[Federal Register: June 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 41765-41771]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jn02-125]
[[Page 41765]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) Program; Notice
[[Page 41766]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) Program
AGENCY: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary announces final priorities for up to
five Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs). The Assistant
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities for competitions in
fiscal year (FY) 2002 and later years. 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities are effective on July 19, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3412, Switzer Building,
Washington, DC 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880 or via the
Internet: donna.nangle@ed.gov
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 independence living needs of individuals
with severe disabilities.
Each RERC must provide training opportunities in conjunction with
institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations to assist
individuals, including individuals with disabilities, in becoming
rehabilitation technology researchers and practitioners.
We 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.
Centers of Excellence
RERCs are expected to function as Centers of Excellence. The NIDRR
Centers of Excellence Model identifies four major areas in which
centers are expected to excel: (1) Scientific research and development;
(2) capacity building and training for research and development and
practice; (3) relevance and productivity (including dissemination); and
(4) administration and evaluation. RERCs must develop consumer and
industrial partnerships to ensure the relevance and appropriateness of
research directions and to transfer research-generated knowledge into
commercial products. Each RERC must operate as part of a national
network and extend beyond the boundaries of its programmatic objectives
to become a leader in its field, attract new research dollars, and
significantly improve the education of professionals, consumers, and
manufacturers. For information about NIDRR's Centers of Excellence
Model, applicants are invited to visit the following website: http://
www.cessi.net/pr/RERC/Summative/CoEmodel.html
Program Review
RERCs are required to participate in NIDRR's program review
process. Program review is a key element in NIDRR's quality assurance,
performance monitoring, and evaluation and provides an opportunity for
staff and key stakeholders to interact with grantees and provide
feedback on center activities. As part of this evaluation system, NIDRR
conducts both formative (early in the five-year funding cycle) and
summative (toward the end of the fourth year) reviews. The overall goal
of the formative review is to support grantees in becoming centers of
excellence across the four major areas. The overall goal of the
summative review is to evaluate the quality and relevance of each
center's accomplishments and results.
In accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued
funding depends at all times on satisfactory performance and
accomplishment.
These priorities reflect issues discussed in the New Freedom
Initiative (NFI) and NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (the Plan). The NFI can be
accessed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/
freedominitiative.html The Plan can be accessed at: http://www.ed.gov/
offices/OSERS/NIDRR/Products
We published a notice of proposed priorities for the Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Centers (RERC) Program in the Federal Register on
March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11204).
Except for minor revisions, there are no differences between the
notice of proposed priorities and this notice of final priorities.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority.
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities
21 parties submitted comments. We fully explain these changes in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes elsewhere in this notice. We group
major issues according to subject.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice
inviting applications is published in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Priorities
Background
Technology plays a vital role in the lives of millions of disabled
and older Americans. Advances in assistive technology and adoption of
principles of universal design have significantly improved the quality
of life for these individuals. Individuals with significant
disabilities regularly use products developed as the result of
rehabilitation and biomedical research to achieve and
[[Page 41767]]
maintain maximum physical function, live independently, study and
learn, and attain gainful employment. The range of engineering research
has broadened to encompass not only assistive technology but also
technology at the systems level (i.e., the built environment,
information and communication technologies, transportation, etc.) and
technology that interfaces between the individual and systems
technology and is basic to community integration.
The NIDRR RERC program has been a major force in the development of
technology to enhance independent function for individuals with
disabilities. The RERCs are recognized as national centers of
excellence in their respective areas and collectively represent the
largest federally supported program responsible for advancing
rehabilitation engineering research.
For example, the RERC program was an early pioneer in the
development of augmentative communication and has been at the forefront
of prosthetics and orthotics research for both children and adults. A
recently established RERC is responsible for designing prosthetics for
land mine survivors from developing countries using indigenous
materials and fabrication capabilities. The RERC on Telerehabilitation
is developing methods for the efficient delivery of rehabilitation
services in rural settings and to reduce the cost of long-term care.
RERCs have played a major role in the development of voluntary
standards that industry uses when developing wheelchairs, wheelchair
restraint systems, information technologies, and the World Wide Web.
