[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18490-18494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07295]



[[Page 18490]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2014-OSERS-0025]


Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

[CFDA Number: 84.133E-5.]

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the Rehabilitation 
Engineering Research and Centers (RERC) Program administered by the 
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 
Specifically, this notice proposes a priority for an RERC on 
Technologies to Enhance Independence in Daily Living for Adults with 
Cognitive Impairments. We take this action to focus research attention 
on an area of national need. We intend the priority to contribute to 
improved outcomes related to independence in daily activities in the 
home, community, or workplace setting for adults with cognitive 
impairments.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 
20202-2700.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202) 
245-6211 or by email: [email protected].
    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 April 4, 2013 (78 
FR 20299), 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 research findings, expertise, and other 
information to advance knowledge and understanding of the needs of 
individuals with disabilities and their family members, including those 
from among traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine 
effective practices, programs, and policies to improve community living 
and participation, employment, and health and function outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities of all ages; (4) identify research gaps 
and areas for promising research investments; (5) identify and promote 
effective mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) 
disseminate research findings to all major stakeholder groups, 
including individuals with disabilities and their families in formats 
that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
    This notice proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for one 
or more competitions in FY 2014 and possibly in later years. NIDRR is 
under no obligation to make an award under this priority. The decision 
to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received 
and available funding. NIDRR may publish additional priorities, as 
needed.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the 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 Orders 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 proposed priority in room 5142, 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. The Program is also intended to improve the effectiveness 
of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
(Rehabilitation Act).

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

    The purpose of the RERCs, which are funded through the Disability 
and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to achieve 
the goals of, and improve the effectiveness of, services authorized 
under the Rehabilitation Act through well-designed research, training, 
technical assistance, and dissemination activities in important topical 
areas as specified by NIDRR with guidance from its Rehabilitation 
Research Advisory Council. These activities are designed to benefit 
rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, family 
members, policymakers, and other research stakeholders. Additional 
information on the RERC program can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/rerc/index.html#types.


[[Page 18491]]


    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 Enhance Independence in Daily Living for Adults 
With Cognitive Impairments

Background

    Estimates from the most recent U.S. Census data indicate that in 
2011 over 12 million Americans of all ages with functional impairments 
relied on personal assistance and other long-term services and supports 
(LTSS) in their home and community or in an institution, to perform 
daily activities to maintain their quality of living and, when 
possible, their independence (Brault, 2012; Kay, Harrington, and 
LaPlante, 2010). The need for LTSS is projected to increase 
dramatically in the coming decades to a high of 27 million in 2050 
(Kay, Harrington, and LaPlante, 2010). This increase will be driven 
primarily by the aging of the population and the higher prevalence of 
disability among older individuals, but also by the increased longevity 
experienced by individuals with early onset disabilities (Field & 
Jette, 2007).
    Associated with the increasing prevalence of disability generally 
is an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairments. Cognitive 
impairments refer to significant difficulties in remembering, 
concentrating, or making decisions resulting from physical, mental, or 
emotional conditions (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The 2011 ACS estimated 
that there were about 14.0 million individuals with cognitive 
impairments in the U.S. population. The prevalence of cognitive 
impairments among individuals who are 65 years and older is about 2.3 
times the prevalence among individuals under 65 years; so, like 
disability in general, the prevalence of cognitive impairments is 
expected to increase substantially in future decades.
    The increasing number of Americans with cognitive impairments will 
present a number of pressing challenges. Chief among these will be the 
need to promote and sustain independence in daily living and to find 
less intrusive and more cost-effective ways of delivering the services 
and supports people need to remain as independent as possible.
    Today, about 10-11 million Americans, predominately adults, with 
physical, sensory, psychiatric, and cognitive impairments rely on 
personal assistance and other LTSS to perform daily activities in their 
home, community, and workplace (Kaye, Harrington & LaPlante, 2010). 
LTSS refers to a range of person-to-person assistance received by 
people with disabilities that allows them to carry out their tasks of 
daily living and live as independently as possible. In 2011, 
expenditures from Federal and State Medicaid for LTSS to assist 
individuals with disabilities were estimated at $211 billion 
(O'Shaughnessy, 2013).
    Given the projected growth in the number of Americans with 
disabilities, the Nation has a substantial financial, as well as social 
interest, in developing technologies that enhance independence in daily 
living and can reduce the reliance on costly traditional LTSS 
(Commission on LTC, 2013). Particularly, in the area of support for 
adults with cognitive impairments, there is substantial potential for 
technologies to provide assistance that otherwise would need to be 
provided by human support providers (IOM, 2013; LeadingAge CAST, 2011; 
NCD, 2011).
    Technology-based alternatives to direct services and supports for 
daily living include assistive and smart technologies, such as cueing, 
and prompting or coaching devices, home and community monitoring 
systems, community wayfinding applications for hand-held devices, 
socially assistive robotics, smart environments, workplace supports, 
computer and Web-based teaching programs, tele-supports, technology-
based care, service coordination systems, and many other applications 
of existing technologies (IOM, 2013; LeadingAge CAST, 2011; NCD, 2011).
    The need for assistance for individuals with cognitive impairments 
to sustain independence in daily activities in the home, community, and 
workplace will expand greatly in coming decades due to the aging of the 
population. At the same time, fewer family caregivers will be able to 
care for family members with disabilities for a number of reasons, such 
as limitations due to their own aging and national declines in savings 
rates, retirement asset accumulation, and private insurance purchase. 
The decline in assistance from family caregivers will result in 
increased pressure on Medicaid programs.
    Advances in science and engineering and the increased availability 
of new and emerging technologies, applications of existing technologies 
to new circumstances, and ever-improving information technology 
infrastructures offer promise in responding to the challenges of 
assisting the increasing number of people with cognitive impairments to 
maintain independence in daily living (IOM, 2013). Technology-based 
alternatives represent substantial opportunities to support 
independence and quality of life for adults with cognitive impairments 
in ways that are both liberating and cost-effective and that advance 
the widely endorsed goal of maintaining community living for 
individuals with disabilities and older adults (U.S. DHHS Community 
Living Initiative, 2010).

