[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 54869-54879]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se06-82]
[[Page 54869]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Proposed Priorities for Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects and Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers;
Notice
[[Page 54870]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program--
Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs) and Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities for DRRPs and RERCs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes certain funding priorities for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program
administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes four priorities
for DRRPs and seven priorities for RERCs. The Assistant Secretary may
use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and
later years. We take this action to focus research attention on areas
of national need. We intend these priorities to improve rehabilitation
services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities to
Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20204-2700. If you
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following
address: donna.nangle@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``Proposed Priorities for DRRPs and
RERCs'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle or Lynn Medley.
Telephone: (202) 245-7462 (Donna Nangle) or (202) 245-7338 (Lynn
Medley).
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
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: This notice of proposed priorities is in
concert with President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative (NFI)
and NIDRR's Final Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). The NFI can
be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom.
The Plan, which was published in
the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed
on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html
.
Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to:
(1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation
research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and
training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding
of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3)
determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation
outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5)
identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6)
disseminate findings.
One of the specific goals established in the Plan is for NIDRR to
publish all of its proposed priorities, and following public comment,
final priorities, annually, on a combined basis. Under this approach,
NIDRR's constituents can submit comments at one time rather than at
different times throughout the year, and NIDRR can move toward a fixed
schedule for competitions and more efficient grant-making operations.
This notice proposes priorities that NIDRR intends to use for DRRP and
RERC competitions in FY 2007 and possibly later years. However, nothing
precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed.
Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for each of
these priorities. The decision to make an award will be based on the
quality of applications received and available funding.
For FY 2007 competitions using priorities that already have been
established and for which publication of a notice of proposed priority
is unnecessary (e.g., competitions for Field-Initiated Projects,
Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects, Fellowships, and
Small Business Innovation Research Projects), NIDRR has published or
will publish notices inviting applications. In addition to this notice,
on June 7, 2006, NIDRR published a separate notice of proposed
priorities for a DRRP on Vocational Rehabilitation: Transition Services
that Lead to Competitive Employment Outcomes for Transition-Age
Individuals With Blindness or Other Visual Impairment (71 FR 32938).
More information on these other projects and programs that NIDRR
intends to fund in FY 2007 can be found on the Internet at the
following site: http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/nidrr/priority-matrix.html
.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
these proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed priority or topic that each
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed priorities in room 6030, 550 12th Street,
SW., Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
We will announce the final priorities in one or more notices in the
Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after
considering responses to this notice and other information available to
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or
using additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications we designate the priorities as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority
follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
[[Page 54871]]
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) Awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive preference priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets
the competitive preference priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priorities: In this notice, we are proposing 4 priorities for DRRPs
and 7 priorities for RERCs.
For DRRPs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 1--National Data and Statistical Center for the
Burn Model Systems.
Priority 2--Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers.
Priority 3--Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals
with Disabilities.
Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS)
Centers.
For RERCs, the proposed priorities are:
Priority 5--RERC for Spinal Cord Injury.
Priority 6--RERC for Recreational Technologies and
Exercise Physiology Benefiting Individuals with Disabilities.
Priority 7--RERC for Translating Physiological Data into
Predictions for Functional Performance.
Priority 8--RERC for Accessible Medical Instrumentation.
Priority 9--RERC for Workplace Accommodations.
Priority 10--RERC for Rehabilitation Robotics and
Telemanipulation Systems.
Priority 11--RERC for Emergency Management Technologies.
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program
The purpose of the DRRP program is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and related activities to develop
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the
full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent
living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of
individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most
severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. DRRPs
carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as
specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research,
development, demonstration, training, dissemination, utilization, and
technical assistance.
An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in
its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR
350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this
requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). In addition, NIDRR intends
to require all DRRP applicants to meet the requirements of the General
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Requirements
priority that it published in a notice of final priorities in the
Federal Register on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472).
Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP
.
Proposed Priorities
Priority 1--National Data and Statistical Center for the Burn Model
Systems
Background
It is estimated that there are more than 1 million burn injuries in
the United States each year. Approximately 700,000 of these burn
injuries are treated in emergency departments annually, and 54,000 are
severe enough to require hospitalization (Esselman et al., 2006;
American Burn Association, 2002).
In recent years, burn survivability has increased dramatically.
This improvement in survival rates has brought rehabilitation issues to
the forefront of care for burn survivors and led to increased demands
for research-based knowledge about the post-acute experiences and needs
of burn survivors (Esselman et al., 2006).
NIDRR created the Burn Injury Rehabilitation Model Systems of Care
(BMS) in 1994 to provide leadership in rehabilitation as a key
component of exemplary burn care and to advance the research base of
rehabilitation services for burn survivors. The centers funded under
the BMS program (BMS Centers) establish and carry out projects that
provide a coordinated system of care including emergency care, acute
care management, comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation, and long-term
interdisciplinary follow-up services. In addition, the BMS program
carries out innovative projects for the delivery, demonstration, and
evaluation of comprehensive medical, vocational, and other
rehabilitation services to meet the wide range of needs of individuals
with burn injury.
The BMS Centers have developed a longitudinal database that
contains information on approximately 4,700 people injured since 1994
(BMS Database). The BMS Database is emerging as an important source of
information about the characteristics and life course of individuals
with burn injury. The BMS Database can be used to examine specific
outcomes of burn injury. NIDRR seeks to continue and build upon this
data source by funding a National Data and Statistical Center for the
BMS (National BMS Data Center) that will maintain the BMS Database and
improve the quality of information that is entered into it.
