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), 7288-7297 [E7-2349]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7288-7297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2349]



[[Page 7287]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Notices Inviting 
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 7288]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final priorities for DRRPs and RERCs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services announces 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 announces four final 
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.
    Effective Date: These priorities are effective March 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7462 or via Internet: 
donna.nangle@ed.gov.
    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: 
    We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for NIDRR's 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program in 
the Federal Register on September 19, 2006 (71 FR 54870). The NPP 
included a background statement that described our rationale for each 
priority proposed in that notice.
    In this notice, we are announcing the following priorities for 
DRRPs and RERCs.
    For DRRPs, the priorities are:
     Priority 1--National Data and Statistical Center for the 
Burn Model Systems.
     Priority 2--Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers.
     Priority 3--Emergency Evacuation and Individuals with 
Disabilities.
     Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) 
Centers.
    For RERCs, the 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 Relating Physiological Data and 
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.
    There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final 
priorities (NFP). Specifically, we have made changes to Priority 3--
Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals with Disabilities, 
including changing the title to ``Emergency Evacuation and Individuals 
with Disabilities,'' and Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model 
Systems (TBIMS) Centers. We also have changed the title of Priority 7 
from ``RERC for Translating Physiological Data into Predictions for 
Functional Performance'' to ``RERC for Relating Physiological Data and 
Functional Performance.''

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the NPP, 22 parties submitted 
comments on the proposed priorities addressed in this NFP. An analysis 
of the comments and the changes in the priorities since the publication 
of the NPP follows. We discuss major issues according to general topic 
questions and priorities.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priorities.

General

Collaborative Research Module Projects (Priority 2--Burn Model Systems 
(BMS) Centers and Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Systems (TBIMS) 
Centers)

    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification on the 
collaborative research module requirements reflected in paragraph (b) 
of the Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers priority (Priority 2) and 
paragraph (b) of the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) 
Centers priority (Priority 4). In particular, commenters requested more 
information on the process by which module research projects will be 
selected for implementation.
    Discussion: The priorities for the BMS Centers and the TBIMS 
Centers require applicants to propose one collaborative research module 
project and to participate in at least one collaborative research 
module project. These priorities state that, in conjunction with NIDRR, 
at the beginning of the funding cycle project directors will select 
specific modules for implementation from approved applications. The 
details of this selection process will be based, in part, on input from 
project directors of funded centers, and, therefore, will not be 
finalized until after grant awards have been made. As stated in both 
priorities, decisions regarding selection of module projects for 
implementation will be made by the project directors of the newly 
awarded centers in conjunction with NIDRR staff. NIDRR is not requiring 
applicants to identify collaborators or to have established 
relationships with such collaborators prior to submitting applications.
    Under both priorities, multiple applicants may propose the same, or 
substantially similar, module projects. In the case of the TBIMS 
Centers priority, applicants may also propose to continue, refine, or 
extend an existing collaborative module project. Under both priorities, 
participation in the module projects will be limited to the funded 
centers. Because these are peer-reviewed projects, in accordance with 
NIDRR policies, any substantial changes to project scope (e.g., 
addition of outside collaborative sites) must be approved by the 
assigned NIDRR project officer.
    Moreover, under both priorities, funded centers may participate in 
more than one module project. The number and subject of the modules 
selected for implementation will not be known, however, until after the 
first Project Directors' meeting. Each successful applicant will work 
with NIDRR staff to determine if allocations of staffing and budget 
allow participation in more than

[[Page 7289]]

one module project. NIDRR recommends that each center set aside up to 
15 percent of its budget for participating in module projects.
    NIDRR requires that applicants fully develop and present their 
module research project, identifying research question(s) to be 
addressed by their projects, along with a description of the importance 
of the research they intend to conduct and the specific outcomes they 
hope to achieve through the projects, so that reviewers may determine 
whether the scope and format of the projects are appropriate.
    Changes: None.