The RERC on Low Vision and Blindness helped develop talking sign
technologies that are currently being utilized in major cities in both
the United States and Japan to help blind and visually impaired
individuals navigate city streets and subways. RERCs have been a
driving force in the development of universal design principles that
can be applied to the built environment, information technology and
telecommunications, transportation, and consumer products. The clinical
use of electromyography, gait analysis, and functional electrical
stimulation has been made possible due to earlier research supported by
the RERC program.
Significant financial investments in basic biomedical science and
technology are paying off with new opportunities to further enhance the
lives of people with disabilities. Recent advances in biomaterials
research, composite technologies, information and telecommunication
technologies, nanotechnologies, micro electro mechanical systems
(MEMS), sensor technologies, tissue engineering, and the neurosciences
also provide a wealth of opportunities for individuals with
disabilities and should be incorporated into research focused on
disability and rehabilitation. In recognition of this need, the
President's "New Freedom Initiative" has identified the RERC program
as one worthy of expansion and the Administration has significantly
increased the RERC budget for fiscal year 2002 (New Freedom Initiative,
2001).
NIDRR intends to fund up to five new RERCs in fiscal year 2002.
Applicants must select from the following priority topic areas: (a)
Spinal Cord Injury; (b) Recreational Technologies and Exercise
Physiology Benefiting Persons with Disabilities; (c) Applied
Biomaterials; (d) Measurement and Monitoring of Functional Performance;
(e) Accessible Medical Instrumentation; (f) Universal Interface
Technologies; (g) Work Place Accommodations; (h) Accessible Airline
Transportation; and (i) Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation
Systems. Applicants are allowed to submit more than one proposal as
long as each proposal addresses only one RERC topic area.
Priorities
We intend to fund up to five RERCs that will focus on innovative
technological solutions, new knowledge, and concepts to promote the
health, safety, independence, active engagement in daily activities,
and quality of life of persons with disabilities. Each RERC must:
(1) Contribute substantially to the technical and scientific
knowledge-base relevant to its respective subject area;
(2) Research, develop, and evaluate innovative technologies,
products, environments, performance guidelines, and monitoring and
assessment tools as applicable to its respective subject area;
(3) Identify, implement, and evaluate, in collaboration with the
industry, professional associations, and institutions of higher
education, innovative approaches to expand research capacity in its
respective field of study;
(4) Monitor trends and evolving product concepts that represent and
signify future directions for technologies in its respective area of
research;
(5) Provide technical assistance to public and private
organizations responsible for developing policies, guidelines, and
standards that affect its respective area of research.
In addition to the activities proposed by the applicant to carry
out these purposes, each RERC must:
Develop and implement in the first year of the grant, 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, in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded RERC on Technology Transfer, a plan
for ensuring that all new and improved technologies developed by the
RERC are successfully transferred to the marketplace;
Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its
respective area of research 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 as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer.
Each RERC must focus on one of the following priority topic areas:
(a) Spinal Cord Injury: This center must conduct research and
develop applications that address problems in the treatment,
rehabilitation, employment, and reintegration into society of persons
with spinal cord injury. This center will be expected to work
collaboratively with the NIDRR-funded Model Spinal Cord Injury Centers
program;
(b) Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting
Persons With Disabilities: This center must research and develop
technologies that will enhance recreational opportunities for people
with disabilities and develop methods to enhance the physical
performance and endurance of people with disabilities;
(c) Applied Biomaterials: This center must facilitate the
application of advances in materials and tissue engineering for medical
rehabilitation applications such as prosthetics and orthotics,
implants, reconstructive surgery, and burns. It will bring together
leaders in biomedical research, medical practitioners, and consumers to
promote the design, development, and utilization of state-of-the-art
methodologies and products for rehabilitation and disability
applications;
(d) Measurement and Monitoring of Functional Performance: This
center must research and develop technologies and methods that
effectively assess the outcomes of rehabilitation therapies by
combining measurements of
[[Page 41768]]
physiological performance with measures of functional performance;
(e) Accessible Medical Instrumentation: This center must research,
develop, and evaluate methods and technologies to increase the
usability and accessibility of diagnostic, therapeutic, and procedural
healthcare equipment (i.e., equipment used during medical examinations,
treatment, etc.) for people with disabilities. This includes developing
methods and technologies that are useable and accessible for patients
and health care providers with disabilities;
(f) Universal Interface Technologies: This center must research,
develop, and evaluate universal interface technologies that will allow
for easy integration of multiple technologies used by individuals with
disabilities (e.g., augmentative communication devices, powered
mobility devices, environmental control systems, telecommunication
systems, and information technologies, including multimedia systems).