The BMS Database is a collaborative project in which all of the BMS
Centers are required to participate. The data for the BMS Database are
collected by the BMS Centers. The directors of the BMS Centers,
including the National BMS Data Center, in consultation with NIDRR,
determine the parameters of the BMS Database, including the number and
type of variables to be examined, the criteria for including BMS
patients in the database, and the frequency and timing of data
collection.
The specifications of the BMS Database as it is currently
implemented can be obtained from the BMS Database Coordination Center.
The BMS Database Coordination Center may be contacted on the World Wide
Web at http://bms-dcc.uchsc.edu/.
References
ABA National Burn Repository Report, 2002. http://www.ameriburn.org/pub/NBR.htm
.
Esselman, P., Thombs, B., Fauerbach, J., Magyar-Russell, G., &
Price, M. (2006). Burn State of the Science Review. In Press. American
Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for the establishment of a National Data
and Statistical Center for the Burn Model Systems (National BMS Data
Center). The National BMS Data Center must advance medical
rehabilitation by increasing the rigor and efficiency of scientific
efforts to assess the experience of individuals with burn injury. To
meet this priority, the National BMS Data Center's research and
technical assistance must be designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(a) Maintenance of a national longitudinal database (BMS Database)
[[Page 54872]]
for data submitted by each of the Burn Model Systems centers (BMS
Centers). This database must provide for confidentiality, quality
control, and data-retrieval capabilities, using cost-effective and
user-friendly technology.
(b) High-quality, reliable data in the BMS Database. The National
BMS Data Center must contribute to this outcome by providing training
and technical assistance to BMS Centers on subject retention and data
collection procedures, data entry methods, and appropriate use of study
instruments, and by monitoring the quality of the data submitted by the
BMS Centers.
(c) Rigorous research conducted by BMS Centers. To help in the
achievement of this outcome, the National BMS Data Center must make
statistical and other methodological consultation available for
research projects that use the BMS Database, as well as center-specific
and collaborative projects of the BMS program.
(d) Improved efficiency of the BMS Database operations. The
National BMS Data Center must pursue strategies to achieve this
outcome, such as collaborating with the National Data and Statistical
Center for Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems, the National Data and
Statistical Center for Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems, and the Model
Systems Knowledge Translation Center.
Priority 2--Burn Model System (BMS) Centers
Background
The American Burn Association (ABA) reported that about 54,000
Americans, one-third under age 20, are hospitalized for severe burn
treatment every year. Of this number, 5,500 die (ABA National Burn
Repository Report, 2002; http://www.ameriburn.org/pub/NBR.htm). Burn
injury is a catastrophic event that can result in significant
impairment of an individual's physical function. Relatively little has
been written about physical rehabilitation of individuals following a
burn injury (Sliwa et al., 2005).
NIDRR created the Burn Injury Rehabilitation Model Systems of Care
(BMS) in 1994 to provide leadership in rehabilitation as a key
component of exemplary burn care and to advance the research base of
rehabilitation services for burn survivors. The centers funded under
the BMS program (BMS Centers) establish and carry out projects that
provide a coordinated system of care including emergency care, acute
care management, comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation, and long-term
interdisciplinary follow-up services. In addition, the BMS program
carries out innovative projects for the delivery, demonstration, and
evaluation of comprehensive medical, vocational, and other
rehabilitation services to meet the wide range of needs of individuals
with burn injury.
Currently, four BMS Centers conduct research activities designed to
improve rehabilitative and pharmacological interventions that can help
optimize levels of community participation, employment, and overall
quality of life for individuals with burn injury. Each center provides
comprehensive rehabilitation services to individuals with burn injury
and conducts burn research, including clinical research and the
analysis of standardized data in collaboration with other related
projects. The BMS Centers have developed a longitudinal database that
contains information on over 3,046 adults and more than 1,602 children
(BMS Database). Additional information on the BMS Database funded in
1998 can be found at http://bms-dcc.uchsc.edu).
Rehabilitation issues of concern to NIDRR include methods of
measuring functional outcomes following burn injury. Recently, it is
reported that the most widely used assessment of function following
injury, the functional independence measure (FIM), may not be
sufficient to measure functional outcomes following burn injuries
(Sliwa et al., 2005). NIDRR is also concerned about such issues as the
effectiveness of specific rehabilitation interventions; psychosocial
adjustment following burn injury; cognitive functioning following burn
injury; and long-term outcomes following burn injury, including
community integration and return to work.
In 2005, NIDRR conducted a review of its current BMS program. It is
NIDRR's intent that, through funding of BMS Centers under the following
proposed priority, the BMS program will serve as a platform for multi-
site research that contributes to the formulation of practice
guidelines to improve rehabilitation outcomes for individuals with burn
injury.
References
ABA National Burn Repository Report, 2002. http://www.ameriburn.org/pub/NBR.htm
.
Sliwa, J. A., Heinemann, A., Semik, P. (2005). Inpatient
Rehabilitation Following Burn Injury: Patient Demographics and
Functional Outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
86: 1920-1923.
Raymond, I., Ancoli-Israel, S., Choiniere, M. (2004). Sleep
Disturbances, Pain, and Analgesia in Adults Hospitalization for Burn
Injuries. Sleep Medicine, 5(6): 551-559.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for the funding of Burn Model Systems
(BMS) centers (BMS Center) under the Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects (DRRP) Program to conduct research that contributes
to evidence-based rehabilitation interventions and clinical as well as
practice guidelines that improve the lives of individuals with burn
injury. Each BMS Center must--
(a) Contribute to continued assessment of long-term outcomes of
burn injury by enrolling at least 30 subjects per year into the
national longitudinal database for BMS data maintained by the National
Data and Statistical Center for the BMS, following established
protocols for the collection of enrollment and follow-up data on
subjects;
(b) Contribute to improved outcomes for individuals with burn
injury by proposing one collaborative research module project and
participating in at least one collaborative research module project,
which may range from pilot research to more extensive studies; and
(c) Contribute to improved long-term outcomes of individuals with
burn injury by conducting no more than two site-specific research
projects to test innovative approaches that contribute to
rehabilitation interventions and evaluating burn injury outcomes in
accordance with the focus areas identified in NIDRR's Final Long-Range
Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). Applicants who propose more than two
site-specific projects will be disqualified.
