[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11554-11562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5894]
[[Page 11553]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-1999 for
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers for
Fiscal Year 1998
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 11554]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research;
Notice of Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-1999 for
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final funding priorities for four
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) under the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for fiscal
years l998-1999. The Secretary takes this action to focus research
attention on areas of national need. These priorities are intended to
improve rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect on April 8, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205-
5880. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-2742. Internet:
Donna__Nangle@ed.gov
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains final priorities under
the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers program
for RERCs related to information technology access, communication
enhancement, ergonomic solutions for employment, and hearing
enhancement.
The authority for RERCs is contained in section 204(b)(3) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 762(b)(3)). Under
this program the Secretary makes awards to public and private agencies
and organizations, including institutions of higher education, Indian
tribes, and tribal organizations, to conduct research, demonstration,
and training activities regarding rehabilitation technology in order to
enhance opportunities for meeting the needs of, and addressing the
barriers confronted by, individuals with disabilities in all aspects of
their lives. An RERC must be operated by or in collaboration with an
institution of higher education or a nonprofit organization.
These final priorities support the National Education Goal that
calls for every adult American to possess the skills necessary to
compete in a global economy.
The authority for the Secretary to establish research priorities by
reserving funds to support particular research activities is contained
in sections 202(g) and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 761a(g) and 762).
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition
is published in this issue of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
On October 30, 1997, the Secretary published a notice of proposed
priorities in the Federal Register (62 FR 58862-58867). The Department
of Education received 12 letters commenting on the notice of proposed
priorities by the deadline date. Technical and other minor changes--and
suggested changes the Secretary is not legally authorized to make under
statutory authority--are not addressed.
General
Comment: Each RERC should be required to collaborate on a
utilization plan with the RERC on Technology Transfer. This will not
only improve their utilization activities, but also parallel the
dissemination requirement that each RERC must consult with the National
Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) in the
development and implementation of a dissemination plan.
Discussion: This comment and the comment that follows (on providing
applicants with more discretion) have prompted reconsideration of all
the general requirements. In order to provide applicants with more
discretion in their dissemination and utilization activities and
achieve a proper balance between the dissemination and utilization
requirements, both requirements have been revised. The revisions
provide applicants with the discretion to propose to consult with the
RERC on Technology Transfer or the NCDDR, but do not require it. NIDRR
strongly encourages these consultations. The peer review process will
determine the merits of the dissemination and utilization activities
that an applicant proposes.
In regard to the other general requirements, the proposed
requirements related to graduate training and sharing information have
been eliminated as technical changes. The graduate training requirement
repeats the statutory training requirements for RERCs, and the sharing
information provision is not a requirement per se.
Changes: The requirements applicable to each RERC regarding
dissemination and utilization have been revised to be internally
consistent and less prescriptive. The graduate training and sharing
information requirements have been eliminated.
Comment: The priorities are too prescriptive and do not provide
applicants with sufficient discretion to propose research and
engineering activities within each field of study. The priorities
should not set forth the specific research problems to be addressed by
each RERC, but instead provide a general framework of issues within the
authority of the RERCs.
Discussion: NIDRR attempts to provide applicants with as much
discretion as possible. Finding the proper balance between providing
applicants with this discretion, while at the same time ensuring that
an approved application will accomplish the purposes of the RERC, is an
admittedly subjective task. This delicate balance is evidenced in the
fact that most of the comments that NIDRR receives on this issue
request that NIDRR be more prescriptive and include one or more
specific requirements. Unless there is compelling evidence of the
merits of additional specific requirements, NIDRR routinely declines
those requests in order to provide applicants with as much discretion
as possible.
There are two sets of requirements applicable to each priority: the
general requirements prefacing the priorities and the priorities
themselves. In response to this comment, NIDRR has reviewed all of the
requirements in the proposed general requirements and the proposed
priorities to determine if any could be revised to be less prescriptive
without compromising their purposes. As a result, the proposed general
requirements have been revised to provide applicants with increased
discretion. As indicated in the following sections, NIDRR has made a
number of changes to the priorities in response to specific comments
suggesting greater flexibility.
Changes: The general requirements regarding dissemination and
utilization have been revised to be less prescriptive.
Comment: Paragraphs b and c of the description of the RERC Program
are very similar and place too much emphasis on service delivery.
Discussion: Paragraphs b and c of the description of the RERC
Program are consistent with the statute.
Changes: None.
[[Page 11555]]
Priority 1: Information Technology Access
Comment: The RERC might benefit from collaborating with the
European Commission's Telematics Programme.
Discussion: NIDRR encourages all of its RERCs to collaborate with
entities undertaking related research and development. The commenter's
recommendation is one of many appropriate collaborations that could be
undertaken by the RERC. Applicants have the discretion to propose to
collaborate with other organizations and agencies, and an applicant
could propose to collaborate with the European Commission's Telematics
Programme. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of any
proposed collaborations.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC should be required to coordinate with the RERC on
Adaptive Computers and Information Systems and the National Science
Foundation's (NSF's) Universal Access Initiative that will, in part,
examine access to the World Wide Web.
Discussion: The project period for the RERC on Adaptive Computers
and Information Systems ends before the project period for the
Information Technology Access RERC begins. The NSF's Universal Access
Initiative is expected to address many topics of interest to this RERC,
and that coordination will be necessary in order to avoid duplication
of effort.
