Final Priority: Disability Rehabilitation Research Project-Burn Model Systems Centers, 37025-37031 [2012-15051]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
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 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
on 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 taking this regulatory action
only on a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that these priorities
are 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
associated with this regulatory action
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. These priorities will
generate new knowledge through
research and development. Another
benefit of these priorities is that the
establishment of new RERCs will
improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities. The new RERCs will
generate, disseminate, and promote the
use of new information that will
improve the options for individuals
with disabilities to fully participate in
their communities.
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 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, call the FRS, toll
free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37025
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: June 15, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–15091 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Final Priority: Disability Rehabilitation
Research Project—Burn Model
Systems Centers
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
Overview Information
CFDA Number: 84.133A–3.
Final priority; National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects and Centers
Program—Disability Rehabilitation
Research Project (DRRP)—Burn Model
Systems Centers.
The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program
administered by the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this
notice announces a priority for Burn
Model Systems (BMS) Centers. The
Assistant Secretary may use this priority
for a competition in fiscal year (FY)
2012 and later years. We take this action
to focus research attention on areas of
national need.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: This priority is
effective July 20, 2012.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
37026
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 5140, Potomac Center Plaza
(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2700.
Telephone: (202) 245–7338 or by email:
lynn.medley@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.
This
notice of final priority (NFP) 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 8165), 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 to facilitate the advancement of
knowledge and understanding of the
unique needs of traditionally
underserved populations; (3) determine
best strategies and programs to improve
rehabilitation outcomes for underserved
populations; (4) identify research gaps;
(5) identify mechanisms of integrating
research and practice; and (6)
disseminate findings.
This notice announces a final priority
that NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP
competition in FY 2012 and possibly
later years. However, nothing precludes
NIDRR from publishing additional
priorities, if needed. Furthermore,
NIDRR is under no obligation to make
an award for this priority. The decision
to make an award will be based on the
quality of applications received and
available funding.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects (DRRPs)
The purpose of DRRPs, which are
funded under NIDRR’s Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program, is to improve the
effectiveness of services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, by developing methods,
procedures, and rehabilitation
technologies that advance a wide range
of independent living and employment
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with
the most severe disabilities. DRRPs
carry out one or more of the following
types of activities, as specified and
defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through
350.19: Research, training,
demonstration, development,
dissemination, utilization, and technical
assistance. Additional information on
DRRPs can be found at: https://www2.ed.
gov/rschstat/research/pubs/resprogram.html#DRRP.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and
764(a).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 350.
We published a notice of proposed
priority for the Burn Model Systems
Centers program in the Federal Register
on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13582). That
notice contained background
information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priority, 12 parties submitted comments
on the proposed priority.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priority since publication
of the notice of proposed priority
follows.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of
the text of the priority, we determined
that it would be helpful to describe
what the BMS database is.
Changes: We have added a footnote to
paragraph (b) of the priority to clarify
that the BMS database is a centralized
database through which BMS Centers
have collected and contributed
information on common data elements
on outcomes of individuals since 1998.
The BMS database is maintained
through a separate NIDRR-funded grant
for a National Data and Statistical
Center for the BMS.
Comment: Five commenters provided
recommendations regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
implementation of activities under
paragraph (b) of the priority, which
requires the assessment of long-term
outcomes of individuals with burn
injury by enrolling at least 30 subjects
per year into the BMS database. These
commenters suggested that NIDRR
revise the priority to:
(a) Specify a ratio of adults to children
(e.g. 2:1) to be enrolled per BMS Center
in the national database;
(b) Require that the BMS Center
budget two full-time equivalents (FTE)
to carry out the activities required under
paragraph (b);
(c) Require that the BMS Center
conduct all data collection in
accordance with BMS standard
operating procedures and best-practices;
(d) Require the BMS Center to
conduct annual follow-up assessments
rather than 5-year-follow-up
assessments;
(e) Increase the minimum number of
persons to be enrolled per center;
(f) Increase funding for adding
assessments beyond 10 years post injury
because it requires a substantial increase
in data collection effort over the
requirements of previous BMS Center
competitions; and
(g) Specify that the BMS longitudinal
database include a measure of physical
functioning.
Discussion: NIDRR acknowledges that
significant effort will be required by
BMS Centers to maintain the quality of
the BMS database and to increase its
research utility by extending follow-up
assessments beyond 10 years post
injury. With regard to the comment
requesting that NIDRR define the ratio
of adults to children in the BMS
database, we decline to establish a ratio
for the priority because we believe it is
more appropriate to allow projects to
make this determination on their own.
We expect BMS project directors to
make this determination based on the
characteristics of the patient
populations that they serve.
In response to comment (b) requesting
that NIDRR require individual BMS
Centers to budget two FTE to carry out
the activities required under paragraph
(b) of the priority, we note that
individual centers are in the best
position to determine the staffing
structure they will require to carry out
their database responsibilities under the
priority. NIDRR does not believe it is
appropriate to require a specific
allocation of staff resources for this
purpose. This is particularly true given
that the level of effort for the database
responsibilities will differ depending on
the number of database participants that
a Center may have recruited into the
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
BMS database during previous cycles of
the program.
NIDRR agrees with the comment that
all BMS Centers should conduct data
collection in accordance with BMS
standard operating procedures and best
practices, as approved by NIDRR and
the BMS project directors. For this
reason, we are revising paragraph (b) of
the priority to clarify that grantees will
follow the standard operating
procedures and practices established by
the BMS project directors in
conjunction with the National Data and
Statistical Center for the BMS.
In response to the comments
requesting that NIDRR increase funding
to support the requirement in paragraph
(b) of the priority that grantees conduct
assessments beyond 10 years post
injury, we note that the funding levels
for the BMS Centers in fiscal year (FY)
2012 will be consistent with funding
levels of previous awards made under
this program and we believe that this
funding is adequate to support the longterm data collection activities required
under this priority. We believe the
funding is adequate because NIDRR is
not requiring, as part of this priority,
that BMS Centers propose and conduct
a collaborative module research project
(a requirement included in previous
BMS Centers program competitions).