Priority 2--Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers

    Comment: Two commenters suggested that NIDRR should require BMS 
Centers grantees to conduct research on rural areas.
    Discussion: While NIDRR agrees that focus on the treatment needs of 
individuals in rural areas might be an excellent subject for burn 
research, we do not believe that all applicants should be required to 
focus on rural areas in their proposals. Nothing in the priority 
precludes an applicant from suggesting such a research focus. The peer 
review process will evaluate the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR should require BMS 
Centers grantees to conduct research focused on the measurement of burn 
outcome.
    Discussion: While NIDRR agrees that outcome measures might be an 
excellent subject for burn research, we do not believe that all 
applicants should be required to propose projects that focus only on 
outcomes measurement. Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant 
from suggesting such a research focus, however. The peer review process 
will evaluate the merits of the individual proposals.
    Changes: None.

Priority 3--Emergency Evacuation and Individuals with Disabilities

    Comment: One commenter inquired about the expected level of funding 
and duration of projects to be supported under this priority.
    Discussion: Because funding level and project duration are not 
subject to public comment, this information was not included in the 
NPP. We will include information about the expected level of funding 
and project duration in the notice inviting applications for any 
competition using this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether the use of the term 
``inclusive'' in this priority means that applicants must include 
people with all forms of disabilities in their target population. 
Another commenter suggested that NIDRR change the title of this 
priority from ``Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals with 
Disabilities'' to ``Including Individuals with Disabilities in 
Emergency Evacuation.''
    Discussion: The term ``inclusive'' is not intended to require 
applicants to include individuals with all forms of disabilities in 
their target population(s). Rather, the priority is intended to direct 
applicants to define the parameters and units of analysis for their 
proposed activities, including the target population of their project. 
Applicants may choose to focus on individuals with one or more types of 
disabilities. It is up to the applicant to explain and justify their 
proposed target population in their applications. The peer review 
process will assess the merits of individual applications.
    Changes: To clarify that projects funded under this priority are 
not required to include all forms of disabilities in their target 
population(s), we have changed the title of this priority from 
``Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals with Disabilities'' to 
``Emergency Evacuation and Individuals with Disabilities'' and removed 
other references to the term ``inclusive'' throughout the priority.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether 
applicants are required to focus on buildings, transportation systems, 
and geographic locations, or whether they can select one or more of 
these areas. The commenter also requested clarification on whether 
applicants are required to focus on disability-related evacuation 
devices, plans, exercises, protocols, models, systems, networks, and 
standards, or whether applicants can focus on one or more of these. The 
commenter stated that the language in paragraph (a) of the proposed 
priority is unclear.
    Discussion: In each case, applicants may choose one or more of the 
areas listed. Regardless of the area(s) selected, applicants must 
clearly define and justify their chosen area(s) of focus in their 
applications.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (a) of the priority by deleting 
the term ``and,'' and inserting the term ``or'' in both lists of areas 
of focus. We also have made other editorial, non-substantive revisions 
to this paragraph in order to clarify it further.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon internal review of this priority, NIDRR determined 
that the phrase ``disability-related'' in the priority could lead 
applicants to focus narrowly on disability issues instead of more 
broadly on emergency management initiatives and evacuation solutions 
(i.e., evacuation devices, plans, exercises, protocols, models, 
systems, networks, standards and interventions) that incorporate 
disability issues.
    Changes: We have deleted the phrase ``disability-related'' from 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the priority. We have added the phrase ``for 
individuals with disabilities'' to paragraph (b).
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon internal review of this priority, NIDRR determined 
that it may not be clear that the phrase ``evacuation solutions'' as 
stated in paragraph (b) of the priority refers to the focus areas 
identified in paragraph (a) (i.e., evacuation devices, plans, 
exercises, protocols, models, systems, networks, standards, and 
interventions).
    Changes: We have added the phrase ``evacuation solutions'' to 
paragraph (a) of the priority to clarify that evacuation devices, 
plans, exercises, protocols, models, systems, networks, standards, and 
interventions are all evacuation solutions.
    Comment: Two commenters asked NIDRR to clarify the requirement that 
the DRRP synthesize the current evidence base in the area(s) selected 
by the grantee. Specifically, the commenters asked: (a) Whether the 
proposed priority is asking for an assessment of the current evidence 
base and (b) whether the required synthesis is to be a one-time or 
ongoing activity.
    Discussion: The priority requires a synthesis and assessment of the 
current evidence base in the area(s) selected by the grantee (e.g., 
evacuation devices, plans, exercises, protocols, models, systems, 
networks, standards, or interventions). We expect that this synthesis 
will develop over the course of the project period. The synthesis 
should inform implementation of the proposed project and should 
culminate in a final document that provides a comprehensive assessment 
of what we know and what research needs remain.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether the requirement that the DRRP 
synthesize the current evidence base in the area(s) selected by the 
grantee requires that knowledge translation strategies be addressed.
    Discussion: NIDRR is integrating knowledge translation requirements 
across its research portfolio and does want applicants to address 
knowledge translation strategies when responding to this priority. For 
this reason, we think it is important to clarify the role of