In carrying out these activities, each BMS Center may select from
the following research domains related to specific areas of the Plan:
Health and function, employment, participation and community living,
and technology for access and function.
In addition, each BMS Center must--
(1) Provide a multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care
specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with burn
injury. The system must encompass a continuum of care, including
emergency medical services, acute care services, acute medical
rehabilitation services, and post-acute services; and
(2) Coordinate with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge
Translation Center to provide scientific results and information for
[[Page 54873]]
dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences.
Priority 3--Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals With
Disabilities
Background
Executive Order 13347, Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency
Preparedness, directs the Federal Government to protect the safety and
security of individuals with disabilities in disasters. Legal
requirements related to nondiscrimination, architectural and
communications access, technology, transportation, and other areas,
such as those contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (ADA) and relevant court decisions,
apply in emergency situations as well.
Incorporating disability considerations into emergency evacuation,
planning, preparation, and other activities is critical. Currently,
there is insufficient evidence on demonstrating the most effective ways
to ensure the safety of individuals with disabilities during emergency
situations. For example, many individuals with disabilities rely on
elevators, accessible transportation, and accessible communications,
all of which can be compromised during disasters or other emergency
situations (Executive Order 13347, Annual Report, 2005). Additional
research is needed on approaches to evacuation that include the
evacuation of individuals with disabilities (e.g., physical, sensory,
mental impairments).
A study by the National Council on Disability states that, while
there is a wealth of anecdotal reports by the disability community
about their experiences in disaster situations, there is scarce
research related to people with disabilities in disaster planning,
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. This study also
reports that: ``a common theme emerging after 9/11 is there are
virtually no empirical data on the safe and efficient evacuation of
persons with disabilities in emergency planning'' (National Council on
Disability, 2005). Increased knowledge about devices, systems, plans,
standards, and the incorporation of disability considerations into
mainstream emergency management initiatives are needed in order to
build system capacity and improve outcomes for individuals with
disabilities in emergencies.
References
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.
National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with
Disabilities in Emergency Planning. April 2005. Available at: http://www.ncd.gov
.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Individuals with Disabilities
in Emergency Preparedness: Executive Order 13347, Annual Report. July
2005. Available at: http://www.dhs.gov/disabilitypreparednessicc.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals with
Disabilities to conduct research that contributes to the development of
evidence-based emergency evacuation procedures to improve outcomes for
individuals with disabilities. Under this priority, the DRRP must be
designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Increased evidence-based knowledge about the inclusive
evacuation of individuals with disabilities from one or more of the
following areas: buildings, transportation systems, and geographic
locations (e.g., cities and States). The DRRP must contribute to this
outcome by--(1) Synthesizing the current evidence base in one or more
of the following areas: disability-related evacuation devices, plans,
exercises, protocols, models, systems, networks, and standards; (2)
identifying, for the areas identified in (a)(1) of this priority, the
components and specifications needed for reliable, usable, accessible,
safe, and effective evacuation of individuals with disabilities; and
(3) assessing the degree to which the areas selected in (a)(1) of this
priority contains the components or specifications identified in (a)(2)
of this priority.
(b) Increased implementation of disability-related evacuation
solutions within existing emergency management initiatives. The DRRP
must contribute to this outcome by--(1) Examining barriers and
facilitators to effective implementation of disability-related
evacuation solutions within existing emergency management initiatives
(including but not limited to communication between key stakeholders
and attitudinal barriers); and (2) working with the emergency
management community to propose solutions to the barriers identified in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this priority.
In addition to the above outcomes, applicants must:
Define, in their applications, the parameters and units of
analysis for their proposed activities. Applications must include a
description of each of the following: (1) Type of evacuation (i.e.,
evacuation from buildings, transportation systems, geographic locations
such as cities or States); (2) target population (e.g., with physical,
sensory, mental impairments); and (3) type of response (e.g., devices,
plans, exercises, protocols, models, systems, networks, or standards).
Demonstrate in their applications how they plan to
implement a sustained, meaningful, and integrated collaboration
throughout the project with key stakeholders, including but not limited
to the following: (1) Disability and aging advocates, organizations,
disability subject matter experts, and qualified individuals with
disabilities; (2) fire engineers, homeland security and preparedness
personnel, and other mainstream emergency management professionals and
associations; (3) industry, standard-setting organizations, and other
relevant stakeholders involved in standards development; (4)
researchers (including researchers working on projects funded by NIDRR,
other government agencies, and researchers in the private sector); and
(5) relevant Federal agencies, including but not limited to those
participating in the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency
Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities.
Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers
Background
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that at
least 1.4 million people sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the
United States each year (Langlois, Rutland-Brown, & Thomas, 2004). Of
these, approximately 50,000 die, 235,000 are hospitalized, and 1.1
million are treated and released from emergency departments. These
estimates do not include those individuals who sustained a TBI and did
not seek medical care or were seen only in private doctors' offices.
The three leading causes of TBI are motor vehicle/traffic collisions,
falls and assaults.