Thus, grantees under this priority will
have a greater amount of total funding
to support the increased data collection
activities. That said, we do not believe
that the funding levels allocated for this
program are sufficient to support an
increase in the frequency of follow-up
assessments, or an increase in the
minimum number of persons to be
enrolled in the database by each center,
as recommended by some commenters.
Finally, with regard to the comment
that we include a measure of physical
functioning in the BMS database, we
decline to make this change to the
requirement without the input of the
BMS project directors. We believe it is
more appropriate to allow the group of
BMS project directors to determine
whether they will incorporate a measure
of physical functioning into the
database.
Change: We have added language in
paragraph (b) of the priority to clarify
that grantees will follow the standard
operating procedures and practices
established by the BMS project directors
in conjunction with National Data and
Statistical Center for the BMS.
Comment: Two commenters requested
clarification regarding the Note
following paragraph (b) of the priority,
which addresses budgeting for the
activities of the BMS database under
this program. Specifically, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
commenters asked whether NIDRR will
specify one funding level for grantees
that have already enrolled patients in
the BMS database and a different
funding level for grantees that have no
patients yet enrolled.
Discussion: We do expect funding
levels to differ depending on the
number of participants for which BMS
Centers will need to collect follow-up
data to meet the requirements of
paragraph (b) of the priority. All BMS
Centers funded under this competition
are responsible for collecting follow-up
data from subjects who will be enrolled
in the grant cycle that begins in FY
2012. To the extent a grantee under a
competition using this priority was
previously funded under the BMS
program, that grantee must also, as part
of this grant, collect follow-up data from
subjects who were enrolled in the BMS
database in previous grant cycles. For
this reason, NIDRR requests that each
applicant under this priority initially
budget for the activities required under
paragraph (b) based on the number of
follow-up assessments it expects to
conduct during the project period. Final
budgets for successful applicants will be
negotiated with NIDRR prior to the grant
award. The range of possible grant
awards under this priority is specified
in the notice inviting applications for
the FY 2012 BMS competition, which is
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Changes: We have added language to
the Note that follows paragraph (b) of
the priority, to provide more
information about how grant award
amounts are to be determined, within
the range of possible grant awards that
is specified in the notice inviting
applications.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we revise paragraph
(c) of the priority, which requires each
BMS Center to propose and conduct at
least one, but no more than two, sitespecific research projects, so that each
BMS Center is required to test
interventions as part of its site-specific
research project or projects.
Discussion: Paragraph (c) of the
proposed priority would have required
each BMS Center to test innovative
approaches to treating burn injury or to
assess outcomes of individuals with
burn injury. In light of the comment, we
believe that this language may have
been unnecessarily restrictive. While
NIDRR acknowledges the importance of
testing innovative treatment approaches,
we also acknowledge the continuing
need for knowledge about the
experiences and outcomes of
individuals with burn injury that results
from other types of research, including
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37027
but not limited to, descriptive research,
exploratory research, and measures
development, all of which could
contribute to development of innovative
interventions. For this reason, we have
broadened the language in paragraph (c)
to clarify that applicants may propose
interventions research and descriptive
research, exploratory research, measures
development, or other types of research
that can contribute to the development
of interventions for site-specific
projects.
Change: NIDRR has revised paragraph
(c) of the priority to state that applicants
must propose and conduct at least one,
but no more than two, site-specific
research projects to test interventions
for treating burn injury or to conduct
other types of research, including but
not limited to, descriptive research,
exploratory research, or measures
development that can contribute to
development or measurement of
interventions. Site-specific research
projects must contribute to outcomes in
one or more domains identified in the
Plan: health and function, community
living and participation, technology,
and employment.
Comment: Two commenters requested
clarification regarding the role of the
BMS National Data and Statistical
Center (BMS National Data Center) in
the BMS Center’s site-specific research
projects required under paragraph (c) of
the priority. In particular, the
commenters asked whether the BMS
National Data Center would be available
to provide statistical consultation to the
BMS Centers to assist them with the
site-specific research projects and
whether it could house data for the BMS
Centers’ site specific research projects.
Discussion: The BMS National Data
Center priority, which will be
announced in a separate notice in the
Federal Register, does require the BMS
National Data Center to make statistical
and other methodological consultation
available for site-specific research
projects being conducted by the BMS
Centers. However, the BMS National
Data Center priority does not require the
BMS National Data Center to house data
collected during the BMS Centers’ sitespecific research projects. Accordingly,
the BMS Centers will need to negotiate
with the BMS National Data Center, if
they want to house their site-specific
research projects with the BMS National
Data Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested
clarification regarding the Note that
follows paragraph (c) of the priority,
which allows for collaboration as
needed for site-specific research
projects. The commenters requested
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37028
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
clarification about three issues: (1)
Whether collaborators must be other
BMS Centers; (2) whether the priority
allows for the identification of proposed
collaborators within the application
submitted for the Department’s review;
and, (3) whether a site-specific project
could be a multi-site study.
Discussion: BMS Center applicants
may propose to collaborate with third
parties in order to conduct the sitespecific research projects required
under paragraph (c) of the priority.
These collaborating entities may be, but
are not required to be, other NIDRRfunded BMS Centers. To the extent an
applicant plans to collaborate with
others in the site-specific research
projects it proposes, it may identify
potential collaborators in its
application, if so desired. The sitespecific projects proposed by applicants
under this priority can be multi-site
studies that are managed and
administered by the proposed BMS
Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested
guidance regarding paragraph (d) of the
priority, which requires the grantee to
coordinate with the NIDRR-funded
Model Systems Knowledge Translation
Center (MSKT Center). The commenters
asked NIDRR to indicate the level of
effort it expected applicants to budget
for these knowledge translation
activities.
