Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program-Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, 3864-3867 [2013-00939]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3864
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, or thirdparty disclosure requirements), to obtain
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’). The amendment
will not impose collection requirements,
so OMB approval is unnecessary.
VII. Communications by Outside
Parties to the Commissioners or Their
Advisors
Written communications and
summaries or transcripts of oral
communications respecting the merits
of this proceeding from any outside
party to any Commissioner or
Commissioner’s advisor will be placed
on the public record.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 429
Sales Made at Homes or at Certain
Other Locations; Trade practices.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Federal Trade
Commission proposes to amend part
429 of title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for 16 CFR
parts 429 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.
2. Amend § 429.0, by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
■
§ 429.0
Definitions
*
*
*
*
(a) Door-to-Door sale—A sale, lease,
or rental of consumer goods or services
with a purchase price of $130 or more,
whether under single or multiple
contracts, in which the seller or his
representative personally solicits the
sale, including those in response to or
following an invitation by the buyer,
and the buyer’s agreement or offer to
purchase is made at a place other than
the place of business of the seller (e.g.,
sales at the buyer’s residence or at
facilities rented on a temporary basis,
such as hotel or motel rooms,
convention centers, fairgrounds and
restaurants, or sales at the buyer’s
workplace or in dormitory lounges). The
term door-to-door sale does not include
a transaction:
*
*
*
*
*
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with
*
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–31558 Filed 1–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Jan 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
Proposed Priority—National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research—Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program—Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Centers
CFDA Number: 84.133E–1.
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes 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 proposes a priority for
Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers (RERCs): Hearing Enhancement.
The Assistant Secretary may use this
priority for a competition in fiscal year
(FY) 2013 and later years. We take this
action to focus research attention on
areas of national need. We intend to use
this priority to improve rehabilitation
services and outcomes for individuals
with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before February 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC
20202–2700.
If you prefer to send your comments
by email, use the following address:
marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must
include ‘‘Proposed Priorities for RERCs’’
and the priority title in the subject line
of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245–
7532 or by email:
marlene.spencer@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice of proposed priority is in
concert with NIDRR’s currently
approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The
Plan, which was published in the
Federal Register on February 15, 2006
(71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the
Internet at the following site:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/
nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the
Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the
quality and utility of disability and
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an
exchange of expertise, information, and
training methods to facilitate the
advancement of knowledge and
understanding of the unique needs of
traditionally underserved populations;
(3) determine best strategies and
programs to improve rehabilitation
outcomes for underserved populations;
(4) identify research gaps; (5) identify
mechanisms for integrating research and
practice; and (6) disseminate findings.
This notice proposes a priority that
NIDRR intends to use for an RERC
competition in FY 2013 and possibly in
later years. However, nothing precludes
NIDRR from publishing additional
priorities, if needed. Furthermore,
NIDRR is under no obligation to make
awards for this priority. The decision to
make an award will be based on the
quality of applications received and
available funding.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific topic that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from this proposed priority.
Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice in room 5140, 550 12th
Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4
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
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with
Research Projects and Centers Program
is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and
related activities, including
international activities; to develop
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation
technology that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society,
employment, independent living, family
support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with
the most severe disabilities; and to
improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation
Act).
Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers (RERCs) Program
The purpose of NIDRR’s RERCs
program, which is funded through the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program, is to
improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.
It does so by conducting advanced
engineering research, developing and
evaluating innovative technologies,
facilitating service delivery system
changes, stimulating the production and
distribution of new technologies and
equipment in the private sector, and
providing training opportunities. RERCs
seek to solve rehabilitation problems
and remove environmental barriers to
improvements in employment,
community living and participation,
and health and function outcomes of
individuals with disabilities.
The general requirements for RERCs
are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part
350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Centers Does the Secretary
Assist?).
Additional information on the RERCs
program can be found at: www.ed.gov/
rschstat/research/pubs/.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g)
and 764(b)(3).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 350.
Proposed Priority: This notice
contains one proposed priority.
Hearing Enhancement.
