Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)-Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)-Technologies To Support Successful Aging With Disability, 20069-20073 [2013-07763]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule involves special local regulations
issued in conjunction with a regatta or
marine parade. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2–1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
2. Add § 100.35–T05–0129 to read as
follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 100.35–T05–0129 Special Local
Regulations for Marine Events, Spa Creek
and Annapolis Harbor; Annapolis, MD.
(a) Regulated area. The following
location is a regulated area: All waters
of the Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor,
from shoreline to shoreline, bounded by
a line drawn near the entrance of Spa
Creek originating at latitude 38°58′40″
N, longitude 076°28′49″ W, thence south
to latitude 38°58′32″ N, longitude
076°28′45″ W. The regulated area is
bounded to the southwest by a line
drawn from latitude 38°58′34″ N,
longitude 076°29′05″ W thence south to
latitude 38°58′27″ N, longitude
076°28′55″ W, located at Annapolis,
MD. All coordinates reference Datum
NAD 1983.
(b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol
Commander means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U. S.
Coast Guard who has been designated
by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore.
16:31 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Dated: March 19, 2013.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2013–07682 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am]
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.
(c) Special local regulations: (1) The
Coast Guard Patrol Commander may
forbid and control the movement of all
vessels and persons in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an
official patrol vessel, a vessel or person
in the regulated area shall immediately
comply with the directions given.
Failure to do so may result in expulsion
from the area, citation for failure to
comply, or both.
(2) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this regulated area can be contacted at
telephone number 410–576–2693 or on
marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz).
(3) The Coast Guard will publish a
notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District
Local Notice to Mariners and issue a
marine information broadcast on VHF–
FM marine band radio announcing
specific event date and times.
(d) Enforcement period: This section
will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
on July 20, 2013.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
Proposed Priority—National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR)—Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Centers
(RERCs)—Technologies To Support
Successful Aging With Disability
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority.
AGENCY:
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.133E–3
The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes one priority for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program
administered by NIDRR. Specifically,
this notice proposes one priority for an
RERC: Technologies to Support
Successful Aging with Disability. The
Assistant Secretary may use this priority
for a competition in fiscal year (FY)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20069
2013 and later years. We take this action
to focus research attention on areas of
national need. We intend to use this
priority to improve rehabilitation
services and outcomes for individuals
with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before May 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., room 5133, Potomac
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC
20202–2700.
If you prefer to send your comments
by email, use the following address:
marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must
include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priorities
for RERCs’’ in the priority title in the
subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245–
7532 or by email:
marlene.spencer@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice of proposed priority is in concert
with NIDRR’s currently approved LongRange Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was
published in the Federal Register on
February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8166), can be
accessed on the Internet at the following
site: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the
Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the
quality and utility of disability and
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an
exchange of expertise, information, and
training methods to facilitate the
advancement of knowledge and
understanding of the unique needs of
traditionally underserved populations;
(3) determine best strategies and
programs to improve rehabilitation
outcomes for underserved populations;
(4) identify research gaps; (5) identify
mechanisms for integrating research and
practice; and (6) disseminate findings.
This notice proposes one priority that
NIDRR intends to use for RERC
competitions in FY 2013 and possibly
later years. However, nothing precludes
NIDRR from publishing additional
priorities, if needed. Furthermore,
NIDRR is under no obligation to make
awards for this priority. The decision to
make an award will be based on the
quality of applications received and
available funding.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
20070
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
notice of final priority, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific topic that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from this proposed priority.
Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice in room 5133, 550 12th
Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday
through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects and Centers Program
is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and
related activities, including
international activities, to develop
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation
technology that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society,
employment, independent living, family
support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with
the most severe disabilities, and to
improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation
Act).
Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers Program (RERCs)
The purpose of NIDRR’s RERC
program, which is funded through the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program, is to
improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.
It does so by conducting advanced
engineering research, developing and
evaluating innovative technologies,
facilitating service delivery system
changes, stimulating the production and
distribution of new technologies and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
equipment in the private sector, and
providing training opportunities. RERCs
seek to solve rehabilitation problems
and remove environmental barriers to
improvements in employment,
community living and participation,
and health and function outcomes of
individuals with disabilities.
The general requirements for RERCs
are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part
350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Centers Does the Secretary
Assist?).
Additional information on the RERC
program can be found at: www.ed.gov/
rschstat/research/pubs/.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and
764(b)(3).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 350.