Discussion: NIDRR allows applicants
the flexibility to determine the budget
required to implement these activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters noted
potential synergies between the BMS
database, and the database maintained
by the American Burn Association
(ABA). One of these commenters
recommended that NIDRR revise the
priority to require the BMS Centers to
collaborate with the ABA to facilitate
synergies between the BMS and ABA
databases. The other two commenters
discussed the potential for a
collaboration between the BMS and the
ABA to produce common data elements
related to long-term outcomes of burn
survivors. These two commenters noted
that such collaboration with the ABA
could help make the NIDRR BMS
Centers’ measurement of long-term
outcomes more ‘‘mainstream’’ outside of
the Burn Model Systems program.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the
commenters that collaboration between
the BMS Centers and the ABA may lead
to improved outcomes of the BMS
database and important synergies
between the BMS and ABA databases.
At the program level, NIDRR personnel
and BMS project directors have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
facilitated a relationship between the
BMS Centers and the ABA in past grant
cycles. In the coming grant cycle,
NIDRR will continue to facilitate this
relationship, which will include
discussions toward common, long-term
data elements in both databases. NIDRR
believes that synergies between the BMS
program’s database and the ABA
database can best be achieved at the
program level—between the network of
NIDRR BMS Centers and the ABA. Such
a relationship will not be facilitated via
multiple grant applicants individually
seeking a collaborative relationship with
the ABA.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters posed
questions regarding paragraph (e) of the
proposed priority, which specified that
the grantee should spend $5,000
towards the costs of a state-of-thescience conference. One commenter
asked whether the specified dollars
could be used for travel to the
conference and dissemination of
information following the conference.
Another commenter asked whether the
specified amount included indirect
costs associated with the conference.
Other commenters recommended that
NIDRR specify in the priority the
timeframe for holding the conference
and that the themes of the conference be
on quality of care, patient satisfaction,
and long-term patient outcomes.
Finally, one commenter asked whether
grantees would be required to
coordinate with the ABA and other
agencies in sponsoring the conference.
Discussion: NIDRR has decided to
withdraw the proposed requirement that
BMS Centers budget to support a stateof-the-science conference. Instead,
NIDRR is adding language to paragraph
(d) of the priority that suggests
including a state-of-the-science meeting
as one possible means of collaboratively
conducting knowledge translation
activities that might be used to
disseminate research findings from the
BMS Centers program. BMS Centers
have the freedom to determine the
amount of funds that they might set
aside for such activities, including any
activities in conjunction with the MSKT
Center.
Changes: NIDRR has removed the
requirement stated in proposed
paragraph (e). It has added language to
paragraph (d) of the priority to identify
state-of-the-science meetings as one
means of facilitating dissemination of
research findings to stakeholders.
Comment: Three commenters
requested clarification regarding
proposed paragraph (f) of the priority,
which required that grantees address the
needs of individuals with burn injuries,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
including individuals from one or more
traditionally underserved populations.
The commenters requested clarification
from NIDRR regarding the types of
individuals that are included in the
category ‘‘traditionally underserved
populations’’ and whether activities that
address the clinical needs of these
persons are subject to funding under
this priority.
Discussion: Paragraph (f) of the
proposed priority (redesignated as
paragraph (e) in the final priority)
requires each BMS Center to address the
needs of individuals with burn injuries,
including individuals from one or more
traditionally underserved populations
through its project. The Rehabilitation
Act authorizes the research activities
that are administered by NIDRR,
including the research activities under
the BMS Centers program. While section
21 of the Rehabilitation Act, titled
Traditionally Underserved Populations,
does not define the term ‘‘traditionally
underserved,’’ it does provide an indepth discussion of populations that
experience inequitable treatment and
poor outcomes in the vocational
rehabilitation process. Section 21 of the
Rehabilitation Act specifically mentions
groups of racial and ethnic minorities
with disabilities, including Latinos,
African Americans, Asian Americans,
and American Indians with disabilities.
For purposes of this priority, we expect
applicants to describe how they will
fulfill the priority’s requirement to
address the needs of individuals with
burn injuries from traditionally
underserved populations, as that term is
described in section 21 of the
Rehabilitation Act. The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of each
application.
With regard to the question
concerning clinical services to
individuals with burn injuries from
traditionally underserved populations,
we note that NIDRR program funds are
used to sponsor research and
development activities and, therefore,
can only be used to support clinical
services that constitute a part of the
research process. For example, the
provision of treatment as part of a
clinical trial, or the development of
consumer education materials as part of
an evidence-based knowledge
translation process are allowable
research activities for which grant funds
under this priority may be used.
Changes: With the removal of
proposed paragraph (e) of the priority,
NIDRR has redesignated proposed
paragraph (f) final paragraph (e). In
addition, we have revised this
paragraph to include a cross-reference to
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
the Rehabilitation Act’s discussion of
traditionally underserved populations.
Comment: Two commenters requested
guidance regarding proposed paragraph
(g) of the priority, which required that
grantees ensure that input of individuals
with burn injuries is used to shape BMS
research activities. Specifically, the
commenters asked NIDRR to clarify the
scope of the activities it expects grantees
to engage in to meet this proposed
requirement as well as the
corresponding budget for these
activities. In addition, one commenter
requested that NIDRR specify the
potential collaborators, such as the
Phoenix Society, with which grantees
could work with to carry out these
activities.
Discussion: It is NIDRR’s intent that
input from persons with burn injuries
will inform all research conducted
under the BMS Centers program. This
includes the site-specific research to be
conducted under paragraph (c) of this
priority and the research conducted by
the system of BMS Centers through the
BMS database. For purposes of this
priority, each applicant is expected to
describe in its application the activities
it will conduct to ensure that input from
persons with burn injuries shape its
site-specific research project or projects.
NIDRR allows applicants the flexibility
to determine the budget required to
implement these activities. NIDRR also
allows applicants the flexibility to
determine the methods it will use for
receiving input from consumers.
With respect to specifying potential
collaborators, such as the Phoenix
Society, we decline to do so because
NIDRR does not have a sufficient basis
for requiring all applicants to
collaborate with the Phoenix Society.
However, applicants are free to propose
such a collaboration.
Changes: We have redesignated
paragraph (g) of the proposed priority to
paragraph (f).
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we revise the
priority to clarify that applicants must
budget for travel to and participation in
the face-to-face BMS project directors’
meeting, and to participate in the
regularly scheduled conference calls of
the BMS project directors.