Background: Approximately 34.2
million Americans have a hearing
impairment (Kochkin, 2009). An
untreated hearing impairment has
profound implications for people across
the lifespan (e.g., in education, schoolto-work transition, employment,
community participation, and general
social and emotional well-being)
(Pallarito, 2010; Kochkin, 2010b;
Chisolm et al., 2007a).
Research and development related to
hearing enhancement technologies has
produced advances in areas related to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Jan 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
digital and wireless hearing aids,
assistive technologies, cochlear and
middle ear implants, and aural
rehabilitation, but many research and
development needs remain (Fellinger et
al., 2012; Stender, 2011; Groth and
Anthonsen, 2010; Kochkin, 2010a;
Chisolm et al., 2007b; Sweetow and
Sabes, 2007; Pirzanski, 2006). For
example, research has indicated that
while 95 percent of people with a
hearing impairment can benefit from
hearing aids, only 23 percent actually
use them (Kochkin, 2007). Among the
many reasons for not using hearing aids
are characteristics of the hearing aids
themselves (e.g., the hearing aids are
uncomfortable and unreliable, do not
work well in noisy environments, and
do not work seamlessly across multiple
settings and technologies) (Kochkin,
2010a; Kochkin, 2007). Assistive
listening devices (e.g., FM systems,
infrared systems, and audio induction
loop systems) still have significant
limitations related to portability,
usability, and performance, particularly
during group discussions (Harkins and
Tucker, 2007). More research and
development is needed on cochlear and
middle ear implants to determine and
optimize performance and benefits in
real-life situations (Peterson et al., 2010;
Rameh et al., 2010).
Successful hearing enhancement
technologies have been demonstrated to
improve the quality of life for people
with hearing impairments (Fellinger et
al., 2012; Kochkin, 2010b; Chisolm et
al., 2007a, 2007b). Accordingly, NIDRR
seeks to fund an RERC to address
problems that prevent the use of, or
reduce the use and benefit of, hearing
enhancement technologies, and to
optimize options for people with
hearing impairments.
References:
Chisolm, T.H., Johnson, C.E., Danhaer, J.L.,
Portz, L.J.P, Abrams, H.B., Lesner, S.,
McCarthy, P.A., and Newman, C.W.
(2007a). A systematic review of healthrelated quality of life and hearing aids:
Final report of the American Academy of
Audiology Task Force on the HealthRelated Quality of Life Benefits of
Amplification in Adults. Journal of the
American Academy of Audiology, 18:
151–183.
Chisolm, T.H., Noe, C.M., McArdle, R., and
Abrams, H. (2007b). Evidence for the use
of hearing assistive technology by adults:
The role of the FM system. Trends in
Amplification, 11(2): 73–89.
Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., and Pollard, R.
(2012). Mental health of deaf people. The
Lancet, 379: 1037–1044.
Groth, J., and Anthonsen, F. (2010). Fewer
wires, less complexity, and more
connections: The new challenge for
wireless hearing instruments. Hearing
Review, 17(6): 28–36.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3865
Harkins, J., and Tucker, P. (2007). An internet
survey of individuals with hearing loss
regarding assistive listening devices.
Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 91–100.
Kochkin, S. (2010a). MarkeTrak VIII:
Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids
is slowly increasing. Hearing Journal,
63(1): 19–24.
Kochkin, S. (2010b). MarkeTrak VIII: The
efficacy of hearing aids in achieving
compensation equity in the workplace.
Hearing Journal, 63(10): 19–26.
Kochkin, S. (2009). MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year
trends in the hearing health market.
Hearing Review, 16 (11): 12–31.
Kochkin, S. (2007). MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles
to adult non-user adoption of hearing
aids. Hearing Journal, 60(4): 27–43.
Pallarito, K. (2010). Teach patients who hear
‘‘well enough’’ the real cost of neglecting
hearing loss. Hearing Journal, 63(8): 19–
25.
Peterson, N.R., Pisoni, D.B., & Miyamoto,
R.T. (2010). Cochlear implants and
spoken language processing abilities:
Review and assessment of the literature.