Disabilities resulting from TBI depend on several factors such as
the severity and location of the injury, length of impaired
consciousness, age and general health of the patient, and the intensity
of rehabilitation services (Cifu, Kreutzer,
[[Page 54874]]
Kolakowsky-Hayner, Marwtiz & Englander, 2003; Dikmen, Machamer, Powell
& Temkin, 2003; Sarajuuri, Kaipio, Koskinen, Niemela, Servo & Vilkki,
2005). Common disabilities resulting from TBI include problems with
cognition, sensory processing, communication, and behavioral or mental
health; and some TBI survivors develop long-term medical complications
(National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2002). CDC
reports that each year an estimated 80,000 to 90,000 Americans sustain
TBI resulting in permanent disability. At least 5.3 million Americans
have a long-term or lifelong need for help to perform activities of
daily living as a result of TBI (Thurman, Alverson, Dunn, Guerrero, &
Sniezek, 1999).
The Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) program was
created by NIDRR in 1987 to demonstrate the benefits of a coordinated
system of neurotrauma and rehabilitation care and to conduct innovative
research on all aspects of care for those who sustain TBI. NIDRR
currently funds 16 TBIMS centers throughout the United States. These
centers provide comprehensive systems of brain injury care to
individuals who sustain TBI and conduct TBI research, including
clinical research and the analysis of standardized data in
collaboration with other related projects. The mission of the TBIMS is
to improve the lives of persons who experience TBI, and of their
families and communities by creating and disseminating new knowledge
about the natural course of TBI and rehabilitation treatment and
outcomes following TBI.
For purposes of the TBIMS, TBI is defined as damage to brain tissue
caused by an external mechanical force as evidenced by loss of
consciousness or post-traumatic amnesia due to brain trauma or by
objective neurological findings that can be reasonably attributed to
TBI on physical examination or mental status examination. Both
penetrating and non-penetrating wounds that fit this criteria are
included, but, primary anoxic encephalopathy is not.
Each TBIMS center funded under this program should be designed to
offer a multidisciplinary system for providing rehabilitation services
specifically designed to meet the special needs of individuals with
TBI. These services span the continuum of treatment from acute care
through community re-entry. TBIMS centers engage in initiatives and new
approaches and maintain close working relationships with other
governmental and non profit institutions and organizations to
coordinate scientific efforts, encourage joint planning, and promote
the interchange of data and reports among TBI researchers. As part of
these cooperative efforts, TBIMS centers participate in collaborative
research module projects, which range from pilot research to more
extensive studies.
A committee consisting of the individual TBIMS project program
directors has, since its inception, guided the TBIMS program. This
group meets bi-annually in Washington, DC, and, in consultation with
NIDRR, develops and oversees the policies of the TBIMS. NIDRR intends
for the work of this group to continue.
Since 1989, the TBIMS centers have collected and contributed
information on common data elements for a centralized TBIMS database,
which is maintained through a NIDRR-funded grant for a National Data
and Statistical Center for the TBIMS. (Additional information on the
TBIMS database can be found at http://tbindc.org). The TBI National
Data and Statistical Center for the TBIMS coordinates data collection,
manages the TBIMS database, and provides statistical support to the
model systems projects. To date, TBIMS centers have contributed 5,756
cases to the TBIMS database, with follow up data extending to 15 years
post injury.
References
Cifu, D.X., Kreutzer, J.S., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S.A., Marwitz, J.H.,
& Englander, J. (2003). The Relationship Between Therapy Intensity and
Rehabilitative Outcomes after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter
Analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(10):
1441-8.
Dikmen, S.S., Machamer, J.E., Powell, J.M., & Temkin, N.R. (2003).
Outcome 3 to 5 Years After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(10): 1449-57.
Langlois, J.A., Rutland-Brown, W., & Thomas, K.E. (2004). Traumatic
Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits,
Hospitalizations, and Deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
(2002, February). Traumatic Brain Injury: Hope Through Research.
Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health. NIH Publication No. 02-
2478. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from the NINDS Web site: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/detail_tbi.htm
.
Sarajuuri, J.M., Kaipio, M.L., Koskinen, S.K., Niemela, M.R.,
Servo, A.R., & Vilkki, J.S. (2005). Outcome of a Comprehensive
Neurorehabilitation Program for Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(12): 2296-302.
Thurman, D.J., Alverson, C.A., Dunn, K.A., Guerrero, J., & Sniezek,
J.E. (1999). Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: A Public
Health Perspective. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 14(6): 602-
615.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems
(TBIMS) centers under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects (DRRP) program to conduct research that contributes to
evidence-based rehabilitation interventions which improve the lives of
individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Each TBIMS center must
contribute to the following outcomes:
(a) Continued assessment of long-term outcomes of TBI by enrolling
at least 35 subjects per year into the longitudinal portion of the
TBIMS database maintained by the National Data and Statistical Center
for the TBIMS, following established protocols for the collection of
enrollment and follow-up data on subjects.
(b) Improved outcomes for individuals with TBI by proposing one
collaborative research module project and participating in at least one
collaborative research module project, which may range from pilot
research to more extensive studies (At the beginning of the funding
cycle, the TBIMS directors, in conjunction with NIDRR, will select
specific modules for implementation from the approved applications).
(c) Improved long-term outcomes of individuals with TBI by
conducting no more than two site-specific research projects to test
innovative approaches that contribute to rehabilitation interventions
and evaluating TBI outcomes in accordance with the focus areas
identified in NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009. Applicants who
propose more than two site-specific projects will be disqualified.
In carrying out each of these research activities, each TBIMS
Center may select from the following research domains related to
specific areas of the Plan: Health and Function, Employment,
Participation and Community Living, and Technology for Access and
Function.
In addition, each TBIMS Center must--
[[Page 54875]]
(1) Provide a multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care
specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with TBI. The
system must encompass a continuum of care, including emergency medical
services, acute care services, acute medical rehabilitation services,
and post-acute services; and
(2) Coordinate with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge
Translation Center to provide scientific results and information for
dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences.