Discussion: In keeping with prior
practice, NIDRR expects the Project
Directors of the BMS Centers to
participate in two Project Directors’
meetings per year (one to be held in the
greater Washington, DC and one in
conjunction with the annual ABA
Conference). Applicants must budget for
the costs of having their project
directors travel to and participate in
these meetings. NIDRR also expects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
BMS project directors to participate in
regularly scheduled conference calls of
this group. The purpose of these
meetings is to establish policies and
procedures with NIDRR input for BMS
activities, to share research findings
across the BMS program, to facilitate
NIDRR program officer knowledge of the
progress on grant activities, to discuss
database issues, and to foster successful
development of the BMS program.
Changes: NIDRR has added paragraph
(g) to the priority. This new paragraph
states that the BMS Center must ensure
that its project director participates in
the following:
(1) Two annual face-to-face BMS
Center Project Director meetings, one of
which will take place in the greater
Washington, DC area and once in
conjunction with the annual ABA
Convention.
(2) Additional meetings of the BMS
Center Project Directors that are held on
a regular basis via conference call.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether the BMS Centers would be
required to engage in a collaborative
module research project. The
commenter recommended that such a
project be funded under a separate
program priority.
Discussion: Grantees under the BMS
Centers priority are not required to
engage in a collaborative module
research project.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Priority—Burn Model Systems (BMS)
Centers
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
announces a priority for the funding of
Burn Model Systems Centers (BMS
Centers). The BMS Centers must
provide comprehensive,
multidisciplinary services to
individuals with burn injury and
conduct research that contributes to
evidence-based rehabilitation
interventions and clinical and practice
guidelines. The BMS Centers must
generate new knowledge that can be
used to improve outcomes of
individuals with burn injury in one or
more domains identified in NIDRR’s
currently approved Long Range Plan,
published in the Federal Register on
February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8166): health
and function, participation and
community living, technology, and
employment. Each BMS Center must
contribute to this outcome by—
(a) Providing a multidisciplinary
system of rehabilitation care specifically
designed to meet the needs of
individuals with burn injury, including
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37029
but not limited to, physical,
psychological, and community
reintegration needs. The system must
encompass a continuum of care,
including emergency medical services,
acute care services, acute medical
rehabilitation services, and post-acute
services;
(b) Continuing the assessment of longterm outcomes of individuals with burn
injury by enrolling at least 30 subjects
per year into the BMS database,1 and
collecting follow-up data on all subjects
enrolled in the database at 6 months,
and at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years post injury
(as is being done in the current grant
cycle) and extending the assessment to
every five years thereafter, following
standard operating procedures and
practices established by the BMS Project
Directors in conjunction with the
National Data and Statistical Center for
the BMS and the established protocols
for the collection of enrollment and
follow-up data on subjects;
Note: BMS Centers will be funded at
varying amounts up to the maximum award
based on the numbers of BMS database
participants from whom BMS Centers must
collect follow-up data. To the extent a
grantee under a competition using this
priority was previously funded under the
BMS program, that grantee must also, as part
of this grant, collect follow-up data from
subjects who were enrolled in the BMS
database in previous grant cycles. For this
reason, NIDRR requests that each applicant
under this priority initially budget for the
activities required under paragraph (b) based
on the number of follow-up assessments it
expects during the project period. BMS
Centers that have previously been BMS
grantees with large numbers of database
participants will receive more funding within
the specified range than BMS Centers with
fewer participants, as determined by NIDRR
after applicants are selected for funding.
Applicants must include in their budgets
specific estimates of their costs for follow-up
data collection. Funding will be determined
individually for each successful applicant,
up to the maximum allowed, based upon the
documented workload associated with the
follow-up data collection, other costs of the
grant, and the overall budget of the research
project.
(c) Proposing and conducting at least
one, but no more than two, site-specific
research projects to test interventions
for treating burn injury or to conduct
other types of research, including but
not limited to, descriptive research,
exploratory research, or measures
1 The BMS database is a centralized database
through which BMS Centers have collected and
contributed information on common data elements
on outcomes of individuals since 1998. The BMS
database is maintained through a separate NIDRRfunded grant for a National Data and Statistical
Center for the BMS. (Additional information on the
BMS database can be found at https://bmsdcc.ucdenver.edu/).
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
37030
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
development that can contribute to
development or measurement of
interventions. Site-specific research
projects must contribute to outcomes in
one or more domains identified in the
Plan: health and function, community
living and participation, technology,
and employment;
Note: Applicants who propose more than
two site-specific research projects will be
disqualified. Site-specific research projects
may include collaborating with entities as
needed for execution of the research project.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(d) Coordinating with the NIDRRfunded Model Systems Knowledge
Translation Center (MSKTC) (https://
www.msktc.org/) to provide scientific
results and information for
dissemination to clinical and consumer
audiences, using a variety of
mechanisms that could include state-ofthe-science meetings, webinars, Web
sites, and other dissemination methods;
(e) Addressing the needs of
individuals with burn injuries,
including individuals from one or more
traditionally underserved populations,
as discussed in section 21 of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 718;
(f) Ensuring that the input of
individuals with burn injuries is used to
shape BMS research activities; and
(g) Ensuring that its project director
participates in the following:
(1) Two annual face-to-face BMS
Center Project Director meetings, one of
which will take place in the greater
Washington, DC area and once in
conjunction with the annual American
Burn Association Convention.
(2) Additional meetings of the BMS
Center Project Directors that are held on
a regular basis via conference call.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
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)).
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 final 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 final
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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 final priority only
on a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that 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 does 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.
Summary of Potential Costs and
Benefits
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 final priority will
generate new knowledge through
research and development.
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
Another benefit of the final priority is
that establishing new DRRPs will
improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities. The new DRRPs will
provide support and assistance for
NIDRR grantees as they generate,
disseminate, and promote the use of
new information that will improve the
options for individuals with disabilities
to perform regular activities of their
choice in the community.
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 a 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: https://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: https://
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at
this site, you can limit your search to
documents published by the
Department.