[[Page 7290]]

knowledge translation in the work to be performed under this priority.
    Changes: For clarification, we have added an additional requirement 
in paragraph (b) of the priority. This new requirement directs the DRRP 
to share findings with the emergency management community and other 
stakeholders. It will be up to the applicant to propose a specific 
strategy or method for sharing information with stakeholders. The peer 
review process will determine the merits of individual proposals.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority include the 
establishment of an electronic clearinghouse of information in order to 
facilitate dissemination to stakeholders and assist the translation of 
research into practice.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that an electronic clearinghouse could be 
a useful dissemination tool. Applicants may propose to establish an 
electronic clearinghouse to facilitate the dissemination of research 
and assist in the translation of research into practice. However, NIDRR 
does not believe that it would be appropriate to require that every 
applicant include such a clearinghouse in their proposed project. The 
peer review process will assess the merits of individual applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether the priority mostly focuses on 
establishing the current state of the science, or solicits ideas for 
new interventions or enhancement of existing interventions.
    Discussion: The priority requires the DRRP to synthesize and assess 
the evidence base in one or more of the following areas: buildings, 
transportation systems, or geographic locations. It also requires the 
DRRP to advance the evidence base in one or more of these areas. We 
intend for the priority to allow for the generation of ideas for new 
interventions or enhancements of existing interventions. Applicants may 
choose their area(s) of focus.
    Changes: In order to clarify our intent, we have reworded paragraph 
(a) of the priority to incorporate a requirement related to advancing 
the current evidence base. We also have added the word 
``interventions'' to this paragraph to clarify that applicants may 
suggest new interventions or enhancements of existing interventions.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether the requirement to examine 
barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of disability-
related evacuation solutions within existing emergency management 
initiatives suggests a research and evaluation component to this 
priority.
    Discussion: The intended outcome of requirement (b)(1) of this 
priority is that the DRRP will add to the evidence base about factors 
that help or hinder the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in 
existing emergency evacuation plans. We anticipate that, in order to 
add to the current evidence base about these factors, grantees will 
need to conduct research. Evaluation activities also may be required, 
depending on the area of focus chosen by the applicant. It is up to the 
applicant to define and justify area(s) of focus. The peer review 
process will determine the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in order to develop inclusive 
evacuation plans, people with disabilities should be included in the 
planning process. The commenter stated that the DRRP should include 
research on ways in which people with disabilities can participate in 
the planning processes at a macro and micro level.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that including individuals with 
disabilities in the planning process is a sound approach. As noted in 
the NPP and elsewhere in this notice, NIDRR intends to require all DRRP 
applicants under this priority 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). Under the General 
DRRP Requirements priority, each applicant must involve individuals 
with disabilities in planning and implementing the DRRP's research, 
training, and dissemination activities, and evaluating its work. It is 
up to the applicant to propose how it will meet this requirement and 
the peer reviewers will assess the merits of each individual proposal.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that State and local safety codes may 
present barriers to inclusive, effective evacuation of people with 
disabilities. The commenter recommended that the priority require 
grantees to investigate the impact of these codes and how they interact 
with applicable nondiscrimination requirements of legislation such as 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that State and local safety codes may 
present barriers to inclusive, effective evacuation of individuals with 
disabilities. This may be an appropriate focus of research; nothing in 
the priority precludes an applicant from proposing to examine these 
variables. However, NIDRR does not believe that it would be appropriate 
to require every applicant to examine these codes and their effect on 
including individuals with disabilities in effective evacuation plans. 
The peer review process will assess the merits of each individual 
proposal.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that an important outcome of the 
proposed DRRP would be engagement and collaboration with the emergency 
management community, emergency technology providers, and end users to 
develop inclusive communication plans in their respective emergency 
management protocols.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees with this comment, and believes that the 
priority includes this focus. The priority states that the DRRP must be 
designed to contribute to the outcome of increased implementation of 
evacuation solutions for individuals with disabilities within existing 
emergency management initiatives, and requires meaningful and sustained 
collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including mainstream 
emergency management professionals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed priority be 
changed to use a functional definition of disability. The commenter 
stated that condition-specific definitions of disability may not be 
appropriate in the disaster management context and that it is important 
to think broadly about disability in terms of function, and not 
impairment or diagnosis.
    Discussion: Consistent with the definition of ``disability'' that 
applies to title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
NIDRR agrees that a broad view of disability is appropriate. However, 
we wish to retain the requirement that applicants specify the target 
populations (e.g., individuals with physical, sensory or mental 
impairments) of their proposed project in order to emphasize the 
breadth of populations that could be included in the target 
population(s) of the work to be performed under this priority. However, 
this does not mean that applicants may not choose to use a functional 
definition of disability in their application. Applicants are free to 
define the target population(s) of their proposed project and to 
justify the population(s) as they deem appropriate. The peer review 
process will determine the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority specifically 
include