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Program General
Requirements of Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)
RERCs carry out research or demonstration activities in support of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by--
Developing and disseminating innovative methods of
applying advanced technology, scientific achievement, and psychological
and social knowledge to: (a) Solve rehabilitation problems and remove
environmental barriers; and (b) study and evaluate new or emerging
technologies, products, or environments and their effectiveness and
benefits; or
Demonstrating and disseminating: (a) Innovative models for
the delivery of cost-effective rehabilitation technology services to
rural and urban areas; and (b) other scientific research to assist in
meeting the employment and independent living needs of individuals with
severe disabilities; and
Facilitating service delivery systems change through: (a)
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 (b) other scientific research
to assist in meeting the employment and independence needs of
individuals with severe disabilities.
Each RERC must be operated by or in collaboration with one or more
institutions of higher education or one or more nonprofit
organizations.
Each RERC must provide training opportunities, in conjunction with
institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations, to assist
individuals, including individuals with disabilities, to become
rehabilitation technology researchers and practitioners.
Additional information on the RERC program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html
.
Priorities 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11--Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Centers (RERCs) for Spinal Cord Injury (Priority 5),
Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting
Individuals With Disabilities (Priority 6), Translating Physiological
Data Into Predictions for Functional Performance (Priority 7),
Accessible Medical Instrumentation (Priority 8), Workplace
Accommodations (Priority 9), Rehabilitation Robotics and
Telemanipulation Systems (Priority 10), and Emergency Management
Technologies (Priority 11)
Background
Individuals with disabilities regularly use products developed
through rehabilitation and biomedical research to achieve and maintain
maximum physical function, live independently, study and learn, and
attain gainful employment. The range of engineering research
encompasses not only assistive technology but also technology at the
systems level (e.g., the built environment, information and
communication technologies, and transportation) and technology that
interfaces between individuals and systems 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. RERCs have played a major role in the
development of voluntary standards that the medical equipment and
technology industries use when developing wheelchairs, wheelchair
restraint systems, information technologies, and the World Wide Web.
RERCs also have been a driving force in the development of universal
design principles that can be applied to the built environment,
information technology, and consumer products.
Advancements in basic biomedical science and technology have
resulted in new opportunities to further enhance the lives of
individuals with disabilities. Specifically, recent advances in
biomaterials research, composite technologies, information and
telecommunication technologies, nanotechnologies, micro electro
mechanical systems (MEMS), sensor technologies, and the neurosciences
provide a wealth of opportunities for individuals with disabilities and
could be incorporated into research focused on disability and
rehabilitation.
Through the following proposed priorities, NIDRR intends to fund
RERCs that advance rehabilitation engineering in the following research
areas: Spinal Cord Injury, Recreational Technologies and Exercise
Physiology Benefiting People with Disabilities, Translating
Physiological Data into Predictions for Functional Performance,
Accessible Medical Instrumentation, Workplace Accommodations,
Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems, and Emergency
Management Technologies.
Priority 5--RERC for Spinal Cord Injury
It is estimated that the number of Americans living with traumatic
spinal cord injury (SCI) ranges from 222,000 to 285,000, with an
incidence of approximately 11,000 new cases each year (Spinal Cord
Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance, 2004).
Technology plays a pivotal role in the lives of individuals with
SCI, starting with the onset of injury and continuing into the
individual's reintegration into community life (Cooper, 2004). The
development of cutting-edge devices and the application of existing
technologies such as integrated control systems, robotics, and
neuroprosthetics can help individuals with SCI perform activities of
daily living and work, and participate in their communities. These
devices can enhance the mobility and function of users with SCI, which
in turn, aids in the preservation of their overall health. Enhanced
mobility, function and overall health are vital to the independence and
quality of life of individuals with SCI. Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to
fund an RERC that focuses on improving the quality of life of
individuals with SCI and promotes health, rehabilitation, independence,
and community participation.
References
Spinal Cord Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance. (2004).
Retrieved February 13, 2006 from the National Data and Statistical
Center for Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Web site: http://www.spinalcord.uab.edu
.
Cooper, R.A. (2004). Bioengineering and Spinal Cord Injury: A
Perspective on the State of the Science. The Journal of Spinal Cord
Medicine; 27: 351-364.
[[Page 54876]]
Priority 6--RERC for Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology
Benefiting Individuals With Disabilities
Individuals with disabilities are generally less likely to be
physically active than their non-disabled peers. However, regular
physical activity, sports participation, and active recreation are
important contributors to the prevention of disease, promotion of
health, and maintenance of functional independence for all individuals,
including individuals with disabilities. Several studies have
demonstrated that many persons with a variety of disabilities benefit
from increased levels of physical activity, as evidenced by alterations
in various components of their physical fitness (Ada, Dean, Hall,
Bampton, Crompton, 2003; Hicks, Martin, Ditor, Latimer, Craven,
Bugaresti, McCartney, 2003; Husted, Pham, Hekking, Niederman, 1999;
Romberg, Virtanen, Ruutiainen, Aunola, Karppi, Vaara, Surakka,
Pohjolainen, Seppanen, 2004).
Accessible recreation requires more than ramps or automatic door
openers at buildings containing recreational space. In a recreational
facility, equipment and programs themselves contribute to an
environment that promotes equal access or creates a barrier to pursuing
recreational goals. Recreational equipment needs obvious and easy
adjustability, variable range of motion, adequate surrounding space,
and transferability (North Carolina Office on Disability and Health
(2001)). Furthermore, recreational spaces are in need of accessible
points of entry and accessible surfacing (North Carolina Office on
Disability and Health (2001)).