Dated: June 15, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–15051 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 14367–001]
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC;
Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and
Soliciting Additional Study Requests
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: Original
Minor License.
b. Project No.: 14367–001.
c. Date filed: May 30, 2012.
d. Applicant: Don W. Gilbert Hydro
Power, LLC.
e. Name of Project: Gilbert
Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: The project would utilize
unnamed springs near the Bear River,
eight miles southwest of Grace in
Caribou County, Idaho. The project
would be located on lands owned by the
applicant and would not occupy any
federal lands.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r) [For 5-MW
exemptions, use the following language
instead: Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705,
2708.]
h. Applicant Contact: Don W. Gilbert
and DeAnn G. Somonich, Don W.
Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC, 1805 Grace
Power Plant Road, Grace, Idaho 83241.
Phone: (801) 725–1754.
i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott, (202)
502–6480 or kelly.wolcott@ferc.gov.
j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise
with respect to environmental issues
that wish to cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental
document should follow the
instructions for filing such requests
described in item l below. Cooperating
agencies should note the Commission’s
policy that agencies that cooperate in
the preparation of the environmental
document cannot also intervene. See, 94
FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18
CFR of the Commission’s regulations, if
any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or
person believes that an additional
scientific study should be conducted in
order to form an adequate factual basis
for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource
agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file
a request for a study with the
Commission not later than 60 days from
the date of filing of the application, and
serve a copy of the request on the
applicant.
l. Deadline for filing additional study
requests and requests for cooperating
agency status: July 30, 2012.
All documents may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s Web
site https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37031
eComment system at https://www.ferc.
gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact
information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll
free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502–8659. Although the
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
m. The application is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
n. The Gilbert Project would consist of
the following new features: (1) A 8-footlong, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet
structure; (2) a 2-foot-diameter, 700-footlong partially buried steel or plastic
penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing
two 45-kilowatt (kW) turbine/generator
units for a total installed capacity of 90
kW; (4) a tailrace to convey flows from
the powerhouse to the Bear River; (5) a
150-foot-long, 480-kilovolt transmission
line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The
project is estimated to generate an
average of 550 megawatthours annually.
The project would be located on lands
owned by the applicant
o. A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item h above.
You may also register online at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.
asp to be notified via email of new
filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
p. Procedural schedule: The
application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate
(e.g., if scoping is waived, the schedule
would be shortened).
Issue Deficiency and/or
Additional Information
Letter.
Issue Notice of Acceptance
Issue Scoping Document ....
Issue Notice of Ready for
Environmental Analysis.
Commission issues EA .......
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
July 2012.
August 2012.
August 2012.
October 2012.
February 2013.
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37025-37031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15051]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Final Priority: Disability Rehabilitation Research Project--Burn
Model Systems Centers
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview Information
CFDA Number: 84.133A-3.
Final priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR)--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program--Disability Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP)--
Burn Model Systems Centers.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by
the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR). Specifically, this notice announces a priority for Burn Model
Systems (BMS) Centers. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority
for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We take
this action to focus research attention on areas of national need.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 20, 2012.
[[Page 37026]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5140, Potomac Center Plaza
(PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7338 or by
email: lynn.medley@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 final priority (NFP) 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 8165), 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 to
facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique
needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best
strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for
underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify
mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate
findings.
This notice announces a final priority that NIDRR intends to use
for a DRRP competition in FY 2012 and possibly later years. However,
nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if
needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for
this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the
quality of applications received and available funding.
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).
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)
The purpose of DRRPs, which are funded under NIDRR's Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to improve the
effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation
technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and
employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially
individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or
more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in
34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration,
development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance.
Additional information on DRRPs can be found at: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
We published a notice of proposed priority for the Burn Model
Systems Centers program in the Federal Register on March 7, 2012 (77 FR
13582). That notice contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priority.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority, 12 parties submitted comments on the proposed
priority.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of
proposed priority follows.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of the text of the priority, we
determined that it would be helpful to describe what the BMS database
is.
Changes: We have added a footnote to paragraph (b) of the priority
to clarify that the BMS database is a centralized database through
which BMS Centers have collected and contributed information on common
data elements on outcomes of individuals since 1998. The BMS database
is maintained through a separate NIDRR-funded grant for a National Data
and Statistical Center for the BMS.
Comment: Five commenters provided recommendations regarding the
implementation of activities under paragraph (b) of the priority, which
requires the assessment of long-term outcomes of individuals with burn
injury by enrolling at least 30 subjects per year into the BMS
database. These commenters suggested that NIDRR revise the priority to:
(a) Specify a ratio of adults to children (e.g. 2:1) to be enrolled
per BMS Center in the national database;
(b) Require that the BMS Center budget two full-time equivalents
(FTE) to carry out the activities required under paragraph (b);
(c) Require that the BMS Center conduct all data collection in
accordance with BMS standard operating procedures and best-practices;
(d) Require the BMS Center to conduct annual follow-up assessments
rather than 5-year-follow-up assessments;
(e) Increase the minimum number of persons to be enrolled per
center;
(f) Increase funding for adding assessments beyond 10 years post
injury because it requires a substantial increase in data collection
effort over the requirements of previous BMS Center competitions; and
(g) Specify that the BMS longitudinal database include a measure of
physical functioning.
Discussion: NIDRR acknowledges that significant effort will be
required by BMS Centers to maintain the quality of the BMS database and
to increase its research utility by extending follow-up assessments
beyond 10 years post injury. With regard to the comment requesting that
NIDRR define the ratio of adults to children in the BMS database, we
decline to establish a ratio for the priority because we believe it is
more appropriate to allow projects to make this determination on their
own. We expect BMS project directors to make this determination based
on the characteristics of the patient populations that they serve.
In response to comment (b) requesting that NIDRR require individual
BMS Centers to budget two FTE to carry out the activities required
under paragraph (b) of the priority, we note that individual centers
are in the best position to determine the staffing structure they will
require to carry out their database responsibilities under the
priority. NIDRR does not believe it is appropriate to require a
specific allocation of staff resources for this purpose. This is
particularly true given that the level of effort for the database
responsibilities will differ depending on the number of database
participants that a Center may have recruited into the
[[Page 37027]]
BMS database during previous cycles of the program.