This includes effective speech to text systems, eye and head control
systems, and methods to enhance the utility of graphical devices for
the visually impaired;
(g) Work Place Accommodations: This center must research, develop,
and evaluate devices and systems to enhance the productivity of people
with disabilities in the workplace. It must emphasize the application
of universal design concepts to improve the utility of workplace tools
and devices for all workers;
(h) Accessible Airline Transportation: This center must research
and develop methods, systems, and devices that will promote and enhance
the ability of people with disabilities to safely and efficiently
embark/disembark, travel comfortably, and use restroom facilities on
commercial passenger airliners; and
(i) Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems: This
center must explore the use of human-scale robots and telemanipulation
(the integration of human-control with a manipulator) systems that will
address the unique needs of people with disabilities and
rehabilitation.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at the previous site. If you have questions about using PDF, call
the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-
6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is published in the
Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/
index.html
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.133E,
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center Program.)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3).
Dated: June 13, 2002.
Robert H. Pasternack,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Appendix
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
General Comments
Comment: The language used in the section titled "Description
of Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers" describes
activities that could be carried out by a team lacking significant
engineering input (e.g., by social scientists working with consumers
and practitioners). While such research is valuable, the explicit
involvement of engineers is what delineates the RERC program from
other NIDRR (and National Institutes on Health) funded programs.
Discussion: Language used in the Federal Register to describe
the RERC program is from regulatory language published in the Code
of Federal Regulations (34 CFR Part 350.32). While NIDRR agrees that
engineers must be an integral part of all RERCs, it is also
important for each center to involve requisite skills and knowledge
from other relevant professionals and consumers.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters believe that the sentence "NIDRR is
particularly interested in applications that address topic areas (a)
and (b)" is awkward and out of context with the spirit of the rest
of the proposed priority. It is felt that the sentence should either
be removed altogether or separate (a) and (b) from this priority and
have multiple announcements.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the language is awkward and out of
context with the spirit and open nature of this competition.
Changes: The phrase "NIDRR is particularly interested in
applications that address topic areas (a) and (b)" has been
deleted.
Comment: Both the Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation
Systems and the Spinal Cord Injury priority topic areas should be
funded or perhaps combined if funds are not available to fund both
centers.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that all nine priority topic areas
are important and are worthy of funding. NIDRR also believes there
is a critical mass of work that needs to be done within each
priority topic area and that combining topic areas as suggested by
the commenter would only result in fewer resources for each topic
area thereby affecting the ability to carry out the necessary
research and development activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One of the most profound impairments resulting from
physical, sensory or cognitive disability is the dramatically
reduced access to formal and continuing education experienced by
these individuals. NIDRR should include a new priority topic area
that addresses this need or, at least, include a requirement that
all RERCs address this need.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that education is important for all
people, including those with disabilities. However, creating a
center or requiring all centers to address educational issues is
beyond the scope of the RERC program. There are other programs
within the Department of Education (i.e., Office of Special
Education Programs and Rehabilitation Services Administration) whose
mission is to ensure that no child is left behind with regards to
receiving an appropriate and accessible education as well as
preparation for employment.
Changes: None.
Comment: While NIDRR's proposed priorities are stated with
admirable clarity, their very clarity restricts the range of
constructive responses. Therefore, it is recommended that NIDRR
support RERC proposals that present innovative combinations and/or
permutations of these priority topic areas.