Although modifications to recreational equipment have been made,
such as swing away seats to allow use from a wheelchair or the addition
of Braille instructions, these modifications are not universal and
recreational equipment remains a primary barrier to physical activity
participation (Rimmer, J.H., Riley, B., Wang, E., Rauworth, A. (2005)).
Existing recreational technologies are in need of new features to
increase access to and participation in recreational environments by
individuals with disabilities. In addition, newly improved and novel
recreational technologies need to be researched and tested to
demonstrate the degree to which they can increase access to and
participation in recreational environments by individuals with
disabilities.
Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC that facilitates equitable
access to, and safe use of, recreational equipment, facilities, and
programs, and will reduce debilitating secondary conditions associated
with disability and sedentary lifestyle.
References
Ada, L., Dean, C.M., Hall, J.M., Bampton, J., Crompton, S. (2003).
A Treadmill and Overground Walking Program Improves Walking in Persons
Residing in the Community After Stroke: A Placebo-Controlled,
Randomized Trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
Oct.; 84(10): 1486-91.
Hicks, A.L., Martin, K.A., Ditor, D.S., Latimer, A.E., Craven, C.,
Bugaresti, J., McCartney, N. (2003). Long-term Exercise Training in
Persons with Spinal Cord Injury: Effects on Strength, Arm Ergometry
Performance and Psychological Well-Being. Spinal Cord, Jan.; 41(1): 34-
43.
Husted, C., Pham, L., Hekking, A., Niederman, R. (1999). Improving
Quality of Life for People with Chronic Conditions: The Example of T'ai
Chi and Multiple Sclerosis. Alternative Therapies in Health Medicine,
Sep.; 5(5): 70-4.
Romberg, A., Virtanen, A., Ruutiainen, J., Aunola, S., Karppi,
S.L., Vaara, M., Surakka, J., Pohjolainen, T., Seppanen, A. (2004).
Effects of a 6-Month Exercise Program on Patients with Multiple
Sclerosis: A Randomized Study. Neurology, Dec. 14; 63(11): 2034-8.
North Carolina Office on Disability and Health (2001). Removing
Barriers to Health Clubs and Fitness Facilities. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Center.
Rimmer, J.H., Riley, B., Wang, E., Rauworth, A. (2005).
Accessibility of Health Clubs for People with Mobility Disabilities and
Visual Impairments. American Journal of Public Health, Nov.; 95(11):
2022-8.
Priority 7--RERC for Translating Physiological Data Into Predictions
for Functional Performance
The fields of biomedical and rehabilitation engineering have
produced and applied a wide variety of instruments and devices to
measure the physiological capacity of the human body. Many of these
measurement tools, which examine parameters such as range of motion,
force, gait, and electrophysiological features, have been applied by
physiatrists and other allied professionals in research or practice in
physical medicine and rehabilitation (Hesse, et al., 2002; Koontz, et
al., 2005; Wimalartna, et al., 2002).
To realize the potential for these physiological measures to shape
clinical practices and services, biomedical engineers and
rehabilitation clinicians must develop methods for translating
physiological measures into predictions for functional performance. One
example would be translating the results of a strength measure into a
prognosis for the capacity to carry out a particular activity of daily
living (ADL). NIDRR, therefore, seeks to fund an RERC that develops and
evaluates models and methods to determine the relationship between
physiological measures and the capacity to perform basic tasks among
individuals with disabilities.
References
Hesse, S., Schmidt, H., Werner, C., Bardeleben, A. (2002). Upper
and Lower Extremity Robotic Devices for Rehabilitation and for Studying
Motor Control. Current Opinion in Neurology, Dec.; 16(6): 705-10.
Koontz, A.M., Cooper, R.A., Boninger, M.L., Yang, Y., Impink, B.G.,
van der Woude, L.H. (2005). A Kinetic Analysis of Manual Wheelchair
Propulsion During Start-Up on Select Indoor and Outdoor Surfaces.
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Jul.-Aug.; 42(4):
447-58.
Wimalaratna, H.S., Tooley, M.A., Churchill, E., Preece, A.W.,
Morgan, H.M. (2002). Quantitative Surface EMG in the Diagnosis of
Neuromuscular Disorders. Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology,
2002 Apr.-May.; 42(3): 167-74.
Priority 8--RERC for Accessible Medical Instrumentation
The aim of ``The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Improve the
Health and Wellness of Persons with Disabilities'' is for people with
disabilities to achieve full access to disease prevention and health
promotion services (The Surgeon General's Call To Action To Improve the
Health and Wellness of Persons with Disabilities, 2005). Building upon
the American with Disability Act of 1990, as amended, mandate of equal
access to public accommodations and services, the second of four major
goals within the Surgeon General's call-to-action is to: ``Increase
knowledge among health care professionals and provide them with tools
to screen, diagnose, and treat the whole person with a disability with
dignity.''
Many medical devices in use today are not readily accessible to
individuals with disabilities. For example, research examining the
accessibility of mammography equipment found that inaccessible health
care facilities and medical equipment make it less likely that women
with disabilities will receive breast cancer screening (Nosek,
[[Page 54877]]
2000). In addition, accessibility issues are apparent with many other
medical devices such as exam tables, x-ray equipment, rehabilitation
equipment, and weight scales (Winters, et al., 2005). Accordingly,
NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC that facilitates equitable access to, and
use of, healthcare facilities and equipment by people with
disabilities.
References
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General's
Call to Action to Improve the Health and Wellness of Persons with
Disabilities. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
the Surgeon General, 2005.
Nosek, M.A. (2000). The John Stanley Coulter lecture. Overcoming
the Odds: The Health of Women with Physical Disabilities in the United
States. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(2): 135-8.