Changes: The priority has been revised to require the RERC to
coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with the NSF's
Universal Access Initiative.
Priority 3: Ergonomic Solutions for Employment
Comment: Three commenters expressed concern that the priority
overemphasized prevention of cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs) and did
not place sufficient emphasis on developing ergonomic solutions to the
problems persons with disabilities face in obtaining and maintaining
employment. The commenters were also concerned that this over-emphasis
would neglect the needs of persons with developmental and other
significant disabilities.
Discussion: The fact that only one of the five activities required
by the priority relates to obtaining and maintaining employment,
supports the commenters' contention that the priority overemphasizes
prevention. NIDRR agrees that the proposed priority does not place
sufficient emphasis on the promotion of employment.
In regard to the issue of addressing the needs of individuals with
development and other significant disabilities, NIDRR's authorizing
statute requires NIDRR to place a special emphasis on ``individuals
with the most severe disabilities. Unless noted otherwise in the
priority, all of NIDRR's Centers and Projects are required to address
the needs of all persons with disabilities, including those with
developmental and other significant disabilities. In addition, it
should be noted that the ``Description of the RERC Program'' includes
two references to addressing the ``needs of individuals with severe
disabilities.'' This RERC is required to address the needs of persons
with developmental and other significant disabilities.
Changes: The number of activities to be carried out by the RERC
that relate to assisting persons with disabilities to obtain and
maintain employment has been increased. The second activity has been
expanded beyond prevention-related activities to include evaluation of
the worksite accommodation needs of workers with disabilities. The
third and fourth activities have been revised and combined to eliminate
a prevention focus and, instead, to design, develop, and evaluate
ergonomically-based technologies, modifications, techniques, and tools
to provide worksite accommodations to workers with disabilities,
including elderly workers with disabilities.
Comment: The RERC should include at least two certified
professional ergonomists in leadership positions.
Discussion: Persons who fill the leadership positions of this RERC
could come from a wide range of professional fields. Applicants have
the discretion to propose key personnel, and an applicant could propose
to have two certified professional ergonomists in leadership positions
on the grant. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposed personnel.
Changes: None.
Comment: The location of the RERC should be limited to an academic
institution that includes accredited engineering and medical schools.
Discussion: Eligibility to be an applicant for an RERC is
established by statute. RERCs are required to be operated by or in
collaboration with an institution of higher education or a nonprofit
organization. No further restrictions are permissible by law.
Changes: None.
Comment: The extent of the problem, as stated in the background
section of the proposed priority, is incorrectly stated and could be
misinterpreted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on
Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in 1995, repeated trauma accounted for
62% of occupational illnesses (emphasis added), not injuries as stated
in the proposed priority.
Discussion: The commenter is correct. The reference cited refers to
illnesses rather than injuries.
Changes: The Bureau of Labor Statistics report citation has been
revised to refer to illnesses and not injuries.
Comment: The priority should be expanded beyond biomedical factors
to include the psychosocial, cognitive and sensory aspects of
ergonomics.
Discussion: Having met the requirements of the priority, applicants
have the discretion to propose to expand a field of investigation. An
applicant could propose to investigate the psychosocial, cognitive and
sensory aspects of ergonomics in addition to proposing to investigate
the biomechanical factors that lead to CTDs. The peer review process
will evaluate the merits of such a proposal. There is no compelling
evidence to justify requiring all applicants to investigate the
psychosocial, cognitive and sensory aspects of ergonomics.
Changes: None.
Comment: The fourth and fifth activities should be revised to
include evaluation activities.
Discussion: The commenter is correct that adding evaluation
components to the fourth and fifth activities of the proposed priority
will substantially improve them. In response to other comments the
fourth and fifth activities have been revised.
Changes: The revised activities have been expanded to include
evaluation components.
Comment: As a matter of clarification, does NIDRR want the RERC to
focus its efforts on paid employment or ``include solutions which might
include non-paid and home maintenance types of work?''
Discussion: When the purpose of a center or project is to promote
obtaining and maintaining employment for persons with disabilities,
NIDRR expects the center or project to focus, but necessarily limit,
its efforts on paid employment.
Changes: None.
Comment: As a matter of clarification, does NIDRR expect the RERC
to link outcome measures related to quality of life to their research
and development activities?
Discussion: The outcome measures for each of the priorities should
at a minimum include the purposes of the RERCs as stated in the
priority. Applicants have the discretion to
[[Page 11556]]
propose other outcome measures, including quality of life measures.
Changes: None.
Comment: The priority should be broadened to include addressing
injury and pain experienced as a result of secondary conditions by
persons with disabilities.
Discussion: The priority requires the RERC to address the needs
persons with disabilities. Therefore, the priority requires the RERC to
address secondary disabilities that in the case of CTDs necessarily
involve pain and injury.
Changes: None.
Comment: The priority should be modified to include the commonly
accepted scope of ergonomic research thereby allowing the RERC to
exploit the full range of possibilities for research.