[[Page 7291]]

research to support evacuation planning, preparation, and strategies 
that fully account for the broad population of individuals who are 
blind or visually impaired (including seniors with vision loss, people 
with multiple disabilities, and individuals who are ethnically or 
linguistically diverse).
    Discussion: This priority is intentionally stated as broadly as 
possible in order to enable applicants with varying focus areas to 
apply. Nothing in the priority would preclude an applicant from 
including individuals with vision loss as their target population; the 
priority states that applicants must define their target population 
(e.g., individuals with physical, sensory, or mental impairments). 
NIDRR does not believe that it would be appropriate to require that all 
applicants include individuals with vision loss in their target 
populations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, as currently written, the 
Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals with Disabilities 
priority could be interpreted as requiring the synthesis and assessment 
of technological evidence (i.e., highway width, design capacity 
specifications, building standards, etc.) or systemic evidence (i.e., 
improved communication plans, guidelines or annexes among best 
practices of disaster management, training modules, etc.). The 
commenter asked which of these two types of evidence the priority seeks 
to address.
    Discussion: The priority is broadly stated, permitting applicants 
to choose their area(s) of focus, and, hence, the types of evidence 
they synthesize and assess. Applicants may propose to focus their 
research on any one or more of the following: evacuation solutions--
evacuation devices, plans, exercises, protocols, models, systems, 
networks, standards and interventions. It is up to the applicant to 
define and justify their chosen area(s). The peer review process will 
evaluate the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it would be better for the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fund the research described in 
the Inclusive Emergency Evacuation of Individuals with Disabilities 
priority. The commenter stated that DHS has specific responsibility in 
this area, has research programs and portfolios that are appropriate to 
this topic, and has funding capability via the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. The commenter added that emergency management 
targeted to people with disabilities should be a mainstream activity of 
DHS and that funding through DHS would facilitate the rapid adoption of 
findings and products.
    Discussion: This DRRP fits within NIDRR's research agenda, which 
includes a growing portfolio of research to improve outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities in emergency and disaster situations. In 
addition, NIDRR chairs the Research Subcommittee of the DHS Interagency 
Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with 
Disabilities. As such, in developing this priority, NIDRR worked 
collaboratively with representatives of DHS as well as seven other 
Federal agencies. The priority requires applicants to demonstrate how 
they plan to implement a sustained, meaningful and integrated 
collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including relevant 
Federal agencies and members of DHS's Interagency Coordinating Council 
on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities.
    Changes: None.