Winters, J.M., Story, M.F., Barnekow, K., Isaacson Kailes, J.,
Premo, B., Schwier, E., Winters, J.M. (2005) Accessibility of Medical
Instrumentation: A National Healthcare Consumer Survey, Proc. RESNA
2005 Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, June, 2005.
Priority 9--RERC for Workplace Accommodations
Individuals with disabilities experience low rates of employment
and are less likely to be highly educated than are individuals without
disabilities. Despite several national programs and policies that
address this disparity, employment rates for people with disabilities
have remained stable or declined in the past decade (2003 CPS
Employment Rates). The lack of an accessible work environment may
partially explain the decline in employment rates among individuals
with disabilities.
Functional limitations in areas such as motor functioning,
communication, sensation and perception, and cognitive functioning all
present barriers to employment and maintenance of employment by people
with disabilities (Williams, M., Sabata, D., Zolna, J. (2006)).
Modifications in the work environment often remove or reduce these
barriers. Examples of modifications include ramps, automatic door
openers, alternate computer systems, voice output devices for persons
with visual impairments, and customized desks and worktables.
Evaluating the effectiveness of existing individualized accommodations
and new technologies that can potentially be integrated into the design
of work environments also may help to reduce employment barriers.
Moreover, the need persists for more comprehensive empirical evidence
about the human factors of the workplace environment and workplace
technology used by people with disabilities. For example, workplace and
task assessment using ergonomic, anthropometric, and kinematic analysis
is needed for individuals with disabilities. In addition, new tools for
assessing changes in function, skills, and abilities should be
developed for individuals with disabilities (Dowler, D. L., Hirsch, A.
E., Kittle, R. D., and Hendricks, D. J. (1996)) and technology
resources should be systematically considered at all stages of an
individual's employment and overall rehabilitation process (Langton,
A.J., and Ramseur, H. (2001)). Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC
that facilitates equitable access to, and use of, workplace equipment
and facilities and otherwise promotes safety, independence, and active
engagement in the workplace by individuals with disabilities.
References
Vocational Economics, Inc. (2003). 2003 CPS Employment Rates.
http://www.vocecon.com/technical/DATA/newcps.htm.
Williams, M., Sabata, D., Zolna, J. (2006). A Survey of Workplace
Accommodation Needs of Older Workers and Persons with Disabilities
Proc. RESNA 2006 Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, June, 2006.
Dowler, D. L., Hirsch, A. E., Kittle, R. D., and Hendricks, D. J.
(1996). Outcomes of Reasonable Accommodations in the Workplace.
Technology and Disability, 5 (1996) 345-354.
Langton, A.J., and Ramseur, H. (2001). Enhancing Employment
Outcomes Through Job Accommodation and Assistive Technology Resources
and Services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16 (2001) 27-37.
Priority 10--RERC for Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation
Systems
Rehabilitation of physical impairment is labor intensive, often
relying on one-on-one interactions and hands-on manipulations by
physicians and therapists. Technologies are now available to help
replicate these therapeutic manipulations so that individuals can
practice therapy on their own in a clinic or possibly at home. Several
studies suggest that appropriately designed robotic rehabilitation
therapy may be used for the assessment and treatment of motor
impairments (Lum, Burgar, Shor, Majmundar, & Van der Loos, 2002;
Reinkensmeyer, Hogan, Krebs, Lehman, & Lum, 2000; Riener, Lunenburger,
Jezernik, Anderschitz, Colombo, & Dietz, 2005).
By replicating therapy techniques that normally require one-on-one
contact with clinicians, robotic manipulators could increase access to
therapy, increase time spent in therapy, potentially reduce the cost of
therapy, and possibly achieve better outcomes than traditional
rehabilitation therapies. Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC that
evaluates the efficacy of rehabilitation robotic therapies and
researches and develops innovative technologies and techniques to
improve the current state of the science and usability of
rehabilitation robotic therapies for individuals with disabilities.
References
Lum, P.S., Burgar, C.G., Shor, P.C., Majmundar, M., and Van der
Loos, H.F.M. (2002). Robot-Assisted Movement Training Compared with
Conventional Therapy Techniques for the Rehabilitation of Upper Limb
Motor Function Following Stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Jul.; 83(7): 952-9.
Reinkensmeyer, D., Hogan, N., Krebs, H., Lehman, S., and Lum, P.
(2000). Rehabilitators, Robots, and Guides: New Tools for Neurological
Rehabilitation: In Biomechanics and Neural Control of Posture and
Movement, J. Winters and P. Crago, Eds., 2 ed: Springer-Verlag, 2000,
516-533.
Riener, R., Lunenburger, L., Jezernik, S., Anderschitz, M.,
Colombo, G., Dietz, V. (2005). Patient-Cooperative Strategies for
Robot-Aided Treadmill Training: First Experimental Results. IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, Sep.;
13(3): 380-94.
Priority 11--RERC for Emergency Management Technologies
Although disasters and emergencies may have a greater impact on
individuals with disabilities, their needs and concerns in the areas of
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery are often overlooked
(National Council on Disability, 2005). Many individuals with
disabilities rely on elevators, accessible transportation, and
accessible communications, all of which can be compromised during
disasters or emergency situations (Executive Order 13347, Annual
Report, 2005). The aim of Executive Order 13347 is to ensure that the
Federal Government appropriately supports safety and security for
individuals with disabilities. Accordingly, NIDRR seeks
[[Page 54878]]
to fund an RERC that researches, develops, and evaluates emergency
management technologies and implementation plans to support the full
inclusion of people with disabilities.
References
National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with
Disabilities in Emergency Planning. April 2005. Available at: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/
[fxsp0]publications/2005/saving--
lives.htm#purpose.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Individuals with Disabilities
in Emergency Preparedness: Executive Order 13347, Annual Report, July
2005.