Discussion: The priority does not limit applicants to a limited
scope of research related to ergonomics. Applicants have the discretion
to explore any and all aspects of ergonomic research that will
contribute to accomplishing the RERC's purposes. It is unnecessary to
revise the priority in order for an applicant to address a wide range
of ergonomic research.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended requiring the RERC to develop
and make available a design database of ergonomically-based performance
data, including anthropomorphic data, to better understand the work-
related capabilities of individuals with a wide range of disabilities.
Discussion: The commenters are correct. There is a significant need
for development of a database in this area.
Changes: The priority has been revised to require the RERC to
develop and disseminate a database of ergonomically-based performance
data on the work-related capabilities of persons with disabilities.
Comment: The RERC should design technologies, modifications,
techniques and tools that will aid others in providing ergonomically-
based worksite accommodations.
Discussion: The commenter has suggested language that more
effectively captures the NIDRR's intent for the fifth activity of the
proposed priority. As a result of revisions in response to other
comments, the fifth activity in the proposed priority has been
incorporated into the third activity of the final priority.
Changes: The third activity of the RERC has been revised to design,
develop, and evaluate ergonomically-based technologies, modifications,
techniques, and tools to provide worksite accommodations to workers
with disabilities, including elderly workers with disabilities.
Priority 4: Hearing Enhancement
Comment: Two commenters suggested studying telecoil functioning in
hearing aids, including better shielding to prevent electronic
interference and weak telecoil sensitivity levels.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenters that current telecoil
functioning in hearing aids can present significant problems to users.
Changes: The priority has been revised to require the RERC to
develop and evaluate new, emerging technology for integration into more
advanced versions of next generation hearing aids, assistive listening
devices (ALDs), and telecoils; Comment: The RERC should study whether
an individual can hear as well or better on the telephone using a
completely-in-the-canal-aid rather than with another type of aid which
has the telecoil option.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to study whether an
individual can hear as well or better on the telephone using a
completely-in-the-canal-aid rather than with another type of aid which
has the telecoil option. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the proposal. However, there is insufficient evidence to
warrant requiring all applicants to conduct this study.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC should coordinate with the U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (Access Board's) efforts at
developing standards for ALDs including research.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that the Access Board's
research activities in the area of ALDs complement the research of the
RERC. While applicants have the discretion to propose specific
coordination activities, e.g., research related to developing standards
for ALDs, NIDRR believes that a general requirement for the RERC to
coordinate with the Access Board will assist the RERC to fulfill its
purposes.
Changes: The priority has been revised to require the RERC to
coordinate with the Access Board on research projects of mutual
interest.
Comment: The RERC should investigate the overall functioning of
microphones used with ALDs.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to study the overall
functioning of microphones used with ALDs. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposal. However, there is insufficient
evidence to warrant requiring all applicants to conduct this study.
Changes: None.
Comment: The RERC should compare the benefits and costs of high
tech hearing aids with other available aids in order to provide
consumers with impartial information.
Discussion: An applicant could propose to compare the benefits and
costs of high tech hearing aids with other available aids. The peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the proposal. However, there
is insufficient evidence to warrant requiring all applicants to conduct
this cost benefit analysis.
Changes: None.
Comment: While maskers have proved to be effective for some persons
with significant tinnitus, they are by no means the only, or even the
most used, treatment for the relief from the symptoms of tinnitus. The
priority places too much emphasis on improving tinnitus maskers.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenter that maskers are one of
a number of strategies to address the symptoms of tinnitus, and that
the priority should provide the RERC with greater discretion to explore
not only maskers, but other approaches to alleviate these symptoms.
Changes: The fifth activity expands the discretion of the RERC to
develop and evaluate technology, including, but not limited to maskers,
to alleviate the problems of tinnitus.
Comment: Technology is already available to detect hearing loss in
infants. What is needed is better utilization of this technology.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that there has significant progress in the
technology to detect hearing loss in infants. The priority does not
require the RERC to develop new technology. The priority directs the
RERC to address increased utilization through automation and
simplification of hearing loss evaluations.
Changes: None.
Description of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center
Program
RERCs carry out research or demonstration activities by:
(a) Developing and disseminating innovative methods of applying
advanced technology, scientific achievement, and psychological and
social knowledge to (1) solve rehabilitation problems and remove
environmental barriers, and (2) study new or emerging technologies,
products, or environments;
(b) Demonstrating and disseminating (1) innovative models for the
delivery of
[[Page 11557]]
cost-effective rehabilitation technology services to rural and urban
areas, and (2) other scientific research to assist in meeting the
employment and independent living needs of individuals with severe
disabilities; or
(c) Facilitating service delivery systems change through (1) the
development, evaluation, and dissemination of consumer-responsive and
individual and family centered innovative models for the delivery to
both rural and urban areas of innovative cost-effective rehabilitation
technology services, and (2) other scientific research to assist in
meeting the employment and independent needs of individuals with severe
disabilities.
Each RERC must provide training opportunities to individuals,
including individuals with disabilities, to become researchers of
rehabilitation technology and practitioners of rehabilitation
technology in conjunction with institutions of higher education and
nonprofit organizations.
General
The following requirements apply to these RERCs pursuant to these
absolute priorities unless noted otherwise. An applicant's proposal to
fulfill these requirements will be assessed using applicable selection
criteria in the peer review process:
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. The RERC must
evaluate the efficacy and safety of its new products, instrumentation,
or assistive devices.