Proposed Priority
This notice contains one proposed
priority.
RERC on Technologies To Support
Successful Aging With Disability
Background
Current estimates indicate that
between 37 million and 52 million
individuals living in the United States
have some kind of disability (IOM,
2007a; Brault, 2012). These numbers
will likely grow significantly in the next
25–30 years as the baby boom
generation continues to enter later life,
when the risk of disability is the highest
(IOM, 2007a). Projections based on the
U.S. Census data from 2010 indicate
that by 2030, the population 65 years
and older will almost double from 35
million to more than 71 million or to
approximately 20 percent of the overall
population (Brault, 2012).
Although older age is a major risk
factor for disability, millions of younger
and middle-age adults also live with
disabilities. In 2010, some 29.5 million
Americans aged 21 to 64 or 16.6 percent
of the working-age population reported
disabilities (Brault, 2012). This large
working-age group includes people who
are aging with life-long and early onset
disabilities that were once fatal or
associated with shortened life
expectancy (Jensen et al., 2011; IOM,
2007b, Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004). This
population is now experiencing the
benefits of increased longevity as well
as premature or atypical aging related to
their condition, its management, or
other environmental factors (Jensen et
al., 2011; IOM, 2007; Kailes, 2006;
Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004).
As working-age and older adults with
disabilities grow older, many face
significant new challenges to their
health and independence due to the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
onset of secondary conditions
associated with changes in the
underlying impairment and the onset of
age-related, chronic conditions (Freid et
al., 2012; Jensen et al., 2011; IOM,
2007b; Kailes, 2006; Kemp & Mosqueda,
2004; Kinny et al., 2004). The challenges
of aging with and into disability are
compounded by the presence of
economic and environmental barriers,
such as a lack of affordable and
accessible transportation and housing
services. There is a lack of innovative
technologies that extend the benefits of
health promotion and rehabilitation
interventions and strategies into home
and community-based settings (Rizzo et
al., 2012; Czaja & Sharit, 2009; IOM,
2007a; IOM, 2007c; Mann, 2005).
For example, while emerging research
indicates that functional motor capacity
and independence can be improved,
maintained, or recovered via consistent
participation in exercise and
rehabilitation programs for individuals
with upper and lower extremity
impairments (Winstein et al., 2012;
Czaja & Sharit, 2009; Merians, et al.
2009; Krakauer, 2006; Mann, 2005;
Mynatt & Rodgers, 2002), the
availability of evidence-based exercise
and rehabilitation programs and
interventions in home and communitybased settings for this population is
severely limited (Lindenberger et al,
2008; Krakauer, 2006; Tyrer et al., 2006).
The commercially available, homebased technologies that promise to
improve balance and prevent falls are
not informed by evidence from
rehabilitation science and gerontology
and have not been evaluated for use by
individuals with disabilities (Rizzo et
al., 2011; Czaja & Sharit, 2009;
Lindenberger et al., 2008).
Despite limitations in the availability
of evidence-based technologies and
interventions to support healthy aging
with disability, findings from social and
demographic research suggests that
assistive technologies (AT) and
information and communication
technologies (ICT) are playing an
increasingly important role in the lives
of people with disabilities (Wild et al.,
2008; Freedman et al., 2006). For
example, secondary analysis of data
from the National Long-Term Care
Survey found that the steadily
increasing use of these technologies was
associated with downward trends in the
reported rates of disability among adults
age 65 and over (Spillman, 2004). Other
research suggests that AT and ICT may
substitute for, or supplement, personal
care (Carlson and Ehrlich, 2005).
Findings such as these suggest that
greater availability and use of low-cost,
evidence-based, computer-aided
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
technologies, such as AT and ICT, could
help the Nation prepare for a future
characterized by a growing population
of working-age and older adults with
long-term disabilities and increased
demand for healthcare and long-term
services and supports, combined with a
shrinking proportion of younger people
available to provide personal assistance
(Lindenberger, 2008; IOM, 2007a, Pew &
Van Hemel, 2004). To respond to the
challenges and opportunities in the
emerging area of aging, disability and
technology, NIDRR proposes to fund a
Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Center (RERC) on Technologies to
Support Healthy Aging With Disability.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
References
Brault, M.W. (2012). Americans with
disabilities: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.
Department of Commerce. Available at
www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70–
131.pdf.