NIDRR agrees with the comment that all BMS Centers should conduct
data collection in accordance with BMS standard operating procedures
and best practices, as approved by NIDRR and the BMS project directors.
For this reason, we are revising paragraph (b) of the priority to
clarify that grantees will follow the standard operating procedures and
practices established by the BMS project directors in conjunction with
the National Data and Statistical Center for the BMS.
In response to the comments requesting that NIDRR increase funding
to support the requirement in paragraph (b) of the priority that
grantees conduct assessments beyond 10 years post injury, we note that
the funding levels for the BMS Centers in fiscal year (FY) 2012 will be
consistent with funding levels of previous awards made under this
program and we believe that this funding is adequate to support the
long-term data collection activities required under this priority. We
believe the funding is adequate because NIDRR is not requiring, as part
of this priority, that BMS Centers propose and conduct a collaborative
module research project (a requirement included in previous BMS Centers
program competitions). Thus, grantees under this priority will have a
greater amount of total funding to support the increased data
collection activities. That said, we do not believe that the funding
levels allocated for this program are sufficient to support an increase
in the frequency of follow-up assessments, or an increase in the
minimum number of persons to be enrolled in the database by each
center, as recommended by some commenters.
Finally, with regard to the comment that we include a measure of
physical functioning in the BMS database, we decline to make this
change to the requirement without the input of the BMS project
directors. We believe it is more appropriate to allow the group of BMS
project directors to determine whether they will incorporate a measure
of physical functioning into the database.
Change: We have added language in paragraph (b) of the priority to
clarify that grantees will follow the standard operating procedures and
practices established by the BMS project directors in conjunction with
National Data and Statistical Center for the BMS.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the Note
following paragraph (b) of the priority, which addresses budgeting for
the activities of the BMS database under this program. Specifically,
the commenters asked whether NIDRR will specify one funding level for
grantees that have already enrolled patients in the BMS database and a
different funding level for grantees that have no patients yet
enrolled.
Discussion: We do expect funding levels to differ depending on the
number of participants for which BMS Centers will need to collect
follow-up data to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of the
priority. All BMS Centers funded under this competition are responsible
for collecting follow-up data from subjects who will be enrolled in the
grant cycle that begins in FY 2012. To the extent a grantee under a
competition using this priority was previously funded under the BMS
program, that grantee must also, as part of this grant, collect follow-
up data from subjects who were enrolled in the BMS database in previous
grant cycles. For this reason, NIDRR requests that each applicant under
this priority initially budget for the activities required under
paragraph (b) based on the number of follow-up assessments it expects
to conduct during the project period. Final budgets for successful
applicants will be negotiated with NIDRR prior to the grant award. The
range of possible grant awards under this priority is specified in the
notice inviting applications for the FY 2012 BMS competition, which is
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Changes: We have added language to the Note that follows paragraph
(b) of the priority, to provide more information about how grant award
amounts are to be determined, within the range of possible grant awards
that is specified in the notice inviting applications.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise paragraph (c) of
the priority, which requires each BMS Center to propose and conduct at
least one, but no more than two, site-specific research projects, so
that each BMS Center is required to test interventions as part of its
site-specific research project or projects.
Discussion: Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority would have
required each BMS Center to test innovative approaches to treating burn
injury or to assess outcomes of individuals with burn injury. In light
of the comment, we believe that this language may have been
unnecessarily restrictive. While NIDRR acknowledges the importance of
testing innovative treatment approaches, we also acknowledge the
continuing need for knowledge about the experiences and outcomes of
individuals with burn injury that results from other types of research,
including but not limited to, descriptive research, exploratory
research, and measures development, all of which could contribute to
development of innovative interventions. For this reason, we have
broadened the language in paragraph (c) to clarify that applicants may
propose interventions research and descriptive research, exploratory
research, measures development, or other types of research that can
contribute to the development of interventions for site-specific
projects.
Change: NIDRR has revised paragraph (c) of the priority to state
that applicants must propose and conduct at least one, but no more than
two, site-specific research projects to test interventions for treating
burn injury or to conduct other types of research, including but not
limited to, descriptive research, exploratory research, or measures
development that can contribute to development or measurement of
interventions. Site-specific research projects must contribute to
outcomes in one or more domains identified in the Plan: health and
function, community living and participation, technology, and
employment.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the role
of the BMS National Data and Statistical Center (BMS National Data
Center) in the BMS Center's site-specific research projects required
under paragraph (c) of the priority. In particular, the commenters
asked whether the BMS National Data Center would be available to
provide statistical consultation to the BMS Centers to assist them with
the site-specific research projects and whether it could house data for
the BMS Centers' site specific research projects.
Discussion: The BMS National Data Center priority, which will be
announced in a separate notice in the Federal Register, does require
the BMS National Data Center to make statistical and other
methodological consultation available for site-specific research
projects being conducted by the BMS Centers. However, the BMS National
Data Center priority does not require the BMS National Data Center to
house data collected during the BMS Centers' site-specific research
projects. Accordingly, the BMS Centers will need to negotiate with the
BMS National Data Center, if they want to house their site-specific
research projects with the BMS National Data Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the Note
that follows paragraph (c) of the priority, which allows for
collaboration as needed for site-specific research projects. The
commenters requested
[[Page 37028]]
clarification about three issues: (1) Whether collaborators must be
other BMS Centers; (2) whether the priority allows for the
identification of proposed collaborators within the application
submitted for the Department's review; and, (3) whether a site-specific
project could be a multi-site study.
Discussion: BMS Center applicants may propose to collaborate with
third parties in order to conduct the site-specific research projects
required under paragraph (c) of the priority. These collaborating
entities may be, but are not required to be, other NIDRR-funded BMS
Centers. To the extent an applicant plans to collaborate with others in
the site-specific research projects it proposes, it may identify
potential collaborators in its application, if so desired. The site-
specific projects proposed by applicants under this priority can be
multi-site studies that are managed and administered by the proposed
BMS Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested guidance regarding paragraph (d)
of the priority, which requires the grantee to coordinate with the
NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center (MSKT Center).