The RERC must disseminate research results and other knowledge
gained from the Center's research and development activities to persons
with disabilities, their representatives, disability organizations,
businesses, manufacturers, professional journals, service providers,
and other interested parties.
The RERC must develop and carry out utilization activities to
successfully transfer all new and improved technologies developed by
the RERC to the marketplace.
The RERC must involve individuals with disabilities and, if
appropriate, their representatives, in planning and implementing its
research, development, training, and dissemination activities, and in
evaluating the Center.
The RERC must conduct a state-of-the-science conference in the
third year of the grant and publish a comprehensive report on the final
outcomes of the conference in the fourth year of the grant.
Priorities
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute
preference to applications that meet the following priorities. The
Secretary will fund under this competition only applications that meet
one of these absolute priorities.
Priority 1: Information Technology Access
Background
High speed computers, high speed modems, sophisticated
telecommunication networks, cable networks, intranets, the Internet,
the World Wide Web, and satellites constitute an unparalled global
information network. However, the proliferation of information
technology has also created problems of accessibility for persons with
disabilities (Paciello, M., People with Disabilities Can't Access the
Web, Yuri Rubinsky Insight Foundation, 1997). Persons with disabilities
will be significantly disadvantaged if this new generation of
information technology is inaccessible. Promoting accessibility to this
dynamic field is a highly technical and complicated task that will
place unique demands on an RERC to serve as a resource to a wide range
of industry and government officials, as well as persons with
disabilities.
The Internet is expanding at a phenomenal rate. There were 1,000
Internet host computers worldwide in 1980. That number increased to
200,000 in 1996 and is expected to reach 12 million by the year 2000.
The number of Internet users has virtually doubled every year over the
past three years from an estimated 16 million in 1995 to 68 million in
1997 (Computer Industry Forecasts, Third Quarter, 1997). Emerging
nomadic technologies will enable individuals to access information
systems from virtually anywhere, at anytime, and in entirely visual,
audio, or mixed modes.
The Internet and World Wide Web are also undergoing dramatic
structural changes. Internet 2 is a consortium of academic institutions
planning to interconnect its members with a new high-bandwidth Internet
that will support advanced applications that are not possible or
practical on the current Internet (Kennedy, K., Testimony Before the
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; Subcommittee on
Communications, June 3, 1997). Once developed, the Next Generation
Internet will interconnect 100 Federal research institutions and their
research partners with a network capable of operating at speeds 100 to
1000 times faster than today's Internet (Lane, N., Testimony Before the
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; Subcommittee on
Communications, June 3, 1997). In the spring of 1997, the International
World Wide Web Consortium held special workshops at their Sixth
International World Wide Web Conference that focused on developing
strategies for designing accessibility into the Web core environment.
New generations of computer and information technologies become
available long before anyone has fully grasped the implications of the
previous generation (Kelly, H., Testimony Before the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee; Subcommittee on Communications,
June 3, 1997). Product cycles and lifetimes are measured in months, not
years. There are many small high technology firms that remain virtually
unknown until they announce their product. These firms may have little,
or no experience with design accessibility. In addition, the industry
is highly competitive, and companies may not be willing to incorporate
accessible design features into their products if they believe it
involves additional development time and expense.
Designing accessible features into new information technologies
early in the design process provides persons with disabilities with
immediate access and is more cost effective than retrofitting.
Increasingly, functions are integrated onto single chips and
motherboards, obviating the need for third party accessories such as
sound cards or voice input devices, and making changes or modifications
to these built-in features difficult or impossible. The earlier
accessibility occurs in the design process for new products, the easier
it is to incorporate accessibility features.
Universal design is a process whereby environments and products are
designed with built-in flexibility so they are usable by all people,
regardless of age and ability, at no additional cost to the user. While
advances in computers and information technologies create new
opportunities for some individuals, they create barriers for others.
Information presented in graphical modes (i.e., images, photographs,
icons) poses problems for people who are blind unless there are built-
in ``hooks'' that can be identified by the user's screen reader.
Conversely, audio cues (beeps) do not convey information to individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing.
[[Page 11558]]
The proliferation of public access terminals creates unique
accessibility challenges. Access to these terminals requires the use of
keyboards, touch screens, telephone handsets, and smart cards and will
require the development of flexible, multi-modal interface techniques
that can work across all disabilities.
The ability to access computer-based information technologies is
quickly becoming a prerequisite for successful employment. Companies
are increasingly using internal networks, commonly referred to as
intranets, to share information within the company. This presents
unique problems for individuals with disabilities if the company uses
proprietary software and databases that are specifically designed for
their company and do not follow standard protocols. In those cases, the
information may be inaccessible to individuals who use assistive
devices (e.g., screen readers) to access their computers.
There are emerging information and communication policy issues that
will have an enormous impact on technology development. Section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 require the development of accessibility standards and
guidelines that direct government agencies, Federal customers and
contractors, manufacturers, and developers to address accessibility for
new and existing products.
Although computer and information technologies are expanding at
phenomenal rates, it is also important to recognize that there are many
individuals with disabilities who have problems accessing the current
generation of technologies (e.g., integrating assistive devices with
existing computer workstations). Continued support and guidance for
these individuals are necessary to promote access to the computers and
information systems they currently use.