Carlson D., & Ehrlich N. (2005). Assistive
technology and information technology use
and need by persons with disabilities in the
United States, 2001. Washington, DC:
National Institute on disability and
Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department
of Education. Available at https://
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/reserach/pubs/atuse/at-use-2001.doc.
Czaja, S.J., & Sharit, J. (2009). The aging of
the population: Opportunities and
challenges for human factors engineering.
The Bridge: Linking Engineering and
Society, 39(1): 34–40. Available at
www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/
TechnologiesforanAgingPopulation/
TheAgingofthePopulation.aspx.
Freedman, V.A., Agree, E.M., Martin, L.G., &
Cornman, J.C. (2006). Trends in the use of
assistive technology and personal care for
late-life disability, 1992–2000.
Gerontologist, 46(1): 124–127.
Freid, V.M., Bernstein, A.B., & Bush, M.A.
(2012). Multiple chronic conditions among
adults aged 45 and over: Trends Over the
past 10 years. NCHS data brief, no. 100.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics. 2010. Available at www.cdc.gov/
nchs/data/databriefs/db100.htm.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007a. The
future of disability in America. Committee
on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette,
A.M., editors. Chapter 1: Introduction, pp.
16–34. Washington (DC): The National
Academies Press. Available at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007b. The
future of disability in America. Committee
on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette,
A.M., editors. Chapter 5: Secondary
conditions and aging with disability, pp.
136–161. Washington (DC): The National
Academies Press. Available at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007c. The
future of disability in America. Committee
on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette,
A.M., editors. Chapter 7: Assistive and
mainstream technologies for people with
disabilities, pp. 183–221. Washington (DC):
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
The National Academies Press. Available
at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434.
Jensen, M.P., Molton, I.R., Groah, S.L.,
Campbell, M.L., Charlifue, S., Chiodo, A.,
Forchheimer, M., Krause, J.S., & Tate D.
(2011). Secondary health conditions in
individuals aging with SCI: Terminology,
concepts, and analytic approaches. Spinal
Cord, 50(5): 373–378.
Kailes, J.L. (2006). A User’s Perspective on
Midlife (Ages 18–65) Aging with Disability.
Workshop on Disability in America: A New
Look. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, pp. 194–204.
Kemp, B.J., & Mosqueda, L. (Eds.) (2004).
Aging with a disability: What the clinician
needs to know. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Kinny, S., Patrick, D.L., & Doyle D.L. (2004).
Prevalence of secondary conditions among
people with disabilities. American Journal
of Public Health, 94(3): 443–445.
Krakauer, J.W. (2006). Motor learning: Its
relevance to stroke recovery and
neurorehabilitation. Current Opinion in
Neurology, 19: 84.
Lindenberger, U., Lovden, M., Schellenbach,
M., Li, S., & Kruger, A. (2008).
Psychological principles of successful
aging technologies; a mini-review.
Gerontology, 54: 59–68.
Mann, W.C. (2005). Aging, Disability, and
Independence: Trends and Perspectives.
Smart Technology for Aging, Disability,
and Independence: The State of the
Science. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., pp. 1–29.
Merians, A.S, Tunik, E., Fluet, G.G., Qiu, Q.,
& Adamovich, S.V. (2009). Innovative
approaches to the rehabilitation of upper
extremity hemiparesis using virtual
environments. European Journal of
Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 45:
123.
Mynatt, E., & Rodgers, W. (2002). Developing
technology to support the functional
independence of older adults. Ageing
International, 27: 24.
Pew, R.W., & Van Hemel, S.B. (2004).
National Research Council (U.S.) Steering
Committee for the Workshop on
Technology for Adaptive Aging, et al.
Technology for adaptive aging.
Washington, DC; National Academies
Press.
Rizzo, A., Requejo, P., Winstein, C., Lange,
B., Ragusa, G., Merians, A., Patton J.,
Banerjee, P., & Aisen, A. (2011). Virtual
reality applications for addressing the
needs of those aging with disability. In
Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 18, J.D.
Westwood et al. (Eds.) IOS Press, 2011
Available at www.isi.edu/research/rerc/
spotlight/files/
NIDRR_MMVR2011_workshop_book.pdf.
Spillman, B.C. (2004). Changes in elderly
disability rates and the implications for
health care utilization and cost. Milbank
Quarterly, 82(1): 157–194.
Tyrer, H.W., Alwan, M., Demiris, G., He, Z.,
Keller, J., Skubic, M., & Rantz, M. (2006).