Priority 4--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers

    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed TBIMS 
Centers priority would be understood by applicants to favor local 
projects that conduct intervention trials over projects that conduct 
diagnostic and prognostic studies. These commenters expressed concern 
that local projects that conduct intervention trials are likely to lack 
the sample sizes necessary to ensure adequate statistical power and 
generalizability of the research findings.
    Discussion: Under this priority applicants may propose to test 
innovative approaches to treatment and evaluation of traumatic brain 
injury (TBI) outcomes; however, NIDRR suggests that applicants also may 
consider the ways in which prognostic or diagnostic research can 
support the development of interventions that improve outcomes for 
persons with TBI. Nothing in the priority prohibits an applicant from 
proposing such prognostic or diagnostic research projects. The peer 
review process will evaluate the merits of each individual proposal.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the TBIMS Centers priority be 
modified to include an indication of how the 35-case-minimum (for 
enrollment in the TBIMS database) will be enforced. The commenter 
explained that the inclusion of this information in the priority would 
serve to discourage applicants from artificially inflating their 
estimate of TBIMS database enrollment in the application.
    Discussion: NIDRR expects that all applicants will make a good 
faith estimate of the number of people to be enrolled in the TBIMS 
database based on clinical enrollment rates at their respective 
institutions, accounting for expected refusals and attrition. 
Monitoring and enforcement of funded activities, including the number 
of persons enrolled in the TBIMS database, is the post-award 
responsibility of NIDRR staff.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the TBIMS Centers priority does 
not address whether collaborative research module projects developed 
under the last funding cycle of this program would be eligible for 
funding under this priority.
    Discussion: Grants under this priority will provide funds for 
collaborative research module projects that meet the requirements of 
the priority and are selected for implementation. Nothing in the TBIMS 
Centers priority prohibits an applicant from proposing a continuation 
or extension of a collaborative research module project that was funded 
in the last funding cycle of the TBIMS program. The peer review process 
will evaluate the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the TBIMS Centers priority 
explicate the process by which module research projects will be 
selected for implementation.
    Discussion: We discuss the process by which module research 
projects proposed under this priority will be selected for 
implementation under the heading Collaborative Research Module Projects 
(Priority 2--Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers and Priority 4--Traumatic 
Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers) elsewhere in this notice.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter inquired about the components of the 
required multidisciplinary system of care designed to meet the needs of 
individuals with TBI, stating that emergency medical services or Level 
1 trauma centers were not explicitly mentioned in the TBIMS Centers 
priority.
    Discussion: As explained in the background statement for the TBIMS 
Centers priority in the NPP, 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

[[Page 7292]]

individuals with TBI. These services span the continuum of treatment 
from acute care through community re-entry. Paragraph (1) of the 
priority also makes clear that a TBIMS Center must ``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.'' While NIDRR agrees that Level 1 trauma centers can play a 
key role in this system, NIDRR has no basis for requiring that 
applicants provide Level 1 trauma center care. The peer review process 
will evaluate the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the under-
representation of persons from minority and lower socioeconomic 
backgrounds in some TBIMS research. The commenter recommended that 
NIDRR more strongly encourage the inclusion of underserved populations 
in research conducted by the TBIMS Centers.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that members of underserved populations 
with TBI experience greater challenges in receiving health care 
services and are generally in poorer health. NIDRR does encourage the 
inclusion of underserved populations in the research funded through the 
TBIMS program. Nothing in the TBIMS Centers priority prohibits an 
applicant from proposing to include members of underserved populations 
in the proposed research. The peer review process will evaluate the 
merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Paragraph (2) of the TBIMS Centers priority requires 
that all TBIMS Centers coordinate with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems 
Knowledge Translation Center to provide scientific results and 
information for dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences. Since 
the publication of the NPP, the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge 
Translation Center has been established. Information about the newly 
funded Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center can be found at the 
following Web site: https://uwctds.washington.edu/projects/msktc.asp.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of the priority by adding 
the following Web site address for the NIDRR-funded Model Systems 
Knowledge Translation Center: https://uwctds.washington.edu/projects/
msktc.asp.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In the NPP, the background statement for the proposed 
TBIMS Centers priority stated that additional information regarding the 
TBIMS database, which is maintained by the NIDRR-funded National Data 
and Statistical Center for the TBIMS can be found at https://tbindc.org. 
Please note that, since the publication of the NPP, the NIDRR-funded 
TBIMS National Data and Statistical Center has been awarded to a 
different institution, and the associated Web site address has changed 
to https://www.tbindsc.org.
    Changes: None.