Discussion: NIDRR believes there is a critical mass of work that
needs to be done within each priority topic area and that combining
topic areas and/or permutations of these topic areas would only
result in fewer resources for each topic area thereby affecting the
ability to carry out the necessary research and development
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believes that all priority topic areas
should be required to focus on multicultural and linguistic
diversity of individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: All applicants are required to address the needs of
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds pursuant to
the regulatory language published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(34 CFR Part 350.40). In addition to this requirement, an applicant
could propose activities that focus on the linguistic diversity of
individuals with disabilties 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
linguistic diversity of individuals with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Spinal Cord Injury Topic (SCI) Area
Comment: Given that communication disabilities are a possible
result of SCI, the RERC on SCI should be required to include
activities that look at respiratory, voice, and
[[Page 41769]]
communication disabilities resulting from SCI.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities that focus on
communication disabilities resulting from spinal cord injuries
disabilities 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 communication disabilities
resulting from SCI.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believes that the RERC on SCI should be
required to focus some of its research and development activities on
the unique challenges facing individuals with spinal cord injuries
who reside in rural communities and states.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities that focus on
the unique challenges facing individuals with spinal cord injuries
who reside in rural communities and states. 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 unique challenges facing individuals with spinal cord
injuries who reside in rural communities and states.
Change: None.
Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting
Persons With Disabilities Topic Area
Comment: One commenter recommended separating exercise
physiology from the Recreational Technologies and Exercise
Physiology Benefiting Persons with Disabilities priority topic area
and creating a new RERC priority topic area that focuses solely on
exercise physiology. The rationale provided to support this
recommendation was that exercise physiology is a very broad field
and includes metabolic assessment of exercise interventions on
multiple organ systems.
Discussion: NIDRR believes that combining recreational
technologies and exercise physiology provides opportunities for
collaboration and resource sharing and is strategically a sound
approach.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if it is possible to submit a
proposal for the RERC on Recreational Technologies and Exercise
Physiology Benefiting Persons with Disabilities if the principal
investigator is not a rehabilitation engineer. While the need for
rehabilitation engineering is important, the most important issue is
getting people with disabilities to start doing some form of
exercise and determining successful adherence strategies.
Discussion: NIDRR has no requirement that RERC principal
investigators must be rehabilitation engineers. However, NIDRR
believes that engineers should play an integral role in all RERCs.
An applicant may submit a proposal without demonstrating engineering
expertise and the peer review process will evaluate the merits of
the proposal.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC on Recreational Technologies and Exercise
Physiology Benefiting Persons with Disabilities should be required
to address the rehabilitation needs of heart and pulmonary recovery/
chronic populations (e.g., rehabilitation following heart attack).
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities that focus on
the rehabilitation needs of individuals with heart and pulmonary
complications disabilities 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
rehabilitation needs of individuals with heart and pulmonary
complications.
Changes: None.
Applied Biomaterials Topic Area
Comment: The study of implant biomaterials is historically
removed from rehabilitation and involve different scientific and
industrial cultures. It might be of value to require this RERC to
marry these cultures by requiring them to target the relationship
between the rehabilitation recovery process and implants.
Alternatively, "implant" could be taken out as an example so that
more prominence is given to innovative orthotics and technologies to
assist burn victims.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to study the relationship
between the rehabilitation recovery process and implants. 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 study the relationship between the rehabilitation
recovery process and implants. Furthermore, NIDRR believes that
including "implant" as one of four examples of medical
rehabilitation applications increases research potential.
Changes: None.
Measurement and Monitoring of Functional Performance Topic Area
Comment: One commenter suggested that the RERC on Measurement
and Monitoring of Functional Performance should be required to
translate findings from technical engineering terminology into
clinical phrasing for ease of application to patient care and to
study at least two dissimilar pathologies to facilitate the
development of a clinical perspective that can be more broadly
applied.
Discussion: All RERCs are required to disseminate research
findings to diverse audiences and in doing so they must translate
their finding into appropriate and comprehensible language. An
applicant may propose to study two dissimilar pathologies to
facilitate the development of a clinical perspective that can be
more broadly applied. 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 study at least two
dissimilar pathologies to facilitate the development of a clinical
perspective that can be more broadly applied.
Changes: None.
Comment: The priority topic area on Measurement and Monitoring
of Functional Performance appears to address only "technologies and
methods that effectively assess the outcomes of rehabilitation
therapies." This topic could be broadened to allow the development
of new technologies and methods for rehabilitation therapy. This
would encourage a RERC to contribute new techniques in addition to
only assessing existing or emerging techniques.