Technology for successful aging.
Proceedings of the 28th institute of
electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE)
Engineering in medicine and biology
society (EMBS) annual international
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20071
conference, New York City, USA; pp.
3290–3293. Available at https://
eldertech.missouri.edu/files/
Technology_for_Successful_Aging.pdf.
Wild, K., Boise. L., Lundell, J., & Foucek A.
(2008). Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of
cognitive and physical health: Reactions
and perceptions of older adults. Journal of
Applied Gerontology, 27(2): 181–200.
Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC2629437/?tool=pubmed.
Winstein, C.J., Requejo, P.S., Zelinski, E.M.,
Mulroy, S.J., & Crimmins, E.M. (2012). A
transformative subfield in rehabilitation
science at the nexus of new technologies,
aging, and disability. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3 (Article 340): 1–8. Available
at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3448347/.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
proposes the following priority for the
establishment of a Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center (RERC) on
Technologies to Support Successful
Aging With Disability. Within its
designated priority research area, this
RERC will focus on innovative
technological solutions, new
knowledge, and new concepts that will
improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities.
Under this priority, the RERC must
research, develop or identify, and
evaluate innovative technologies and
strategies that maximize the physical
and cognitive functioning of individuals
with long-term disabilities as they age.
This RERC must engage in research and
development activities to build a base of
evidence for the usability of, and costeffectiveness of home-based interactive
technologies that are intended to
improve physical and cognitive
functioning of individuals with
disabilities as they age. This RERC may
develop and evaluate new technologies,
or identify and evaluate existing or
commercially available technologies, or
both, that are designed to improve the
physical and cognitive outcomes of this
population. In addition, the RERC must
facilitate access to, and use of the lowcost, home-based interactive
technologies that improve the physical
and cognitive outcomes of individuals
with disabilities, through such means as
collaborating and communicating with
relevant stakeholders, providing
technical assistance, and promoting
technology transfer.
General RERC Requirements
Under this priority, the RERC must be
designed to contribute to the following
outcomes:
(1) Increased technical and scientific
knowledge relevant to its designated
priority research area. The RERC must
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20072
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
contribute to this outcome by
conducting high-quality, rigorous
research and development projects.
(2) Increased innovation in
technologies, products, environments,
performance guidelines, and monitoring
and assessment tools applicable to its
designated priority research area. The
RERC must contribute to this outcome
through the development and testing of
these innovations.
(3) Improved research capacity in its
designated priority research area. The
RERC must contribute to this outcome
by collaborating with the relevant
industry, professional associations,
institutions of higher education, health
care providers, or educators, as
appropriate.
(4) Improved usability and
accessibility of products and
environments in the RERC’s designated
priority research area. The RERC must
contribute to this outcome by
emphasizing the principles of universal
design in its product research and
development. For purposes of this
section, the term ‘‘universal design’’
refers to the design of products and
environments to be usable by all people,
to the greatest extent possible, without
the need for adaptation or specialized
design.
(5) Improved awareness and
understanding of cutting-edge
developments in technologies within its
designated priority research area. The
RERC must contribute to this outcome
by identifying and communicating with
relevant stakeholders, including NIDRR,
individuals with disabilities, their
representatives, disability organizations,
service providers, professional journals,
manufacturers, and other interested
parties regarding trends and evolving
product concepts related to its
designated priority research area.
(6) Increased impact of research in the
designated priority research area. The
RERC must contribute to this outcome
by providing technical assistance to
relevant public and private
organizations, individuals with
disabilities, employers, and schools on
policies, guidelines, and standards
related to its designated priority
research area.
(7) Increased transfer of RERCdeveloped technologies to the
marketplace. The RERC must contribute
to this outcome by developing and
implementing a plan for ensuring that
all technologies developed by the RERC
are made available to the public. The
technology transfer plan must be
developed in the first year of the project
period in consultation with the NIDRRfunded Disability Rehabilitation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Research Project, Center on Knowledge
Translation for Technology Transfer.