The commenters asked NIDRR to indicate the level of effort it expected
applicants to budget for these knowledge translation activities.
Discussion: NIDRR allows applicants the flexibility to determine
the budget required to implement these activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters noted potential synergies between the BMS
database, and the database maintained by the American Burn Association
(ABA). One of these commenters recommended that NIDRR revise the
priority to require the BMS Centers to collaborate with the ABA to
facilitate synergies between the BMS and ABA databases. The other two
commenters discussed the potential for a collaboration between the BMS
and the ABA to produce common data elements related to long-term
outcomes of burn survivors. These two commenters noted that such
collaboration with the ABA could help make the NIDRR BMS Centers'
measurement of long-term outcomes more ``mainstream'' outside of the
Burn Model Systems program.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the commenters that collaboration
between the BMS Centers and the ABA may lead to improved outcomes of
the BMS database and important synergies between the BMS and ABA
databases. At the program level, NIDRR personnel and BMS project
directors have facilitated a relationship between the BMS Centers and
the ABA in past grant cycles. In the coming grant cycle, NIDRR will
continue to facilitate this relationship, which will include
discussions toward common, long-term data elements in both databases.
NIDRR believes that synergies between the BMS program's database and
the ABA database can best be achieved at the program level--between the
network of NIDRR BMS Centers and the ABA. Such a relationship will not
be facilitated via multiple grant applicants individually seeking a
collaborative relationship with the ABA.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters posed questions regarding paragraph (e) of
the proposed priority, which specified that the grantee should spend
$5,000 towards the costs of a state-of-the-science conference. One
commenter asked whether the specified dollars could be used for travel
to the conference and dissemination of information following the
conference. Another commenter asked whether the specified amount
included indirect costs associated with the conference. Other
commenters recommended that NIDRR specify in the priority the timeframe
for holding the conference and that the themes of the conference be on
quality of care, patient satisfaction, and long-term patient outcomes.
Finally, one commenter asked whether grantees would be required to
coordinate with the ABA and other agencies in sponsoring the
conference.
Discussion: NIDRR has decided to withdraw the proposed requirement
that BMS Centers budget to support a state-of-the-science conference.
Instead, NIDRR is adding language to paragraph (d) of the priority that
suggests including a state-of-the-science meeting as one possible means
of collaboratively conducting knowledge translation activities that
might be used to disseminate research findings from the BMS Centers
program. BMS Centers have the freedom to determine the amount of funds
that they might set aside for such activities, including any activities
in conjunction with the MSKT Center.
Changes: NIDRR has removed the requirement stated in proposed
paragraph (e). It has added language to paragraph (d) of the priority
to identify state-of-the-science meetings as one means of facilitating
dissemination of research findings to stakeholders.
Comment: Three commenters requested clarification regarding
proposed paragraph (f) of the priority, which required that grantees
address the needs of individuals with burn injuries, including
individuals from one or more traditionally underserved populations. The
commenters requested clarification from NIDRR regarding the types of
individuals that are included in the category ``traditionally
underserved populations'' and whether activities that address the
clinical needs of these persons are subject to funding under this
priority.
Discussion: Paragraph (f) of the proposed priority (redesignated as
paragraph (e) in the final priority) requires each BMS Center to
address the needs of individuals with burn injuries, including
individuals from one or more traditionally underserved populations
through its project. The Rehabilitation Act authorizes the research
activities that are administered by NIDRR, including the research
activities under the BMS Centers program. While section 21 of the
Rehabilitation Act, titled Traditionally Underserved Populations, does
not define the term ``traditionally underserved,'' it does provide an
in-depth discussion of populations that experience inequitable
treatment and poor outcomes in the vocational rehabilitation process.
Section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act specifically mentions groups of
racial and ethnic minorities with disabilities, including Latinos,
African Americans, Asian Americans, and American Indians with
disabilities. For purposes of this priority, we expect applicants to
describe how they will fulfill the priority's requirement to address
the needs of individuals with burn injuries from traditionally
underserved populations, as that term is described in section 21 of the
Rehabilitation Act. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of
each application.
With regard to the question concerning clinical services to
individuals with burn injuries from traditionally underserved
populations, we note that NIDRR program funds are used to sponsor
research and development activities and, therefore, can only be used to
support clinical services that constitute a part of the research
process. For example, the provision of treatment as part of a clinical
trial, or the development of consumer education materials as part of an
evidence-based knowledge translation process are allowable research
activities for which grant funds under this priority may be used.
Changes: With the removal of proposed paragraph (e) of the
priority, NIDRR has redesignated proposed paragraph (f) final paragraph
(e). In addition, we have revised this paragraph to include a cross-
reference to
[[Page 37029]]
the Rehabilitation Act's discussion of traditionally underserved
populations.
Comment: Two commenters requested guidance regarding proposed
paragraph (g) of the priority, which required that grantees ensure that
input of individuals with burn injuries is used to shape BMS research
activities. Specifically, the commenters asked NIDRR to clarify the
scope of the activities it expects grantees to engage in to meet this
proposed requirement as well as the corresponding budget for these
activities. In addition, one commenter requested that NIDRR specify the
potential collaborators, such as the Phoenix Society, with which
grantees could work with to carry out these activities.
Discussion: It is NIDRR's intent that input from persons with burn
injuries will inform all research conducted under the BMS Centers
program. This includes the site-specific research to be conducted under
paragraph (c) of this priority and the research conducted by the system
of BMS Centers through the BMS database. For purposes of this priority,
each applicant is expected to describe in its application the
activities it will conduct to ensure that input from persons with burn
injuries shape its site-specific research project or projects. NIDRR
allows applicants the flexibility to determine the budget required to
implement these activities. NIDRR also allows applicants the
flexibility to determine the methods it will use for receiving input
from consumers.