Proposed Priorities
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes seven priorities for the establishment of (a) An RERC
for Spinal Cord Injury (Priority 5), (b) an RERC for Recreational
Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting Individuals with
Disabilities (Priority 6), (c) an RERC for Translating Physiological
Data into Predictions for Functional Performance (Priority 7), (d) an
RERC for Accessible Medical Instrumentation (Priority 8), (e) an RERC
for Workplace Accommodations (Priority 9), (f) an RERC for
Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems (Priority 10), and
(g) an RERC for Emergency Management Technologies (Priority 11). Within
its designated priority research area, each RERC will focus on
innovative technological solutions, new knowledge, and concepts that
will improve the lives of persons with disabilities.
(a) RERC for Spinal Cord Injury (Priority 5). Under this priority,
the RERC must research, develop and evaluate innovative technologies
and approaches that will improve the treatment, rehabilitation,
employment, and reintegration into society of persons with spinal cord
injury. This RERC must work collaboratively with the NIDRR-funded
Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Centers program;
(b) RERC for Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology
Benefiting Individuals With Disabilities (Priority 6). Under this
priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative
technologies and strategies that will enhance recreational
opportunities for individuals with disabilities and develop methods to
enhance the physical performance of individuals with disabilities;
(c) RERC for Translating Physiological Data into Predictions for
Functional Performance (Priority 7). Under this priority, the RERC must
determine the physiological measurement tools that are available in a
specific sub-specialty of rehabilitation. A sub-specialty may be based
on underlying disabling condition (e.g., spinal cord injury, and
Parkinson's disease), or on specific sequelae that may be common to a
wide variety of disabling conditions (e.g., pain, spasticity). The RERC
must then develop and evaluate models and methods for determining the
relationships between basic physiological measurements and functional
performance. These models and methods must take the characteristics of
individuals and their environments into consideration when attempting
to delineate these relationships, so that the results of this research
are relevant to clinical practice and the real-world experiences of
individuals with disabilities.
(d) RERC for Accessible Medical Instrumentation (Priority 8). Under
this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative
methods and technologies to increase the usability and accessibility of
diagnostic, therapeutic, and procedural healthcare equipment (e.g.,
equipment used during medical examinations, and treatment) for
individuals with disabilities. This includes developing methods and
technologies that are useable and accessible for patients and health
care providers with disabilities.
(e) RERC for Workplace Accommodations (Priority 9). Under this
priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate innovative
technologies and implementation plans, devices, and systems to enhance
the productivity of individuals with disabilities in the workplace.
This RERC must emphasize the application of universal design concepts
to improve the accessibility of the workplace and workplace tools for
all workers.
(f) RERC for Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems
(Priority 10). Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop,
and evaluate human-scale robots and telemanipulation systems that will
provide or perform rehabilitation therapies and address the unique
needs of individuals with disabilities.
(g) RERC for Emergency Management Technologies (Priority 11). Under
this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate existing
and innovative emergency management technologies to enhance emergency
outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Areas of focus within this
priority research area may include but are not limited to
communications, transportation, evacuation, and other areas related to
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. In addition, this RERC
must provide input and expertise into the development of standards to
improve emergency management for individuals with disabilities. This
RERC must work collaboratively with the NIDRR-funded Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Project: Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of
People with Disabilities.
Under each priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the
following programmatic outcomes:
(1) Increased technical and scientific knowledge-base relevant to
its designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute to this
outcome by conducting high-quality, rigorous research and development
projects.
(2) Innovative technologies, products, environments, performance
guidelines, and monitoring and assessment tools as applicable to its
designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute to this
outcome by developing and testing these innovations.
(3) Improved research capacity in its designated priority research
area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by collaborating with
the relevant industry, professional associations, and institutions of
higher education.
(4) Improved focus on cutting edge developments in technologies
within its designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute
to this outcome by identifying and communicating with NIDRR and the
field regarding trends and evolving product concepts related to its
designated priority research area.
(5) Increased impact of research in the designated priority
research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by providing
technical assistance to public and private organizations, individuals
with disabilities, and employers on policies, guidelines, and standards
related to its designated priority research area.
In addition, under each priority, the RERC must--
Have the capability to design, build, and test prototype
devices and assist in the transfer of successful solutions to relevant
production and service delivery settings;
Evaluate the efficacy and safety of its new products,
instrumentation, or assistive devices;
Provide as part of its proposal and then implement a plan
that describes how it will include, as appropriate, individuals with
disabilities or their representatives in all phases of its activities,
including research, development, training, dissemination, and
evaluation;
[[Page 54879]]
Provide as part of its proposal and then implement, in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate its
research results to individuals with disabilities, their
representatives, disability organizations, service providers,
professional journals, manufacturers, and other interested parties;
Develop and implement in the first year of the project
period, 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
designated priority research area in the fourth year of the project
period and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the
conference in the fifth year of the project period; and
Coordinate research projects of mutual interest with
relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation with
the NIDRR project officer.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this notice of proposed
priorities are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we
have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of proposed priorities, we have
determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify the
costs.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that
similar projects have been completed successfully. These proposed
priorities will generate new knowledge and technologies through
research, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical
assistance projects.
Another benefit of these proposed priorities is that the
establishment of new DRRPs and new RERCs will support the President's
NFI and will improve the lives of persons with disabilities. The new
DRRPs and RERCs will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new
information that will improve the options for individuals with
disabilities to perform regular activities in the community.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 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/news/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 this document is the document
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.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.133A Disability
Rehabilitation Research Projects and 84.133E Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Centers Program)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g), 764(a), 764(b)(2), and
764(b)(3).
Dated: September 13, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E6-15548 Filed 9-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P