In addition, the RERC must—
• Have the capability to design, build,
and test prototype devices and assist in
the technology transfer and knowledge
translation of successful solutions to
relevant production and service delivery
settings;
• Evaluate the efficacy and safety of
its new products, instrumentation, or
assistive devices;
• Provide as part of its proposal, and
then implement, a plan that describes
how it will include, as appropriate,
individuals with disabilities or their
representatives in all phases of its
activities, including research,
development, training, dissemination,
and evaluation;
• Provide as part of its proposal, and
then implement, in consultation with
the NIDRR-funded National Center for
the Dissemination of Disability
Research, a plan to disseminate its
research results to individuals with
disabilities, their representatives,
disability organizations, service
providers, professional journals,
manufacturers, and other interested
parties;
• Provide as part of its proposal, and
then implement, a plan to disseminate
its research results to individuals with
disabilities and their representatives;
disability organizations; service
providers; professional journals;
manufacturers; and other interested
parties. In meeting this requirement,
each RERC may use a variety of
mechanisms to disseminate information,
including state-of-the-science
conferences, Webinars, Web sites, and
other dissemination methods; and
• Coordinate with relevant NIDRRfunded projects, as identified through
consultation with the NIDRR project
officer.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority
We will announce the final priority in
a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priority after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. This notice does not
preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use this priority, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory
action under Executive Order 13563,
which supplements and explicitly
reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
established in Executive Order 12866.
To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an
agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this proposed priority
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that would maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that
this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 Apr 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
The benefits of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Programs have been well
established over the years in that similar
projects have been completed
successfully. This proposed priority
would generate new knowledge through
research and development. The new
RERCs would generate, disseminate,
and promote the use of new information
that would improve the options for
individuals with disabilities to fully
participate in their communities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: March 29, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of Assistant Secretary
for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–07763 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 239 and 258
[EPA–R10–RCRA–2013–0105; FRL–9796–7]
Adequacy of Oregon’s Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill Permit Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
20073
Proposed rule.
EPA Region 10 proposes to
approve a modification to the State of
Oregon’s approved Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill Program. On March 22,
2004, EPA issued final regulations
allowing research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) permits to be
issued to certain municipal solid waste
landfills by approved states. On June 14,
2012, Oregon submitted an application
to EPA Region 10 seeking Federal
approval of its RD&D requirements.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing on or
before May 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
RCRA–2013–0105, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: calabro.domenic@epa.gov.
• Fax: (206) 553–6640, to the
attention of Domenic Calabro.
• Mail: Send written comments to
Domenic Calabro, Office of Air, Waste,
and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop:
AWT–122, Seattle, WA 98101.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Domenic Calabro,
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, U.S.
EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Mailstop: AWT–122, Seattle,
WA 98101. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Office’s normal
hours of operation.
For detailed instructions on how to
submit comments, please see the direct
final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Domenic Calabro at (206) 553–6640 or
by email at calabro.domenic@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Rules section of this Federal Register,
the EPA is approving modifications to
Oregon’s Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill permit program to allow for
Research, Development, and
Demonstration permits through a direct
final rule without prior proposal,
because the EPA views this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipates
no adverse comments to this action.
Unless we receive written adverse
comments which oppose this approval
during the comment period, the direct
final rule will become effective on the
date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If the
EPA receives written adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn
and all public comments received will
be addressed in a subsequent final rule.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20069-20073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07763]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)--Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers (RERCs)--Technologies To Support Successful Aging With
Disability
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.133E-3
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes one priority for the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by
NIDRR. Specifically, this notice proposes one priority for an RERC:
Technologies to Support Successful Aging with Disability. The Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for a competition in fiscal year (FY)
2013 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention
on areas of national need. We intend to use this priority to improve
rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Marlene Spencer,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5133,
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must include the phrase ``Proposed
Priorities for RERCs'' in the priority title in the subject line of
your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245-
7532 or by email: marlene.spencer@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priority is in
concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The
Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006
(71 FR 8166), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site:
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve
the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2)
foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training methods to
facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique
needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best
strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for
underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify
mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate
findings.
This notice proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for
RERC competitions in FY 2013 and possibly later years. However, nothing
precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed.
Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make awards for this
priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of
applications received and available funding.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the
[[Page 20070]]
notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
topic that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 5133, 550 12th Street SW., PCP,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related
activities, including international activities, to develop methods,
procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living,
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe
disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Program (RERCs)
The purpose of NIDRR's RERC program, which is funded through the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is
to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act. It does so by conducting advanced engineering
research, developing and evaluating innovative technologies,
facilitating service delivery system changes, stimulating the
production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the
private sector, and providing training opportunities. RERCs seek to
solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers to
improvements in employment, community living and participation, and
health and function outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
The general requirements for RERCs are set out in subpart D of 34
CFR part 350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Does the
Secretary Assist?).
