[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32676-32685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15154]



[[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

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[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: 
[email protected].
    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