cellular
phones and personal digital assistants and includes the technology to
transmit data back and forth using ``micro-browsers.'' Micro-browsers
are analogous to Internet browsers used on personal computers but have
far fewer features so only the most relevant information is
communicated using WAP (Mock, D.L., ``Wireless 101: A Guide to Wireless
Investing for Newbies and non-Techies,'' Rev. 2, pgs. 13-14, July,
2000). A new technology that is poised to revolutionize the IT industry
is the Bluetooth Protocol Architecture, the name given to a new short-
range radio frequency technology that could ultimately replace data
wire connections on just about any electronic device. Bluetooth
technologies will enable electronic devices within about 30 feet of
each other to communicate over a high-speed wireless connection and
could transcend any environment (Hjelm, J., op cit., pg. 292, 2000).
The future generation of wireless technologies, commonly referred
to as ``third generation'' systems, will ultimately have the capacity
to transmit data, text, voice, and graphics between terminals that may
be fixed or moving, with bandwidth that varies according to the instant
demand and is charged for on that basis (Shipley, T. and Gill, J.,
``Inclusive Design of Wireless Systems,'' Royal National Institute for
the Blind, London, England, pg. 27, 2000). Third generation systems
will provide Internet
[[Page 32685]]
access as well as point-to-point communication, and will ultimately
merge with other wireless technologies, such as Bluetooth (Ibid).
The ubiquitous nature of mobile wireless communications brings with
it a host of opportunities as well as challenges. For example, a
cellular telephone cannot present information in the same way that a
laptop or desktop can. Furthermore, different environments require
different types of input and output. It is difficult to use a keyboard
when walking, difficult and even dangerous to use a device that
requires visual attention when driving, and devices that require speech
input or output are not practical in noisy environments.
People with disabilities should be able to benefit from the
evolving digital revolution on equal terms, freed from the barriers of
inaccessible technology (Ibid, pg. 27). This will happen only if the
new wave of wireless communications systems are designed to accommodate
a broad range of abilities among users (Ibid, pg. 2). Without an
inclusive approach to design, large segments of this target population
will find themselves precluded from accessing and participating in the
new information driven society (Ibid). The infrastructure to support
the new era of wireless technologies will be complex and expensive, and
because of this there will be reluctance to make changes once systems
are operational. Therefore, it is imperative that the design of both
systems and equipment be considered carefully at the outset of
development.
Further, there is a critical shortage of engineers and product
designers who are capable of providing expertise to developers and
manufacturers about incorporating accessible and universal design
features into their IT products. Achieving this goal will require
product designers and IT experts to collaborate more closely with
clinicians, service providers, and consumers to identify potential
applications of new telecommunications devices and systems that support
independent living, employment, and community integration. Finally,
more individuals need to be trained to educate consumers, customer
service professionals, technical writers, web developers, marketers,
and other IT related professionals about accessible and usable
information technologies.
NIDRR currently funds RERCs on Information Technology Access and
Telecommunications Access. The RERC on Mobile Wireless Technologies for
Persons with Disabilities will be required to coordinate with these two
RERCs on relevant policy and regulatory activities and other activities
of mutual interest.
Priority
We will establish an RERC on mobile wireless technologies to
investigate promising applications of, and facilitate equitable access
to, future generations of mobile wireless technologies for individuals
with disabilities of all ages and to expand research and development
capacity within this subject area. The RERC must:
(a) Investigate, develop, and evaluate technological solutions in
collaboration with industry to promote universal access and usability
in future generations of mobile wireless technologies;
(b) Investigate, develop, and evaluate applications of mobile
wireless technologies that could benefit persons with disabilities in
independent living, employment, and community integration such as
healthcare monitoring, environmental control, emergency location
signaling devices, scheduling maintenance, mobile communications, etc.;
(c) Investigate, develop, and evaluate innovative and flexible
multi-modal interface methods for accessing and using future
generations of mobile wireless technologies such as home appliances,
mobile communication systems and portable information terminals, office
equipment, health-monitoring devices, and public access terminals;
(d) Identify, implement, and evaluate, in collaboration with the
wireless IT industry, professional IT associations, and institutions of
higher education, innovative approaches to expand capacity in
accessible IT studies including design, research and development;
(e) Monitor trends and evolving product concepts that represent and
signify future directions for mobile wireless technologies; and
(f) Provide technical assistance to public and private
organizations responsible for developing policies, guidelines and
standards that affect the accessibility of mobile wireless technologies
and systems that are manufactured and implemented.
In addition to the activities proposed by the applicant to carry
out these purposes, the RERC must:
Collaborate with industry, industrial consortia, and
professional and trade associations on all activities;
Develop and implement in the first year of the grant, and
in consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate the
RERC's research results to disability organizations, persons with
disabilities, technology service providers, businesses, manufacturers,
and appropriate journals;
Develop and implement in the first year of the grant, and
in consultation with the NIDRR-funded RERC on Technology Transfer, a
utilization plan for ensuring that all new and improved technologies
developed by this RERC are successfully transferred to the marketplace;
Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on accessible
information technologies in the third year of the grant cycle and
publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference
in the fourth year of the grant cycle; and
Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with
relevant NIDRR-funded projects such as the RERCs on Information
Technology Access and Telecommunications Access and the Information
Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center, as identified
through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.
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:
www.ed.gov/legislation/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 the document is 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 Numbers 84.133E,
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center) Program Authority: 29
U.S.C. 762(g) and 764.
Dated: June 12, 2001.
Francis V. Corrigan,
Deputy Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research.
[FR Doc. 01-15154 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P