Additional information on the RERC program can be found at:
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
Proposed Priority
This notice contains one proposed priority.
RERC on Technologies To Support Successful Aging With Disability
Background
Current estimates indicate that between 37 million and 52 million
individuals living in the United States have some kind of disability
(IOM, 2007a; Brault, 2012). These numbers will likely grow
significantly in the next 25-30 years as the baby boom generation
continues to enter later life, when the risk of disability is the
highest (IOM, 2007a). Projections based on the U.S. Census data from
2010 indicate that by 2030, the population 65 years and older will
almost double from 35 million to more than 71 million or to
approximately 20 percent of the overall population (Brault, 2012).
Although older age is a major risk factor for disability, millions
of younger and middle-age adults also live with disabilities. In 2010,
some 29.5 million Americans aged 21 to 64 or 16.6 percent of the
working-age population reported disabilities (Brault, 2012). This large
working-age group includes people who are aging with life-long and
early onset disabilities that were once fatal or associated with
shortened life expectancy (Jensen et al., 2011; IOM, 2007b, Kemp &
Mosqueda, 2004). This population is now experiencing the benefits of
increased longevity as well as premature or atypical aging related to
their condition, its management, or other environmental factors (Jensen
et al., 2011; IOM, 2007; Kailes, 2006; Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004).
As working-age and older adults with disabilities grow older, many
face significant new challenges to their health and independence due to
the onset of secondary conditions associated with changes in the
underlying impairment and the onset of age-related, chronic conditions
(Freid et al., 2012; Jensen et al., 2011; IOM, 2007b; Kailes, 2006;
Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004; Kinny et al., 2004). The challenges of aging
with and into disability are compounded by the presence of economic and
environmental barriers, such as a lack of affordable and accessible
transportation and housing services. There is a lack of innovative
technologies that extend the benefits of health promotion and
rehabilitation interventions and strategies into home and community-
based settings (Rizzo et al., 2012; Czaja & Sharit, 2009; IOM, 2007a;
IOM, 2007c; Mann, 2005).
For example, while emerging research indicates that functional
motor capacity and independence can be improved, maintained, or
recovered via consistent participation in exercise and rehabilitation
programs for individuals with upper and lower extremity impairments
(Winstein et al., 2012; Czaja & Sharit, 2009; Merians, et al. 2009;
Krakauer, 2006; Mann, 2005; Mynatt & Rodgers, 2002), the availability
of evidence-based exercise and rehabilitation programs and
interventions in home and community-based settings for this population
is severely limited (Lindenberger et al, 2008; Krakauer, 2006; Tyrer et
al., 2006). The commercially available, home-based technologies that
promise to improve balance and prevent falls are not informed by
evidence from rehabilitation science and gerontology and have not been
evaluated for use by individuals with disabilities (Rizzo et al., 2011;
Czaja & Sharit, 2009; Lindenberger et al., 2008).
Despite limitations in the availability of evidence-based
technologies and interventions to support healthy aging with
disability, findings from social and demographic research suggests that
assistive technologies (AT) and information and communication
technologies (ICT) are playing an increasingly important role in the
lives of people with disabilities (Wild et al., 2008; Freedman et al.,
2006). For example, secondary analysis of data from the National Long-
Term Care Survey found that the steadily increasing use of these
technologies was associated with downward trends in the reported rates
of disability among adults age 65 and over (Spillman, 2004). Other
research suggests that AT and ICT may substitute for, or supplement,
personal care (Carlson and Ehrlich, 2005).
Findings such as these suggest that greater availability and use of
low-cost, evidence-based, computer-aided
[[Page 20071]]
technologies, such as AT and ICT, could help the Nation prepare for a
future characterized by a growing population of working-age and older
adults with long-term disabilities and increased demand for healthcare
and long-term services and supports, combined with a shrinking
proportion of younger people available to provide personal assistance
(Lindenberger, 2008; IOM, 2007a, Pew & Van Hemel, 2004). To respond to
the challenges and opportunities in the emerging area of aging,
disability and technology, NIDRR proposes to fund a Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Technologies to Support Healthy
Aging With Disability.
References
Brault, M.W. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010. U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Available at www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.