Medicine, Clinical Neurology and
Exercise & Occupational Therapy, 28(2).
Pirzanski, C. (2006, August). Earmolds and
hearing aid shells: A tutorial part 4: BTE
styles, materials, and acoustic
modifications. Hearing Review.
Rameh, C., Meller, R., Lavielle, J., Deveze, A.,
and Magnan, J. (2010). Long-term patient
satisfaction with different middle ear
implants in sensorineural hearing loss.
Ontology & Neurotology, 31(6): 883–892.
Stender, T. (2011). Phone and TV solutions
for better hearing. Hearing Review,
18(10): 24–30.
Sweetow, R.W., and Sabes, J.S. (2007).
Technologic advances in aural
rehabilitation: Applications and
innovative methods of service delivery.
Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 101–111.
Proposed Priority:
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
proposes the following priority for the
establishment of a Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center (RERC) on
Hearing Enhancement. The RERC must
focus on innovative technological
solutions, new knowledge, and concepts
that will improve the lives of
individuals with disabilities.
Under this priority, the RERC must
research, develop, and evaluate
technologies, methods, and systems that
will improve the accessibility, usability,
and performance of hearing
enhancement technologies (e.g., hearing
aids, ear molds, assistive listening
devices, and implants) for people with
hearing loss, including but not limited
to people with untreated hearing loss.
This includes: (a) Addressing
technological factors that prevent or
reduce adoption of and benefit from
hearing enhancement devices (e.g.,
hearing aid and implant design features,
ear mold fit and comfort, and assistive
listening devices and technologies for
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with
3866
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
group settings); (b) improving the
compatibility of hearing enhancement
technologies with other technologies
such as cell phones, mobile devices,
television, and the Internet; (c)
improving the performance of hearing
enhancement devices in social
environments (e.g., school, work,
recreation, and entertainment); and (d)
enhancing aural rehabilitation and
consumer involvement strategies (e.g.,
online access to peer and expert input
on hearing technologies and
communication strategies; consumer
focus groups and surveys; and consumer
beta testing and review of products) to
maximize hearing enhancement in reallife settings. The RERC must involve key
stakeholders (including but not limited
to people with hearing loss) in the
design and implementation of RERC
activities.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Jan 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this proposed priority
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that 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 Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Programs have been well
established over the years, as projects
similar to the one envisioned by the
proposed priority have been completed
successfully. Establishing new RERCs
based on the proposed priority would
generate new knowledge through
research and development and improve
the lives of individuals with disabilities.
The new RERCs would generate,
disseminate, and promote the use of
new information that would improve
the options for individuals with
disabilities to fully participate in their
communities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) by
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
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: January 14, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–00939 Filed 1–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0700; FRL–9771–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
in part, conditionally approve in part,
and disapprove in part, the July 17,
2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission provided by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) of the
Kentucky Energy and Environment
Cabinet. Kentucky DAQ submitted the
July 17, 2012, SIP submission as a
replacement to its original September 8,
2009, SIP submission. Specifically, this
proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:31 Jan 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS)
infrastructure SIP. The CAA requires
that each state adopt and submit a SIP
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Kentucky DAQ
made a SIP submission demonstrating
that the Kentucky SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in the
Commonwealth (hereafter referred to as
‘‘infrastructure submission’’). EPA is
now proposing three related actions on
Kentucky DAQ’s infrastructure SIP
submission. First, EPA is proposing to
determine that Kentucky DAQ’s
infrastructure submission, provided to
EPA on July 17, 2012, satisfies certain
required infrastructure elements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second,
with respect to the infrastructure
requirements related to specific
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) requirements, EPA is proposing to
approve, in part and conditionally
approve in part, the infrastructure SIP
submission based on a December 19,
2012, Kentucky DAQ commitment to
submit specific enforceable measures for
approval into the SIP to address specific
PSD program deficiencies. Third, EPA is
proposing to disapprove Kentucky
DAQ’s infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to certain interstate
transport requirements for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS because the
submission does not address the
statutory provisions with respect to the
relevant NAAQS and thus does not
satisfy the criteria for approval. The
CAA requires EPA to act on this portion
of the SIP submission even though
under a recent court decision (which is
not yet final as EPA has requested
rehearing), Kentucky DAQ was not yet
required to submit a SIP submission to
address these interstate transport
requirements. Moreover, under that
same court decision, this disapproval
does not trigger an obligation for EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation
plan (FIP) to address these interstate
transport requirements.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0700, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3867
3. Fax: (404) 562–9140.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0700,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0700. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3864-3867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00939]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research--Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program--Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers
CFDA Number: 84.133E-1.
