[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