With respect to specifying potential collaborators, such as the
Phoenix Society, we decline to do so because NIDRR does not have a
sufficient basis for requiring all applicants to collaborate with the
Phoenix Society. However, applicants are free to propose such a
collaboration.
Changes: We have redesignated paragraph (g) of the proposed
priority to paragraph (f).
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
clarify that applicants must budget for travel to and participation in
the face-to-face BMS project directors' meeting, and to participate in
the regularly scheduled conference calls of the BMS project directors.
Discussion: In keeping with prior practice, NIDRR expects the
Project Directors of the BMS Centers to participate in two Project
Directors' meetings per year (one to be held in the greater Washington,
DC and one in conjunction with the annual ABA Conference). Applicants
must budget for the costs of having their project directors travel to
and participate in these meetings. NIDRR also expects BMS project
directors to participate in regularly scheduled conference calls of
this group. The purpose of these meetings is to establish policies and
procedures with NIDRR input for BMS activities, to share research
findings across the BMS program, to facilitate NIDRR program officer
knowledge of the progress on grant activities, to discuss database
issues, and to foster successful development of the BMS program.
Changes: NIDRR has added paragraph (g) to the priority. This new
paragraph states that the BMS Center must ensure that its project
director participates in the following:
(1) Two annual face-to-face BMS Center Project Director meetings,
one of which will take place in the greater Washington, DC area and
once in conjunction with the annual ABA Convention.
(2) Additional meetings of the BMS Center Project Directors that
are held on a regular basis via conference call.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the BMS Centers would be
required to engage in a collaborative module research project. The
commenter recommended that such a project be funded under a separate
program priority.
Discussion: Grantees under the BMS Centers priority are not
required to engage in a collaborative module research project.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Priority--Burn Model Systems (BMS) Centers
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for the funding of Burn Model Systems
Centers (BMS Centers). The BMS Centers must provide comprehensive,
multidisciplinary services to individuals with burn injury and conduct
research that contributes to evidence-based rehabilitation
interventions and clinical and practice guidelines. The BMS Centers
must generate new knowledge that can be used to improve outcomes of
individuals with burn injury in one or more domains identified in
NIDRR's currently approved Long Range Plan, published in the Federal
Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8166): health and function,
participation and community living, technology, and employment. Each
BMS Center must contribute to this outcome by--
(a) Providing a multidisciplinary system of rehabilitation care
specifically designed to meet the needs of individuals with burn
injury, including but not limited to, physical, psychological, and
community reintegration needs. The system must encompass a continuum of
care, including emergency medical services, acute care services, acute
medical rehabilitation services, and post-acute services;
(b) Continuing the assessment of long-term outcomes of individuals
with burn injury by enrolling at least 30 subjects per year into the
BMS database,\1\ and collecting follow-up data on all subjects enrolled
in the database at 6 months, and at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years post injury
(as is being done in the current grant cycle) and extending the
assessment to every five years thereafter, following standard operating
procedures and practices established by the BMS Project Directors in
conjunction with the National Data and Statistical Center for the BMS
and the established protocols for the collection of enrollment and
follow-up data on subjects;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The BMS database is a centralized database through which BMS
Centers have collected and contributed information on common data
elements on outcomes of individuals since 1998. The BMS database is
maintained through a separate NIDRR-funded grant for a National Data
and Statistical Center for the BMS. (Additional information on the
BMS database can be found at https://bms-dcc.ucdenver.edu/).
Note: BMS Centers will be funded at varying amounts up to the
maximum award based on the numbers of BMS database participants from
whom BMS Centers must collect follow-up data. To the extent a
grantee under a competition using this priority was previously
funded under the BMS program, that grantee must also, as part of
this grant, collect follow-up data from subjects who were enrolled
in the BMS database in previous grant cycles. For this reason, NIDRR
requests that each applicant under this priority initially budget
for the activities required under paragraph (b) based on the number
of follow-up assessments it expects during the project period. BMS
Centers that have previously been BMS grantees with large numbers of
database participants will receive more funding within the specified
range than BMS Centers with fewer participants, as determined by
NIDRR after applicants are selected for funding. Applicants must
include in their budgets specific estimates of their costs for
follow-up data collection. Funding will be determined individually
for each successful applicant, up to the maximum allowed, based upon
the documented workload associated with the follow-up data
collection, other costs of the grant, and the overall budget of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
research project.
(c) Proposing and conducting at least one, but no more than two,
site-specific research projects to test interventions for treating burn
injury or to conduct other types of research, including but not limited
to, descriptive research, exploratory research, or measures
[[Page 37030]]
development that can contribute to development or measurement of
interventions. Site-specific research projects must contribute to
outcomes in one or more domains identified in the Plan: health and
function, community living and participation, technology, and
employment;
Note: Applicants who propose more than two site-specific
research projects will be disqualified. Site-specific research
projects may include collaborating with entities as needed for
execution of the research project.
(d) Coordinating with the NIDRR-funded Model Systems Knowledge
Translation Center (MSKTC) (https://www.msktc.org/) to provide
scientific results and information for dissemination to clinical and
consumer audiences, using a variety of mechanisms that could include
state-of-the-science meetings, webinars, Web sites, and other
dissemination methods;
(e) Addressing the needs of individuals with burn injuries,
including individuals from one or more traditionally underserved
populations, as discussed in section 21 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 718;
(f) Ensuring that the input of individuals with burn injuries is
used to shape BMS research activities; and
(g) Ensuring that its project director participates in the
following:
(1) Two annual face-to-face BMS Center Project Director meetings,
one of which will take place in the greater Washington, DC area and
once in conjunction with the annual American Burn Association
Convention.
(2) Additional meetings of the BMS Center Project Directors that
are held on a regular basis via conference call.
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)).
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 final 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 final 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 final priority only on a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 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 does 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.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
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 final priority
will generate new knowledge through research and development.
[[Page 37031]]
Another benefit of the final priority is that establishing new
DRRPs will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new
DRRPs will provide support and assistance for NIDRR grantees as they
generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will
improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform
regular activities of their choice in the community.
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 a 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: https://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: https://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: June 15, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-15051 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