Priority 1
The Secretary will establish an RERC on information technology
access for the purposes of developing technological solutions and
promoting access for individuals with disabilities to current and
emerging information technologies and technology interfaces, including
hardware, software, networks, nomadic technologies, the Internet and
the World Wide Web. The RERC must:
(1) Develop and evaluate technological solutions in collaboration
with industry to promote accessibility and universal design at the
outset of the development of information technologies including
software, hardware, intranets, and nomadic technologies;
(2) Develop through research and in collaboration with industry
flexible, multi-modal interface techniques for computer and information
technologies that provide universal access for all individuals with
disabilities;
(3) Develop and disseminate strategies for integrating current
accessibility features into newer generations of computer and
information systems;
(4) Develop through research and in collaboration with Federal
agencies, universities and industry the technologies necessary to
promote access to current and emerging generations of the Internet and
the World Wide Web for persons with disabilities;
(5) Develop and evaluate technologies and strategies to promote
universal access to intranet systems;
(6) Provide technical assistance to public and private
organizations responsible for developing policies, guidelines and
standards that affect the accessibility of information technology
products and systems that are developed, manufactured, and implemented;
and
(7) Provide technical assistance and guidance to individuals with
disabilities and employers on accessibility problems affecting current
computer and information systems.
In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RERC shall
coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with the RERC on
Telecommunications and the National Science Foundation's Universal
Access Initiative.
Priority 2: Communication Enhancement
Background
Speech and language disorders affect the way people talk and
understand language, range from mild to significant, and may be
developmental or acquired. According to the American Speech-Language
and Hearing Association (ASHA), approximately 14 million individuals
may be described as having a speech or language disorder (Bello, J.,
Communication Facts, ASHA Research Division, 1994). Two million of
those individuals experience significant communication disorders and
need access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)
(Beukelman, D., Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 11,
June, 1995). For the purpose of this priority, augmentative and
alternative communication refers to all forms of communication that
enhance or supplement comprehension, speech, and writing, including
electronic devices and communication boards.
Historically, AAC has been associated with specific technologies
that provide individuals who have significant communication disorders
with some type of alternative output. Research documenting successful
AAC use has been confined primarily to adolescents and adults with
reasonably intact cognitive capabilities and moderate to significant
motor impairment (Shane, H., Presentation at ASHA Annual Convention,
Seattle, 1995). This limited approach does not address the needs of all
persons with significant communication disorders such as persons with
mental retardation, aphasia, traumatic brain injury, and autism. A more
holistic approach to communication enhancement strategies for persons
with significant communication disorders must take into account the
complexities of human language and incorporate those factors as unique
physical, cognitive, and sensory manifestations and individualized
learning styles.
There is a need for new and improved AAC technologies that take the
more holistic approach to AAC intervention by addressing input
technologies, language processing, and output strategies for a wide
range of disabilities. These new or improved technologies could address
an array of issues, including, but not limited to: speed enhancement
and rate of communication that enable the user to operate in or close
to real-time; cosmesis and aesthetics of devices; ergonomic and human
factors relationships to interventions and technologies for significant
communication disorders; quality, diversity, and naturalness of speech
output as it relates to a user's actual voice; human and machine
interface and multiple control options; using technology to reduce the
burden on users with physical disabilities; reliability, portability,
and cost; and developing and disseminating measurable outcomes of
research.
Studies of the brain and language acquisition emphasize the
importance of addressing the language needs of toddlers and school aged
children who use or could use AAC (Blackstone, S., Augmentative
Communication News, Volume 10, No. 1, 1997). Often children and others
with significant communication disorders encounter difficulty in
processing and comprehending spoken language. In order to address the
needs of these children and adults with significant communication
disorders, systems to
[[Page 11559]]
enhance communication must support comprehension as well as expression.
Reading and writing are interrelated skills that emerge as part of
an interactive language and communication process that begins early in
life and continues for approximately 6 years. This process is referred
to as emergent literacy. Users of AAC in contrast to those who do not
use AAC are often found to be in a phase of emergent literacy for many
more years (Koppenhaver, D., et al., Technology and Disability, Vol 2.,
No. 3, 1993). Emergent literacy and AAC use are interrelated processes.
This relationship has an impact on the way that the next generation of
technology for communication enhancement should be studied and
developed. Research issues related to emergent literacy of AAC users
include, but are not limited to: the effects of AAC use on reading and
writing development; differences in written language development
between AAC users and non-users; the effects of early AAC use on
emergent literacy; and the impact of different types of technologies on
better understanding and use of written language in AAC users.
Aging presents a unique challenge to AAC researchers because
technologies must address linguistic, speech, and sensory deterioration
as well as tolerance for technology. As persons age, the need for
communication enhancement technology increases, yet, according to data
reported by the National Health Interview Survey in 1990 only six-
tenths of one percent of individuals aged 65 or older were using AAC
technology. Elderly persons with acquired communication disorders
encounter a lack of awareness on the part of service providers and an
absence of communication services in general.