Priorities 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11--Rehabilitation Engineering 
Research Centers (RERCs)

    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Recreational 
Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting Individuals with 
Disabilities priority should specifically address the needs of people 
with sensory disabilities.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the recreational and fitness needs of 
individuals with sensory disabilities are important. Nothing in this 
priority prohibits an applicant from proposing to address the needs of 
individuals with sensory disabilities through its proposed project; the 
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However, 
NIDRR does not believe that it would be appropriate to require that all 
applicants address sensory disabilities through their proposed 
projects.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Recreational 
Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting Individuals with 
Disabilities priority should specifically address exercise programs for 
people with disabilities.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the development of exercise programs 
for individuals with disabilities may lead to better health outcomes 
and increased access to and participation in physical fitness 
activities. An applicant could propose to address exercise programs for 
individuals with disabilities; the peer review process will evaluate 
the merits of individual proposals. However, NIDRR does not believe 
that it would be appropriate to require all applicants under this 
priority to propose to address exercise programs for individuals with 
disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Translating 
Physiological Data into Predictions for Functional Performance priority 
should address mobility aids (e.g., canes and guide dogs) used by 
adults with low vision and blindness.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that research and demonstration activities 
on mobility aids may help to improve ambulation and access by people 
with low vision and blindness. An applicant could propose to address 
mobility aids used by adults with low vision and blindness through its 
proposed project and the peer review process will evaluate the merits 
of the proposal. However, NIDRR does not believe that it would be 
appropriate to require that all applicants address mobility aids used 
by adults with low vision and blindness in their proposed projects.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Translating 
Physiological Data into Predictions for Functional Performance priority 
is too restrictive because it limits the relationship between 
physiological measures and functional performance to prediction only. 
This commenter expressed concern that the title of the proposed 
priority contributes to this narrow focus.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter. Models and methods for 
understanding the various relationships between physiological data and 
functional performance are in need of development. An applicant could 
propose to address other components of the relationship between 
physiological measures and functional performance; the peer review 
process will evaluate the merits of the individual proposals. For the 
sake of clarity, NIDRR will change the title of this priority.
    Changes: The title of this priority area has been changed from 
``RERC for Translating Physiological Data into Predictions for 
Functional Performance'' to ``RERC for Relating Physiological Data and 
Functional Performance.''
    Comment: One commenter believes that the RERC for Accessible 
Medical Instrumentation priority should focus on monitoring devices 
used for self-care by people with disabilities and that the RERC should 
be responsible for standards development for monitoring devices used 
for self-care by people with disabilities.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that research and development in the area 
of monitoring devices used for self-care by individuals with 
disabilities is needed. An applicant could propose to address 
monitoring devices used for self-care by individuals with disabilities; 
the peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal. 
However, NIDRR does not believe that it would be appropriate to require 
that all applicants address monitoring devices used for self-care by 
individuals with disabilities through

[[Page 7293]]

their proposed projects. If an applicant proposes to address monitoring 
devices used for self-care by individuals with disabilities, it must 
remember that it will be required to provide technical assistance to 
public and private organizations responsible for developing policies, 
guidelines, and standards that affect this area of research.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Workplace 
Accommodations priority should specifically recognize that the 
workplace is a dynamic, ever-changing environment where effective 
accommodations may change over time.
    Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the workplace is a dynamic 
environment where accommodations at the individual level may not be 
sufficient for the human-work environment system. As employee job 
functions and responsibilities change, the employee and accommodations 
must be able to adapt effectively. An applicant under this priority 
could propose to address this aspect of workplace accommodations 
through its proposed project; the peer review process will evaluate the 
merits of individual proposals. However, NIDRR does not believe that it 
would be appropriate to require all applicants to address this aspect 
of workplace accommodations in their proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Workplace 
Accommodations priority should specifically address individuals with 
environmental illness and that it should require the study of the 
impact of personal assistance services on employment barriers.
    Discussion: Nothing in the RERC for Workplace Accommodations 
priority prohibits an applicant from proposing to address environmental 
illness in the workplace or to study the impact of personal assistance 
services on employment barriers; the peer review process will evaluate 
the merits of individual proposals received under this priority. NIDRR 
does not believe that it would be appropriate to require that all 
applicants propose to address environmental illness or to study the 
impact of personal assistance services on employment barriers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Rehabilitation 
Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems priority should be expanded to 
include robotic aids for mobility, education, and manipulation.
    Discussion: Nothing in this priority prohibits an applicant from 
proposing to investigate intelligent mobility aids. NIDRR does not 
believe, however, that it would be appropriate to require all 
applicants to investigate intelligent mobility aids under this 
priority. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of 
individual proposals.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the RERC for Emergency 
Management Technologies priority should address specifically the inter-
operability of communications platforms, and digital emergency alert 
systems, and that it should involve the Federal, State, and local 
emergency management communities.
    Discussion: NIDRR recognizes that compatible communications, 
digital emergency alert systems, and the involvement of the Federal, 
State, and local emergency management communities are critical to 
effective emergency management communications. That said, NIDRR does 
not believe that it would be appropriate to require all applicants 
under this priority to address inter-operability issues or digital 
alert systems, or to involve Federal, State, and local emergency 
management communities through their proposed projects. Nothing 
prohibits an applicant from proposing to address compatible 
communications, or digital emergency alert systems, or to involve the 
Federal, State, and local emergency management communities; the peer 
review process will evaluate the merits of individual proposals.
    Changes: None.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting 
applications we designate each priority 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)).
    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)).