References

Brault, Matthew W., ``Americans With Disabilities: 2010,'' Current 
Population Reports, Pg. 70-131, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 
2012.
Commission on Long-Term Care: Report to Congress. (September 30, 
2013). Final Report http://www.chhs.ca.gov/OLMDOC/Agenda%20Item%206-%20Commission%20on%20Long-Term%20Care-%20Final%20Report%209-26-13.pdf.
Field, M., & Jette, A. (Eds.) (2007). The future of disability in 
America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Kaye, H.S., Harrington, C., LaPlante. M.P. (2010). Long-Term Care: 
Who Gets It, Who Provides It, Who Pays, And How Much? doi: 10.1377/
hlthaff.2009.0535 HEALTH AFFAIRS 29, NO. 1: 11-21.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2013). Fostering Independence, 
participation, and healthy aging through technology: workshop 
summary. Washington, DC. The National Academies (Free access 
available at: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18332).
LeadingAge CAST. (2011). Preparing for the future: Developing 
technology-enabled long-term services and supports for a new 
population of older adults. Washington, DC: LeadingAge 
(www.leadingage.org/uploadedFiles/Content/About/CAST/Resources/Preparing_for_the_Future_Case_Studies.pdf).
NCD (National Council on Disability). (2011). The power of digital 
inclusion: Technology's impact on employment and opportunities for 
people with disabilities (www.ncd.gov/publications/2011/Oct042011).
O'Shaughnessy, C. (2013). National spending for Long-term Services 
and supports (LTSS), 2011. Washington, DC: The George Washington 
University, National Health Policy Forum (www.nhpf.org/uploads/announcements/Basics_LTSS_02-01-13.pdf).
U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Disability characteristics: 2010-2012 
American Community Survey 3-year estimates. Washington, DC: Author 
(http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_S1810&proType=table).
U.S Census Bureau (2012). Disability-American Community Survey. 
Washington, DC: Author (www.census.gov/people/disability/methodology/acs.html).

[[Page 18492]]

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Community 
Living Initiative. (May 20, 2010). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
(http://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/SMDL/downloads/SMD10008.pdf).