To date there has been only minimal attention to the job options
available for persons with disabilities who use AAC. Anecdotal reports
suggest that individuals with severe communication disorders are
frequently considered unemployable. The high rate of unemployment
results from a number of factors including, but not limited to: lack of
skills, inadequate job preparation; attitudinal barriers;
transportation barriers; architectural and accommodation barriers; and
limitations in the AAC technology (Light, J., et al., AAC, Volume 12,
1996). Issues related to unemployment for users of AAC devices include,
but are not limited to, compatibility with other technology on the
worksite and the ability of the AAC user to transition easily from one
task to another.
There are over 40 companies in the United States developing,
manufacturing and distributing AAC devices. The next generation of
development must challenge conventional AAC approaches and improve the
way in that new technologies incorporate and blend principles of
communication theories and engineering. Communicative competence
ensures that individuals are able to attain communication goals that
include expressing needs and wants, developing social skills and
routines, and exchanging information (Light, J., AAC, Volume 13, 1997).
Communication competence is built over time through improved science,
engineering, and the modification of environments, parameters,
opportunities and instruction as well as improving communication tools.
Priority 2
The Secretary will establish an RERC on communication enhancement
to improve AAC technologies that can further the development of
communication, language, natural speech, discourse skills, and literacy
of persons with significant communication disorders. The RERC must:
(1) Develop and evaluate in collaboration with industry improved
AAC technologies for individuals with significant communication
disorders;
(2) Develop and evaluate strategies that promote literacy
proficiency for AAC users;
(3) Develop and evaluate communication enhancement strategies and
AAC technologies that factor in the speech, linguistic and multiple
sensory needs of the elderly;
(4) Investigate and disseminate strategies to build the capacity of
service providers and increase their involvement with elderly persons
with significant communication disorders who use or could use AAC; and
(5) Identify barriers that negatively affect the employment status
of individuals with significant communication disorders who use, or
could use, AAC and develop and evaluate approaches to overcome those
barriers in order to improve their employment status.
In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RERC shall:
Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with
the RERC on Hearing Enhancement;
Address the needs of individuals of all ages with
significant communication disorders including, but not limited to,
toddlers and the elderly; and
Address the needs of persons with developmental
disabilities and acquired disabilities including but not limited to
mental retardation, aphasia, traumatic brain injury, and autism.
Priority 3: Ergonomic Solutions for Employment
Background
The familiar components of the work environment (i.e., tools,
machines, and equipment) often are designed without adequate
consideration for the people who must use them. Similarly, work tasks
may require capabilities that individuals do not have or cannot sustain
over long periods of time without injury. Improperly designed
workplaces can lead to fatigue, discomfort, and injury that result in
reduced productivity and increased costs for employers. These same work
environment components may present additional physical barriers to
persons with disabilities and negatively impact their employment
status.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that repeated trauma,
commonly referred to as cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs), accounted
for 62 percent of all occupational illnesses in 1995--up from 15
percent in the early 1980s. The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates that annual U.S. medical costs from
repetitive stress injuries total $13 billion (NIOSH, ``Musculoskeletal
Disorders and Workplace Factors,'' July, 1997), and the Labor
Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
estimated overall costs at nearly $100 billion a year when one
considers lost work time, lost productivity, and retraining costs.
Ergonomics is an interdisciplinary field concerned with the
performance and safety of individuals at work and how they cope with
the work environment, interact with machines, and, in general,
negotiate their work surroundings (Scheer, S. and Mital, A.,
``Ergonomics,'' Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Volume
78, pg. 36, March, 1997). Ergonomic principles are based on a
combination of science, engineering, and biomechanics (the study of the
body as a system operating under two sets of laws: Newtonian mechanics
and the biological laws of life) and are used to promote the proper
design of products, workplaces, and equipment (Kroemer, K.H.E., et al.,
Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease & Efficiency, Prentice Hall, N.J.,
pgs. 6-7, 1994). When these principles are applied correctly, the
incidence and severity of musculoskeletal disorders decrease (Stobbe,
T. J., ``Occupational
[[Page 11560]]
Ergonomics and Injury Prevention,'' Occupational Medicine, pgs. 531-
543, July, 1996) thereby reducing the likelihood of work related
injuries and employer costs.
Cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs) are a class of musculoskeletal
disorders involving nerves, tendons, muscles and supporting bony
structures (i.e., back, neck, shoulders, and hands). They represent a
wide range of disorders that can differ in severity from mild periodic
conditions to those that are severe, chronic and debilitating. Since
the early 1980s, there has been a dramatic increase in CTDs. OSHA
attributes much of this increase to changes in production processes and
technologies, resulting in more specialized tasks with increased
repetitions and higher assembly line speeds. Two of the most frequently
occurring, occupationally induced CTDs are carpal tunnel syndrome and
low back pain.
Carpal tunnel syndrome is a condition caused by pressure on the
median nerve as it passes through the carpal tunnel of the wrist; it
results in the gradual onset of numbness and tingling in one's thumb
and the first two and a half fingers of the hand. If allowed to
continue, carpal tunnel syndrome may cause pain, muscle atrophy at the
base of the thumb, and clumsiness (Phalen, G.S., ``The Carpal-Tunnel
Syndrome: Seventeen Year's Experience in Diagnosis and Treatment of
Six-Hundred Fifty-Four Hands,'' The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,
pgs. 211-228, 1996). Carpal tunnel syndrome is recognized as a
disabling condition of the hand caused by excessive or repetitive
movements, undesirable hand positions, or exertions that impose
prolonged loads on the affected tissues (Huenting, H., et al.,
``Constrained Postures in Accounting Machine Operations,'' Applied
Ergonomic, Volume 11, pgs. 145-149, 1980).