    Note: This NFP 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: https://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: https://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.

Priorities

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: https://

[[Page 7294]]

www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.htmlDRRP.

National Data and Statistical Center for the Burn Model Systems

Priority
    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services establishes 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) 
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.

Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers

Priority
    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services establishes 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 
dissemination to clinical and consumer audiences.

Emergency Evacuation and Individuals with Disabilities

Priority
    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services announces a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project (DRRP) on Emergency Evacuation and Individuals with 
Disabilities. This DRRP must conduct research that contributes to 
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities in emergencies and 
disasters. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to contribute 
to the following outcomes:
    (a) Increased evidence-based knowledge about the emergency 
evacuation of individuals with disabilities from one or more of the 
following areas: buildings; transportation systems; or geographic 
locations (e.g., cities and States). The DRRP must contribute to this 
outcome by synthesizing, assessing, and advancing the current state of 
evidence-based knowledge within the area(s) chosen above. This must 
include a focus on one or more of the following evacuation solutions-- 
evacuation devices, plans, exercises, protocols, models, systems, 
networks, standards, or interventions. Research activities must be 
designed with the goal of achieving reliable, usable, accessible, safe, 
effective, and emergency evacuation for individuals with disabilities.
    (b) Increased implementation of evacuation solutions for 
individuals with disabilities within existing emergency management 
initiatives. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by-- (1) 
examining barriers and facilitators to incorporating disability-related 
evacuation solutions within existing emergency management initiatives; 
(2) sharing findings from this DRRP with the emergency management 
community and other key stakeholders; and (3) collaborating with the 
emergency management community and other key stakeholders to propose 
solutions to identified barriers.
    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(s) of evacuation (i.e., 
evacuation from buildings, transportation systems, geographic locations 
such as cities or States); (2) target population(s) (e.g., individuals 
with physical, sensory, mental impairments); and (3) type(s) of 
evacuation solutions (e.g., evacuation devices, plans, exercises, 
protocols, models, systems, networks, standards, interventions).
     Demonstrate in their applications how they plan to 
implement a sustained, meaningful, and integrated collaboration 
throughout the project with key stakeholders. These may include but are 
not limited to: (1) disability and aging advocates and organizations, 
disability subject matter

[[Page 7295]]

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.

Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) Centers

Priority
    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services establishes 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 (Plan). 
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--
    (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. (Additional 
information on this center can be found at https://
uwctds.washington.edu/projects/msktc.asp). 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: https://
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/.

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) for Spinal Cord 
Injury, Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting 
Individuals with Disabilities, Relating Physiological Data and 
Functional Performance, Accessible Medical Instrumentation, Workplace 
Accommodations, Rehabilitation Robotics and Telemanipulation Systems, 
and Emergency Management Technologies

Priorities
    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services establishes seven priorities for the establishment of (a) an 
RERC for Spinal Cord Injury, (b) an RERC for Recreational Technologies 
and Exercise Physiology Benefiting Individuals with Disabilities, (c) 
an RERC for Relating Physiological Data and Functional Performance, (d) 
an RERC for Accessible Medical Instrumentation, (e) an RERC for 
Workplace Accommodations, (f) an RERC for Rehabilitation Robotics and 
Telemanipulation Systems, and (g) an RERC for Emergency Management 
Technologies. 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.
    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.
    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

[[Page 7296]]

enhance the physical performance of individuals with disabilities.
    (c) RERC for Relating Physiological Data and Functional 
Performance.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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: Emergency Evacuation and Individuals 
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;
     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