[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__N[email protected]
    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