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes the following priority for a Rehabilitation 
Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Technologies to Enhance 
Independence in Daily Living for Adults with Cognitive Impairment. This 
RERC must focus on innovative technological solutions, new knowledge, 
and implementation strategies that enhance the independence and self-
management of adults with cognitive impairment.
    Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate 
new technologies, or adapt and evaluate existing technologies, to 
enhance the ability of adults with cognitive impairment to perform 
daily activities of their choice in the home, community, or workplace. 
Technologies developed or adapted must be designed for 
commercialization as consumer products or for integration into 
rehabilitation practice or relevant service delivery systems. Research 
and development topics under this priority may include, but are not 
limited to: Monitoring and prompting technologies or other information 
or communication aids; assistive technologies, including socially 
assistive robotics; mobile and wearable technologies; virtual reality; 
and care coordination or tele-health, tele-rehabilitation and other 
tele-support systems to facilitate improved activities of daily living.
    In responding to this priority, applicants must specify the target 
populations or subgroups of adults with cognitive impairments that they 
intend to focus on and identify the setting or settings for which they 
intend to develop technologies: Home, community, or workplace. 
Applicants must also limit the number of research and development 
projects to a maximum of eight, and restrict the range of different 
types of technologies to what is manageable with available resources.
    Under this priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the 
following outcomes:
    (a) Increased technical and scientific knowledge relevant to 
technologies for increasing independence in daily living for adults 
with cognitive impairments. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by 
establishing a rigorous research and development plan that is balanced 
between technology development or adaption and technology evaluation 
and incorporates needs assessment, usability testing, and intervention 
development or efficacy studies, as appropriate. The research and 
development plan must be designed to build a base of evidence for 
assessing the usability, accessibility, acceptance, utility, and cost-
benefit of technologies intended to improve independence in daily 
activities for adults with cognitive impairment in the home, community, 
or workplace settings. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by:
    (i) Building a transdisciplinary team of collaborators from 
relevant disciplines, such as: Rehabilitation and bio-engineering, 
computer science, human factors specialists, cognitive and behavioral 
scientists, clinicians and other relevant providers;
    (ii) Conducting research and research syntheses or secondary 
analysis of existing data to evaluate user needs and specify the 
accessibility, acceptance, and human factors design features that will 
need to be built into the technology solutions developed and evaluated 
by the RERC to accommodate the cognitive impairments and preferences of 
the target population;
    (iii) Conducting rigorous usability testing in the settings in 
which the technology will be used;
    (iv) Developing and prioritizing a list of evaluation topics that, 
when addressed, will lead to research-based information on the utility 
or efficacy of technology solutions developed by the RERC; and
    (v) Involving key stakeholders in the research and research 
planning activities to maximize the relevance and usefulness of the 
research products being developed. Stakeholders can include, but are 
not limited to, individuals with disabilities and their families; 
national, State, or local-level policymakers, administrators, or 
service providers; and industry representatives.
    (b) Improved usability and effectiveness of technologies, products, 
devices, systems, performance guidelines, and assessment tools through 
systematic development or adaptation, testing, and evaluation of 
innovations. In developing the technologies under this priority the 
RERC must:
    (i) Incorporate user-centered designed strategies and consider the 
context in which the technology product, device, or system will be 
used;
    (ii) Emphasize the principles of universal design and, as 
appropriate, conform to human factors standards, such as reliability, 
safety, and simplicity; accessibility and acceptability to users; 
protective of users' privacy preferences; intuitive user interfaces; 
feedback in meaningful sensory modalities; and appropriateness to 
diverse populations;
    (iii) Incorporate ongoing training opportunities or user supports 
into the design of the technology or into the practice settings or 
delivery systems in which the technology will be integrated; and
    (iv) Ensure that the technologies are interoperable within existing 
rehabilitation systems or home or mobile technologies and that they 
communicate with existing information technology systems, as 
appropriate.
    (c) Improved research capacity areas that will contribute to 
enhancing the ability of adults with cognitive impairment to perform 
daily activities. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by 
collaborating with the relevant institutions of higher education, 
professional associations, clinicians and service providers, and other 
researchers or educators, as appropriate.
    (d) Improved awareness and understanding of cutting-edge 
developments and promising technology solutions that will contribute to 
enhancing the ability of adults with cognitive impairment to perform 
daily activities. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by 
identifying and communicating with relevant stakeholders, including 
NIDRR, individuals with disabilities and 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.
    (e) Increased impact of research and development activities carried 
out under this priority area. The RERC must contribute to this outcome 
by:
    (i) Providing technical assistance to relevant public and private 
organizations, individuals with disabilities and their families, LTSS 
providers, and employers on policies, guidelines, and standards; and
    (ii) Establishing or contributing to an existing program or service 
that provides objective information and technical and consumer reviews 
about technologies of promise to support independence in daily living 
for adults with cognitive impairments.
    (f) Increased transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the 
marketplace for widespread testing and use by developing and 
implementing a plan to ensure that technologies developed by the RERC 
are made

[[Page 18493]]

available to the public or to service delivery systems that serve the 
public. This technology transfer plan must be developed in the first 
year of the project period in consultation with the NIDRR-funded Center 
on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.

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 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 would 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 proposed priority 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, both quantitative and 
qualitative, 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 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers 
Program have been well established over the years. Projects similar to 
the RERCs have been completed successfully, and the proposed priority 
will generate new knowledge through research. The new RERCs will 
generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that 
would improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities in the areas 
of community living and participation, employment, and health and 
function.
    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) by contacting the Grants and Contracts 
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. 
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    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

[[Page 18494]]

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 27, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-07295 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P