Improper working posture is a major factor in the development of
lower back pain. The strain on one's body may be caused by external
loads (e.g., when one lifts, lowers, pulls, pushes, carries, holds onto
heavy objects or any combination of these factors) or by simply moving
one's own body or by maintaining postural support using muscle tension
alone. In addition to the loss in function and pain, the direct and
indirect costs associated with lower back injuries are significant.
There is a need for reliable and validated measurement tools to measure
mechanical strains within the body and to incorporate the various
findings into models of strains and capabilities (Kroemer, K.H.E., op.
cit., pgs. 473-475).
The ability to perform physical work depends greatly upon a number
of variables including an individual's age, size, strength, overall
health and fitness, training, motivation, and physical dexterity. A
common approach to matching an individual's work capacity with specific
job tasks is to assess the individual's overall energy capacity by
measuring heart rate and oxygen consumption while on a treadmill or
bicycle ergometer and then comparing that information with the amount
of energy it takes for a ``normal'' person to do the specific job tasks
(Kroemer, K.H.E, op. cit., pgs. 118-131). Improper matches can lead to
early fatigue, and impact a person's ability to do the job tasks safely
and efficiently.
Individuals with disabilities present unique ergonomic challenges
particularly if they use assistive devices to overcome deficits and
function independently. The use of ergonomic knowledge in
rehabilitation engineering is widespread, ranging from wrist splints to
environmental control systems. Technology for people with significant
disabilities depends increasingly on the development and implementation
of sophisticated devices including voice input systems, screen readers,
and eye tracking systems. However, development alone of those types of
devices does not ensure success. It is sometimes necessary to
quantitatively measure one's residual capabilities and energy capacity
and compare these results with specific job tasks. After selecting the
appropriate ergonomic solutions, it is necessary to have the individual
demonstrate the usability of those solutions within the worksite
environment and make the necessary changes or adaptations to ensure
proper use and fit. There are testing devices and procedures that have
been developed to quantitatively measure the residual capabilities of
impaired persons, such as the Basic Elements of Performance Test and
the Available Motions Inventory Test (Smith, R. V. and Leslie, J. H.,
Rehabilitation Engineering, CRC Press, pgs. 127-143, 1990). These tests
measure an individual's ability for specific tasks (i.e., reach, grasp,
manipulation), but do not measure one's ability to incorporate complex
assistive devices into the workplace of people with significant
disabilities.
Elderly individuals are working longer than ever before and the
proportion of people with work disability (defined as a limitation in
work due to chronic illness or impairment) increases with age
(Disability Statistics Program, ``People with Work Disability in the
U.S.,'' Disability Statistics Abstract, U.S. Department of Education,
Volume 4, May, 1992). Older workers face unique ergonomic challenges
due to other changes that occur naturally as part of the aging process
(i.e., changes in biomechanical features, respiratory capabilities,
visual functions, hearing, reaction times, etc). Without proper
ergonomic design and strategies, older workers could well find
themselves at an unnecessary disadvantage due to compromised
productivity and health.
Priority 3
The Secretary will establish an RERC on ergonomic solutions for
employment to develop ergonomic strategies and devices to reduce and
prevent the onset of cumulative trauma disorders and to assist persons
with disabilities in obtaining and maintaining appropriate employment.
The RERC must:
(1) Investigate the biomechanical factors that lead to cumulative
trauma disorders including, but not necessarily limited to, carpal
tunnel syndrome and low back injuries;
(2) Develop and evaluate worksite ergonomic analysis tools to: (a)
determine the causes of ergonomic stress associated with repetitive
motions, awkward postures, and excessive energy expenditure, and (b)
evaluate the worksite accommodation needs of workers with disabilities;
(3) Design, develop, and evaluate ergonomically-based technologies,
modifications, techniques, and tools to provide worksite accommodations
to workers with disabilities, including elderly workers with
disabilities; and
(4) Develop and disseminate a database of ergonomically-based
performance data on the work related capabilities of persons with
disabilities.
In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RERC shall
coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with the RRTC on
Workplace Supports to Improve Employment Outcomes.
Priority 4: Hearing Enhancement
Background
Individuals whose hearing is impaired, but who can understand
conversational speech with, or without, amplification are hard-of-
hearing (HoH). Individuals classified as HoH range in age from infants
to the elderly. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), using
the ``Gallaudet Hearing Scale'' that is self-reporting and quantifies
the amount of interference with hearing in ordinary day-to-day
situations, estimates that the number of persons who are HoH and who
might benefit from using a hearing aid ranges
[[Page 11561]]
from 20 million to 22 million (``National Health Survey,'' Series 10,
No. 188, 1994).