Discussion: The Measurement and Monitoring of Functional
Performance priority topic area does not preclude an applicant from
proposing to develop new technologies and methods for rehabilitation
therapy provided the new technologies and methods can be used to
measure and monitor functional performance. The peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the proposal.
Changes: None.
Accessible Medical Instrumentation Topic Area
Comment: One commenter believes that the Accessible Medical
Instrumentation priority is excessively limiting compared to the
others and feels that it should be incorporated into the Work Place
Accommodations topic area and the existing RERC on
Telerehabilitation.
Discussion: NIDRR disagrees with the commenter that the
Accessible Medical Instrumentation priority topic area is
excessively limiting. Accessible diagnostic, therapeutic, and
procedural healthcare equipment for people with disabilities,
whether as patients or as healthcare providers, is important and
warrants a research center that will focus on technological
solutions to the problem.
Changes: None.
Universal Interface Technologies Topic Area
Comment: One commenter believes that the RERC on Universal
Interface Technologies should be required to address the needs of
individuals with severe communication disabilities--especially those
who use augmentative communication devices.
Discussion: The Universal Interface Technologies priority topic
area description identifies augmentative communication devices as
one example of multiple technologies used by individuals with
disabilities that this RERC can consider when researching and
developing universal interface technologies. NIDRR also funds an
RERC on Communication Enhancement whose primary responsibility is to
focus on research activities benefiting the needs of individuals
with severe communications impairments. An applicant could propose
to study the relation between the rehabilitation recovery process
and implants. 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 study the relation between the
rehabilitation recovery process and implants.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter feels that a distinction should be made
between technologies that are command oriented (i.e., communication
devices, environmental control systems) and those that are control
oriented (i.e., mobility devices). While it is important that
researchers consider an interface where both types of technologies
are easily accessible, the RERC on Universal
[[Page 41770]]
Interface Technologies should focus activities on ensuring the
seamless integration for command-oriented technologies affecting
communication.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that the distinction
between command and control oriented technologies prior to
developing universal interface technologies is important. An
applicant may propose activities that ensure a seamless integration
for command-oriented technologies affecting communication. 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 activities to ensure a seamless integration for
command-oriented technologies affecting communication.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC on Universal Interface Technologies should
focus some of its research on appropriate interface choices for
individuals with specific disabilities. This research could involve
the development of novel access methods and evaluation tools for
determining appropriate interface choices for individuals.
Discussion: An applicant could propose research on interface
choices that are appropriate for specific individuals with
disabilities. 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 study the relation between the
rehabilitation recovery process and implants research on interface
choices that are appropriate for specific individuals with
disabilities.
Changes: None.
Work Place Accommodations Topic Area
Comment: The accumulating body of knowledge in job accommodation
case experience provides excellent guidance to employers, vocational
rehabilitation professionals, and people with disabilities in
resolving new issues. This body of knowledge also has the potential
for exposing areas of need for accommodation technologies yet to be
developed, as well as innovative applications of existing
technologies and areas where universal design in workplace tools,
products, and systems can reduce the level of accommodation needed.
The Work Place Accommodations priority topic area should be expanded
to include a requirement that the RERC support existing job
accommodation efforts and programs.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that there already
exists a critical mass of knowledge and expertise in the area of job
accommodation and expects all applicants to familiarize themselves
with the most current literature and to use that body of knowledge
as a foundation for their research and development activities. The
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal.
Changes: None
Comment: The RERC on Work Place Accommodations should be
required to develop technologies that will benefit all persons with
disabilities, including those with mental illness, in all vocational
environments, including sheltered or affirmative settings.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities to develop
technologies that will benefit all persons with disabilities,
including those with mental illness, in all vocational environments,
including sheltered and affirmative settings, 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 development of technologies that will benefit all
persons with disabilities, including those with mental illness, in
all vocational environments, including sheltered and affirmative
settings.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC on Work Place Accommodations should be
required to develop new and innovative strategies in partnership
with special education programs to insure that young persons with
disabilities are qualified, trained, and certified to become
productive employees in all fields of vocational endeavor.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities to develop new
and innovative strategies in partnership with special education
programs. 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 development of new and
innovative strategies in partnership with special education
programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC on Work Place Accommodations should be
required to develop paraprofessional training programs to train work
place accommodation specialists who are working in American business
and industry, including employees with disabilities.
