32676 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice of

Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal

Years 2001–2003 for Three

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Centers

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services, Department of

Education.

ACTION: Notice of Final Funding

Priorities for Fiscal Years 2001–2003 for

three Rehabilitation Engineering

Research Centers.

SUMMARY: We will announce final

funding priorities for three

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Centers (RERC) on Technology for

Successful Aging, Wheelchair

Transportation Safety and Mobile

Wireless Technologies for Persons with

Disabilities under the National Institute

on Disability and Rehabilitation

Research (NIDRR) for FY 2001–2003.

We take this action to focus research

attention on areas of national need. We

intend these priorities to improve the

rehabilitation services and outcomes for

individuals with disabilities.

DATES: These priorities take effect on

July 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205–

5880. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202)

205–4475. Internet:

Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains final priorities under the

Rehabilitation Engineering Research

Centers (RERC) on Technology for

Successful Aging, Transportation Safety

and Mobile Wireless Technologies for

Persons with Disabilities under the

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for FY

2001–2003.

The final priorities refer to NIDRR’s

Long-Range Plan (the Plan). The Plan

can be accessed on the World Wide Web

at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/

NIDRR/#LRP.

National Education Goals

The eight National Education Goals

focus the Nation’s education reform

efforts and provide a framework for

improving teaching and learning.

This notice addresses the National

Education Goal that every adult

American will be literate and will

possess the knowledge and skills

necessary to compete in a global

economy and exercise the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship.

The authority for the program to

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities is contained in sections 202(g)

and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (the Act), as amended (29 U.S.C.

762(g) and 764. Regulations governing

this program are found in 34 CFR part

350.

Note: This notice does not solicit

applications. A notice inviting applications is

published in this issue of the Federal

Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

On April 10, 2001, we published a

notice of proposed priorities in the

Federal Register (66 FR 18688). The

Department of Education received 13

letters commenting on the notice of

proposed priorities by the deadline date.

Technical and other minor changes—

and suggested changes that we are not

legally authorized to make under

statutory authority—are not addressed.

Priority 1: Technologies for Successful

Aging

Comment: One commenter feels that

this priority should address the

communication needs of older

Americans with communication

disabilities in order to individualize

their rehabilitation and optimize their

ability to communicate in their natural

environments.

Discussion: NIDRR recognizes the

importance of addressing the

communication needs of all individuals

with disabilities and currently supports

an RERC on Communication

Enhancement that addresses

communications needs of the aging

population. An applicant could propose

activities that address the

communication needs of older

Americans and the peer review process

will evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR has no basis to

determine that all applicants should be

required to address the communication

needs of elderly individuals with

communication disabilities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that a new activity should be added that

requires the RERC to develop new

technologies in speech generated

devices (speech aids that provide

individuals with severe speech

impairment the ability to meet their

functional needs) and accessories such

as mounting systems, switches, and

access devices.

Discussion: An applicant could

propose activities to develop new

technologies in speech generated

devices and the peer review process will

evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR has no basis to

determine that all applicants should be

required to develop new technologies in

speech generated devices.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that a new activity should be added that

requires the RERC to develop new

technologies in hearing aids, assistive

listening devices, and cochlear implants

to assist those individuals with severe

hearing loss.

Discussion: NIDRR recognizes the

importance of addressing the hearing

needs of all individuals with disabilities

and currently supports an RERC on

Hearing Enhancement and Assistive

Devices that addresses hearing needs of

a broad range of individuals with

hearing loss. An applicant could

propose activities to develop hearing

technologies that would benefit older

Americans with hearing impairments

and the peer review process will

evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR has no basis to

determine that all applicants should be

required to develop hearing

technologies.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that a new activity should be added that

requires the RERC to focus on the

cultural and linguistic diversity of the

aging population.

Discussion: An applicant could

propose activities that focus on cultural

and linguistic diversity of the aging

population and the peer review process

will evaluate the merits of the proposal.

However, NIDRR has no basis to

determine that all applicants should be

required to focus on the cultural and

linguistic diversity of the aging

population.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that adding the words ‘‘and other

service providers’’ after ‘‘home health’’

would strengthen the fourth activity.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that adding

‘‘and other service providers’’ to the

fourth activity would strengthen the

priority.

Changes: The fourth activity has been

modified to include the words ‘‘and

other service providers’’ after ‘‘home

health.’’

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the emphasis in this priority on

home-based monitoring and

communication technologies is very

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

32678 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices 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 belttype 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 website 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 wheelchairseated 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 wheelchairseated 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

32680 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

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 wheelchairseated 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 longterm 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

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

32682 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

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 injuryproducing 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

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

32684 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

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 handheld 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 builtin 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

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