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes 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 proposes a priority for
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs): Hearing
Enhancement. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for a
competition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. We take this
action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend
to use this priority to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes
for individuals with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Marlene Spencer,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133,
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must include ``Proposed Priorities
for RERCs'' and the priority title in the subject line of your
electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245-
7532 or by email: marlene.spencer@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice of proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's
currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was
published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 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 methods to
facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique
needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best
strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for
underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify
mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate
findings.
This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for an
RERC competition in FY 2013 and possibly in later years. However,
nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if
needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make awards for
this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the
quality of applications received and available funding.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 5140, 550 12th Street SW., PCP,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 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
[[Page 3865]]
Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including
international activities; to develop methods, procedures, and
rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and
integration into society, employment, independent living, family
support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities;
and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) Program
The purpose of NIDRR's RERCs program, which is funded through the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is
to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act. It does so by conducting advanced engineering
research, developing and evaluating innovative technologies,
facilitating service delivery system changes, stimulating the
production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the
private sector, and providing training opportunities. RERCs seek to
solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers to
improvements in employment, community living and participation, and
health and function outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
The general requirements for RERCs are set out in subpart D of 34
CFR part 350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Does the
Secretary Assist?).
Additional information on the RERCs program can be found at:
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.
Hearing Enhancement.
Background: Approximately 34.2 million Americans have a hearing
impairment (Kochkin, 2009). An untreated hearing impairment has
profound implications for people across the lifespan (e.g., in
education, school-to-work transition, employment, community
participation, and general social and emotional well-being) (Pallarito,
2010; Kochkin, 2010b; Chisolm et al., 2007a).
Research and development related to hearing enhancement
technologies has produced advances in areas related to digital and
wireless hearing aids, assistive technologies, cochlear and middle ear
implants, and aural rehabilitation, but many research and development
needs remain (Fellinger et al., 2012; Stender, 2011; Groth and
Anthonsen, 2010; Kochkin, 2010a; Chisolm et al., 2007b; Sweetow and
Sabes, 2007; Pirzanski, 2006). For example, research has indicated that
while 95 percent of people with a hearing impairment can benefit from
hearing aids, only 23 percent actually use them (Kochkin, 2007). Among
the many reasons for not using hearing aids are characteristics of the
hearing aids themselves (e.g., the hearing aids are uncomfortable and
unreliable, do not work well in noisy environments, and do not work
seamlessly across multiple settings and technologies) (Kochkin, 2010a;
Kochkin, 2007). Assistive listening devices (e.g., FM systems, infrared
systems, and audio induction loop systems) still have significant
limitations related to portability, usability, and performance,
particularly during group discussions (Harkins and Tucker, 2007). More
research and development is needed on cochlear and middle ear implants
to determine and optimize performance and benefits in real-life
situations (Peterson et al., 2010; Rameh et al., 2010).
Successful hearing enhancement technologies have been demonstrated
to improve the quality of life for people with hearing impairments
(Fellinger et al., 2012; Kochkin, 2010b; Chisolm et al., 2007a, 2007b).
Accordingly, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC to address problems that
prevent the use of, or reduce the use and benefit of, hearing
enhancement technologies, and to optimize options for people with
hearing impairments.
References:
Chisolm, T.H., Johnson, C.E., Danhaer, J.L., Portz, L.J.P, Abrams,
H.B., Lesner, S., McCarthy, P.A., and Newman, C.W. (2007a). A
systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing
aids: Final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force
on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in
Adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18: 151-183.