Discussion: An applicant could propose activities to develop
paraprofessional training programs to train work place accommodation
specialists who are working in American business and industry,
including employees with disabilities. 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
development of paraprofessional training programs to train work
place accommodation specialists who are working in American business
and industry, including employees with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: The concept of universal design is reasonably well
accepted in white-collar work environments. However, this is not the
case for blue-collar work environments. The RERC on Work Place
Accommodations, in conjunction with the RERC on Ergonomic Solutions
for Employment, should be required to pursue the concept of
universal design in blue-collar work environments such as the
machine tool industry, the robotics industry, and the hand tool
industry.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter and points out that
the RERC is required to emphasize the application of universal
design concepts to improve the utility of workplace tools and
devices for all workers, including those in diverse work
environments.
Changes: None.
Comment: The ADA has not been successful at getting people with
disabilities employed largely due to the fact that business and
industry are not convinced that persons with disabilities can
positively impact their "bottom line." Therefore, the RERC on Work
Place Accommodations must develop quantitative outcome measures that
generate longitudinal data that correlate accommodation technologies
and strategies with personal productivity.
Discussion: An applicant can propose to develop quantitative
outcome measures that generate longitudinal data that correlate
accommodation technologies and strategies with personal productivity
under Activities 1 and 2. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of this proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine
that all applicants should be required to develop quantitative
outcome measures that generate longitudinal data that correlate
accommodation technologies and strategies with personal
productivity.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter believes that the RERC on Work Place
Accommodations should be required to include individuals with
communication disabilities among those individuals with disabilities
whose productivity must be enhanced.
Discussion: An applicant can propose to include individuals with
communication disabilities among those with disabilities whose
productivity must be enhanced and the peer review process will
determine the merits of the proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to
determine that all applicants should be required to include
individuals with communication disabilities among those individuals
with disabilities whose productivity must be enhanced.
Changes: None.
Comment: The role of the RERC on Work Place Accommodations
should be clarified in relationship to the existing RERC on
Ergonomics Solutions for the Work Place.
Discussion: The RERC on Ergonomic Solutions for the Work Place
is an NIDRR-funded program in its fourth year of a five-year funding
cycle. The proposed RERC on Work Place Accommodations is one of nine
priority topic areas that applicants may choose from to submit a
proposal. If an application in the area of Work Place Accommodations
is funded, the relationship between that center and the one on
Ergonomic Solutions for the Work Place is expected to be both
collaborative and mutually supportive. Each RERC must coordinate on
research projects of mutual interest with relevant NIDRR-funded
projects as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project
officer.
Changes: None.
Accessible Airline Transportation Topic Area
Comment: One commenter pointed out the need for training of
airline personnel on how to interact with individuals who use
augmentative communications systems (e.g., AAC devices,
electrolarynx, sign language) and believes the RERC on Accessible
Airline Transportation should be required to address these issues.
Discussion: An applicant can propose training for airline
personnel on how to
[[Page 41771]]
interact with individuals with disabilities who use augmentative
communication systems under Activity 5. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of this proposal. However, NIDRR has no basis to
determine that all applicants should be required to train airline
personnel on how to interact with individuals who use augmentative
communication systems.
Changes: None.
Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems Topic Area
Comment: The RERC on Rehabilitation Robotics and
Telemanipulation Systems should be required to investigate robot-
aided rehabilitation devices and techniques.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to investigate robot-
aided rehabilitation devices and techniques. 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
investigate robot-aided rehabilitation devices and techniques.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC on Rehabilitation Robotics and
Telemanipulation Systems should be required to investigate
intelligent mobility aids, a term used to include a wide range of
devices that make use of technology (e.g., sensors, obstacle
avoidance algorithms) originally developed for mobile robots to
provide independent mobility to individuals with motor or perceptual
impairments.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to investigate
intelligent 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 investigate intelligent
mobility aids.
Changes: None.
[FR Doc. 02-15393 Filed 6-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P