Carlson D., & Ehrlich N. (2005). Assistive technology and
information technology use and need by persons with disabilities in
the United States, 2001. Washington, DC: National Institute on
disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of
Education. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/reserach/pubs/at-use/at-use-2001.doc.
Czaja, S.J., & Sharit, J. (2009). The aging of the population:
Opportunities and challenges for human factors engineering. The
Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society, 39(1): 34-40. Available at
www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/TechnologiesforanAgingPopulation/TheAgingofthePopulation.aspx.
Freedman, V.A., Agree, E.M., Martin, L.G., & Cornman, J.C. (2006).
Trends in the use of assistive technology and personal care for
late-life disability, 1992-2000. Gerontologist, 46(1): 124-127.
Freid, V.M., Bernstein, A.B., & Bush, M.A. (2012). Multiple chronic
conditions among adults aged 45 and over: Trends Over the past 10
years. NCHS data brief, no. 100. Hyattsville, MD: National Center
for Health Statistics. 2010. Available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db100.htm.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007a. The future of disability in
America. Committee on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette,
A.M., editors. Chapter 1: Introduction, pp. 16-34. Washington (DC):
The National Academies Press. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007b. The future of disability in
America. Committee on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette,
A.M., editors. Chapter 5: Secondary conditions and aging with
disability, pp. 136-161. Washington (DC): The National Academies
Press. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007c. The future of disability in
America. Committee on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette,
A.M., editors. Chapter 7: Assistive and mainstream technologies for
people with disabilities, pp. 183-221. Washington (DC): The National
Academies Press. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434.
Jensen, M.P., Molton, I.R., Groah, S.L., Campbell, M.L., Charlifue,
S., Chiodo, A., Forchheimer, M., Krause, J.S., & Tate D. (2011).
Secondary health conditions in individuals aging with SCI:
Terminology, concepts, and analytic approaches. Spinal Cord, 50(5):
373-378.
Kailes, J.L. (2006). A User's Perspective on Midlife (Ages 18-65)
Aging with Disability. Workshop on Disability in America: A New
Look. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pp. 194-204.
Kemp, B.J., & Mosqueda, L. (Eds.) (2004). Aging with a disability:
What the clinician needs to know. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Kinny, S., Patrick, D.L., & Doyle D.L. (2004). Prevalence of
secondary conditions among people with disabilities. American
Journal of Public Health, 94(3): 443-445.
Krakauer, J.W. (2006). Motor learning: Its relevance to stroke
recovery and neurorehabilitation. Current Opinion in Neurology, 19:
84.
Lindenberger, U., Lovden, M., Schellenbach, M., Li, S., & Kruger, A.
(2008). Psychological principles of successful aging technologies; a
mini-review. Gerontology, 54: 59-68.
Mann, W.C. (2005). Aging, Disability, and Independence: Trends and
Perspectives. Smart Technology for Aging, Disability, and
Independence: The State of the Science. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., pp. 1-29.
Merians, A.S, Tunik, E., Fluet, G.G., Qiu, Q., & Adamovich, S.V.
(2009). Innovative approaches to the rehabilitation of upper
extremity hemiparesis using virtual environments. European Journal
of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 45: 123.
Mynatt, E., & Rodgers, W. (2002). Developing technology to support
the functional independence of older adults. Ageing International,
27: 24.
Pew, R.W., & Van Hemel, S.B. (2004). National Research Council
(U.S.) Steering Committee for the Workshop on Technology for
Adaptive Aging, et al. Technology for adaptive aging. Washington,
DC; National Academies Press.
Rizzo, A., Requejo, P., Winstein, C., Lange, B., Ragusa, G.,
Merians, A., Patton J., Banerjee, P., & Aisen, A. (2011). Virtual
reality applications for addressing the needs of those aging with
disability. In Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 18, J.D. Westwood et
al. (Eds.) IOS Press, 2011 Available at www.isi.edu/research/rerc/spotlight/files/NIDRR_MMVR2011_workshop_book.pdf.
Spillman, B.C. (2004). Changes in elderly disability rates and the
implications for health care utilization and cost. Milbank
Quarterly, 82(1): 157-194.
Tyrer, H.W., Alwan, M., Demiris, G., He, Z., Keller, J., Skubic, M.,
& Rantz, M. (2006). Technology for successful aging. Proceedings of
the 28th institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE)
Engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBS) annual
international conference, New York City, USA; pp. 3290-3293.