Developments over the past five years have resulted in significant
growth in digital hearing aid technology, improved evaluation of
hearing loss, especially in very young children, improved computer
assisted fitting of hearing aids, and more cosmetically acceptable
hearing aids that do not sacrifice important functions for the sake of
appearance. Modern science and technology continue to offer even
greater opportunity for improvements in the simplification and
automation of hearing loss evaluation and in the proper fitting of
appropriate hearing aids to individual users. Concurrently there have
been important developments in related areas, such as assistive
listening devices (ALDs) and in automatic speech recognition (ASR), a
technology that enables a person to dictate words into a microphone and
have those words converted into computer-language text. The 1996
National Strategic Plan of the National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders (NIDCD) reflects a growing realization that new
technology offers potential relief from the symptoms of tinnitus. New
developments in ultra-thin circuit boards and chips, flash ROM, better
power management, and other forms of emerging technology offer
increasing opportunities to expand features available in the next
generation of hearing enhancing devices.
While improving, consistent and early identification of hearing
loss in small children remains problematic. The diagnostic technology
needs to be simplified and made available to pediatric and child care
personnel with minimal training in audiology.
The proper fitting of hearing aids ensures that tonal quality,
amplification levels, and environmental noise are controlled to the
maximum extent possible. New developments in sophisticated digital
hearing technology must be accompanied by new training and fitting
procedures to ensure that new multi-channel aids deliver maximum
performance.
Tinnitus affects about 17 percent of the general population and
about 33 percent of the elderly (Jastreboff, P. and Hazell, J.,
``Neurophysiological Approaches to Tinnitus'' British Journal of
Audiology, 1993). Tinnitus is described as an incessant ringing in the
ears or other head noise that is heard when there is no external cause
for that noise. Currently, there is no cure for tinnitus (Goldstein, B.
& Shulman, A., ``Tinnitus Masking--A Longitudinal Study of Efficacy/
Diagnosis 1977-1994.'' Proceedings of the Fifth International Tinnitus
Seminar, 1995). Often, tinnitus accompanies hearing loss. However,
there are cases of severe hearing loss without tinnitus. Tinnitus also
occurs without evidence of other auditory system diseases or disorders.
This variation drives the need for better dual channel hearing aid/
tinnitus maskers and single channel tinnitus maskers. Although there
are currently some devices on the market that combine amplification and
masking, those efforts have not been widely accepted, possibly because
recent technical developments in miniaturizing have not been fully
exploited (Gold, S., et al., ``Selection and Fitting of Noise
Generators and Hearing Aids for Tinnitus Patients.'' Proceedings of the
Fifth International Tinnitus Seminar, 1995).
In recent years there have been significant advances in assistive
devices that enhance the ability of individuals to integrate more
successfully in personal and business arenas. In a survey by one of the
largest organizations for the HoH, Self-Help for the Hard of Hearing
(SHHH), it was found that nearly half of its membership used ALDs, both
personal devices and large room systems (Sorkin, D., ``Understanding
Our Needs: The SHHH Member Survey Looks at Hearing Aids.'' SHHH
Journal, Volume 16, No. 4, 1995). Perhaps the most promising new
technology for broadening the application of assistive devices is ASR.
The potential for using speech-to-print mechanisms based on ASR offers
promising benefits including real-time transcription in meetings and
automated telephone relay services to HoH persons. However, the
mechanisms to realize the full potential of those benefits for this
population remain to be developed.
There is a need for improvements in the shielding of hearing aid
components from the emission of extraneous electronic signals. The
Federal government is working to establish standards to reduce those
signals from a multitude of devices regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). However, the probability of blanket
suppression of all sources is low.
Priority 4
The Secretary will establish an RERC on hearing enhancement to
develop new and improve existing technologies for persons who are HoH.
The RERC must:
(1) Evaluate current technology available for hearing aids, ALDs,
tinnitus maskers, and ASR systems and develop improvements for these
technologies including, but not limited to, improved shielding for
extraneous electronic signals and new training and fitting procedures
for new multi-channel aids;
(2) Develop and evaluate new, emerging technology for integration
into more advanced versions of next generation hearing aids, ALDs, and
telecoils;
(3) Automate and simplify methods for conducting hearing loss
evaluation in infants, children, and adults;
(4) Develop training and technical assistance materials and provide
training and technical assistance to hearing aid developers,
technicians, and appropriate organizations representing persons who are
HoH to enable them to effectively address the hearing enhancement needs
of individuals who are HoH;
(5) Develop and evaluate technology, including, but not limited to
maskers, to alleviate the problems of tinnitus.
(6) Develop and evaluate protocols for efficient integration of ASR
with interfacing needs of persons with hearing loss including, but not
limited to, ``real-time captioning,'' automated relay telephone
systems, and personal hand-held communicators; and
(7) Develop training and technical assistance materials and provide
training and technical assistance to hearing aid fitters, pediatric and
audiology personnel, appropriate counseling organizations, and
organizations representing people who are HoH to enable them to address
effectively the hearing aid needs and adjustment to hearing loss
problems experienced by persons who are HoH and also to provide
appropriate counseling and guidance to individuals who experience
tinnitus;
In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RERC shall
coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with the RERCs on
Universal Telecommunications Access and Communication Enhancement, the
RRTC on HoH/Late Deafened, and the Access Board.
Electronic Access to This Document
Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search,
[[Page 11562]]
which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If you have
questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing Office
toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 350 and 353.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-762.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.133E,
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers)
Dated: March 3, 1998.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 98-5894 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