Chisolm, T.H., Noe, C.M., McArdle, R., and Abrams, H. (2007b).
Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: The
role of the FM system. Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 73-89.
Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., and Pollard, R. (2012). Mental health
of deaf people. The Lancet, 379: 1037-1044.
Groth, J., and Anthonsen, F. (2010). Fewer wires, less complexity,
and more connections: The new challenge for wireless hearing
instruments. Hearing Review, 17(6): 28-36.
Harkins, J., and Tucker, P. (2007). An internet survey of
individuals with hearing loss regarding assistive listening devices.
Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 91-100.
Kochkin, S. (2010a). MarkeTrak VIII: Consumer satisfaction with
hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hearing Journal, 63(1): 19-24.
Kochkin, S. (2010b). MarkeTrak VIII: The efficacy of hearing aids in
achieving compensation equity in the workplace. Hearing Journal,
63(10): 19-26.
Kochkin, S. (2009). MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing
health market. Hearing Review, 16 (11): 12-31.
Kochkin, S. (2007). MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles to adult non-user
adoption of hearing aids. Hearing Journal, 60(4): 27-43.
Pallarito, K. (2010). Teach patients who hear ``well enough'' the
real cost of neglecting hearing loss. Hearing Journal, 63(8): 19-25.
Peterson, N.R., Pisoni, D.B., & Miyamoto, R.T. (2010). Cochlear
implants and spoken language processing abilities: Review and
assessment of the literature. Medicine, Clinical Neurology and
Exercise & Occupational Therapy, 28(2).
Pirzanski, C. (2006, August). Earmolds and hearing aid shells: A
tutorial part 4: BTE styles, materials, and acoustic modifications.
Hearing Review.
Rameh, C., Meller, R., Lavielle, J., Deveze, A., and Magnan, J.
(2010). Long-term patient satisfaction with different middle ear
implants in sensorineural hearing loss. Ontology & Neurotology,
31(6): 883-892.
Stender, T. (2011). Phone and TV solutions for better hearing.
Hearing Review, 18(10): 24-30.
Sweetow, R.W., and Sabes, J.S. (2007). Technologic advances in aural
rehabilitation: Applications and innovative methods of service
delivery. Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 101-111.
Proposed Priority:
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes the following priority for the establishment of a
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Hearing
Enhancement. The RERC must focus on innovative technological solutions,
new knowledge, and concepts that will improve the lives of individuals
with disabilities.
Under this priority, the RERC must research, develop, and evaluate
technologies, methods, and systems that will improve the accessibility,
usability, and performance of hearing enhancement technologies (e.g.,
hearing aids, ear molds, assistive listening devices, and implants) for
people with hearing loss, including but not limited to people with
untreated hearing loss. This includes: (a) Addressing technological
factors that prevent or reduce adoption of and benefit from hearing
enhancement devices (e.g., hearing aid and implant design features, ear
mold fit and comfort, and assistive listening devices and technologies
for
[[Page 3866]]
group settings); (b) improving the compatibility of hearing enhancement
technologies with other technologies such as cell phones, mobile
devices, television, and the Internet; (c) improving the performance of
hearing enhancement devices in social environments (e.g., school, work,
recreation, and entertainment); and (d) enhancing aural rehabilitation
and consumer involvement strategies (e.g., online access to peer and
expert input on hearing technologies and communication strategies;
consumer focus groups and surveys; and consumer beta testing and review
of products) to maximize hearing enhancement in real-life settings. The
RERC must involve key stakeholders (including but not limited to people
with hearing loss) in the design and implementation of RERC activities.
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 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 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 Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Programs have been well established over the years, as
projects similar to the one envisioned by the proposed priority have
been completed successfully. Establishing new RERCs based on the
proposed priority would generate new knowledge through research and
development and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The
new RERCs would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new
information that would improve the options for individuals with
disabilities to fully participate in their communities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) by
[[Page 3867]]
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 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: January 14, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-00939 Filed 1-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