Available at https://eldertech.missouri.edu/files/Technology_for_Successful_Aging.pdf.
Wild, K., Boise. L., Lundell, J., & Foucek A. (2008). Unobtrusive
in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: Reactions and
perceptions of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27(2):
181-200. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629437/?tool=pubmed.
Winstein, C.J., Requejo, P.S., Zelinski, E.M., Mulroy, S.J., &
Crimmins, E.M. (2012). A transformative subfield in rehabilitation
science at the nexus of new technologies, aging, and disability.
Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (Article 340): 1-8. Available at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448347/.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes the following priority for the establishment of a
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Technologies to
Support Successful Aging With Disability. Within its designated
priority research area, this RERC will focus on innovative
technological solutions, new knowledge, and new concepts that will
improve the lives of individuals with disabilities.
Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop or identify,
and evaluate innovative technologies and strategies that maximize the
physical and cognitive functioning of individuals with long-term
disabilities as they age. This RERC must engage in research and
development activities to build a base of evidence for the usability
of, and cost-effectiveness of home-based interactive technologies that
are intended to improve physical and cognitive functioning of
individuals with disabilities as they age. This RERC may develop and
evaluate new technologies, or identify and evaluate existing or
commercially available technologies, or both, that are designed to
improve the physical and cognitive outcomes of this population. In
addition, the RERC must facilitate access to, and use of the low-cost,
home-based interactive technologies that improve the physical and
cognitive outcomes of individuals with disabilities, through such means
as collaborating and communicating with relevant stakeholders,
providing technical assistance, and promoting technology transfer.
General RERC Requirements
Under this priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the
following outcomes:
(1) Increased technical and scientific knowledge relevant to its
designated priority research area. The RERC must
[[Page 20072]]
contribute to this outcome by conducting high-quality, rigorous
research and development projects.
(2) Increased innovation in technologies, products, environments,
performance guidelines, and monitoring and assessment tools applicable
to its designated priority research area. The RERC must contribute to
this outcome through the development and testing of these innovations.
(3) Improved research capacity in its designated priority research
area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by collaborating with
the relevant industry, professional associations, institutions of
higher education, health care providers, or educators, as appropriate.
(4) Improved usability and accessibility of products and
environments in the RERC's designated priority research area. The RERC
must contribute to this outcome by emphasizing the principles of
universal design in its product research and development. For purposes
of this section, the term ``universal design'' refers to the design of
products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest
extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.
(5) Improved awareness and understanding of cutting-edge
developments in technologies within its designated priority research
area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by identifying and
communicating with relevant stakeholders, including NIDRR, individuals
with disabilities, their representatives, disability organizations,
service providers, professional journals, manufacturers, and other
interested parties regarding trends and evolving product concepts
related to its designated priority research area.
(6) Increased impact of research in the designated priority
research area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by providing
technical assistance to relevant public and private organizations,
individuals with disabilities, employers, and schools on policies,
guidelines, and standards related to its designated priority research
area.
(7) Increased transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the
marketplace. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by developing and
implementing a plan for ensuring that all technologies developed by the
RERC are made available to the public. The technology transfer plan
must be developed in the first year of the project period in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project, Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
In addition, the RERC must--
Have the capability to design, build, and test prototype
devices and assist in the technology transfer and knowledge translation
of successful solutions to relevant production and service delivery
settings;
Evaluate the efficacy and safety of its new products,
instrumentation, or assistive devices;
Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, a
plan that describes how it will include, as appropriate, individuals
with disabilities or their representatives in all phases of its
activities, including research, development, training, dissemination,
and evaluation;
Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, in
consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research, a plan to disseminate its
research results to individuals with disabilities, their
representatives, disability organizations, service providers,
professional journals, manufacturers, and other interested parties;
Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, a
plan to disseminate its research results to individuals with
disabilities and their representatives; disability organizations;
service providers; professional journals; manufacturers; and other
interested parties. In meeting this requirement, each RERC may use a
variety of mechanisms to disseminate information, including state-of-
the-science conferences, Webinars, Web sites, and other dissemination
methods; and
Coordinate with relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as
identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority
We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
[[Page 20073]]
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and
those we have determined as necessary for administering the
Department's programs and activities.
The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that
similar projects have been completed successfully. This proposed
priority would generate new knowledge through research and development.
The new RERCs would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new
information that would improve the options for individuals with
disabilities to fully participate in their communities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: March 29, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-07763 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P