Proposed Priorities and Definitions-NIDRR DRRP-Community Living and Participation, Health and Function, and Employment of Individuals With Disabilities, 5330-5337 [2013-01418]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5330
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
§ 886.4155
number 0910–0485; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 807 have
been approved under OMB control
number 0910–0387.
VIII. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
comments regarding this document. It is
only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
IX. References
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday and are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified
the Web site addresses of the following
references, but FDA is not responsible
for any subsequent changes to the Web
site after this document publishes in the
Federal Register.)
1. Transcript from the Food and Drug
Administration Ophthalmic Devices Panel
Meeting, January 22, 1996.
2. Chang, Stanley, ‘‘LXII Edward Jackson
Lecture: Open Angle Glaucoma After
Vitrectomy,’’ American Journal of
Ophthalmology, vol. 141(6): pp. 1033–1043,
June 2006, available at https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0002939406002546.
3. Stewart, M. W., ‘‘Intraoperative
Radiographic Detection of a ‘Lost’ Scleral
Plug,’’ Retina, vol. 25(4): pp. 526–527, June
2005.
4. Bovino, J. A. and D. F. Marcus,
‘‘Intraocular Foreign-Body Hazard During
Vitrectomy,’’ American Journal of
Ophthalmology, vol. 93 (3): p. 366, March
1982.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 886
Medical devices, Ophthalmic goods
and services.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, FDA proposes to
amend part 886 as follows:
PART 886—OPHTHALMIC DEVICES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 886 continues to read as follows:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
2. In subpart E, add § 886.4155 to read
as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Scleral plug.
(a) Identification. A scleral plug is a
prescription device intended to provide
temporary closure of a scleral incision
during an ophthalmic surgical
procedure. These plugs prevent
intraocular fluid and pressure loss when
instruments are withdrawn from the
eye. Scleral plugs include a head
portion remaining above the sclera,
which can be gripped for insertion and
removal, and a shaft that fits inside the
scleral incision. Scleral plugs are
removed before completing the surgery.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special controls for the
scleral plug are:
(1) The device is exempt from the
premarket notification procedures in
subpart E of part 807 of this chapter
subject to the limitations in § 886.9 if
the material is a surgical grade stainless
steel with or without a gold, silver, or
titanium coating. The special controls
for the surgical grade stainless steel
scleral plug (with or without a gold,
silver, or titanium coating) are:
(i) The device must be demonstrated
to be sterile during the labeled shelf life;
(ii) The device must be demonstrated
to be biocompatible; and
(iii) Labeling must include all
information required for the safe and
effective use of the device, including
specific instructions regarding the
proper sizing, placement, and removal
of the device.
(2) The device is not exempt from
premarket notification procedures if it is
composed of a material other than
surgical grade stainless steel (with or
without a gold, silver, or titanium
coating). The special controls for scleral
plugs made of other materials are:
(i) The device must be demonstrated
to be sterile during the labeled shelf life;
(ii) The device must be demonstrated
to be biocompatible;
(iii) Characterization of the device
materials must be performed;
(iv) Performance data must
demonstrate acceptable mechanical
properties under simulated clinical use
conditions including insertion and
removal of the device;
(v) Performance data must
demonstrate adequately low levels of
the extractables or residues from
manufacturing (or processing) of the
device; and
(vi) Labeling must include all
information required for the safe and
effective use of the device, including
specific instructions regarding the
proper sizing, placement, and removal
of the device.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: January 17, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–01447 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
Proposed Priorities and Definitions—
NIDRR DRRP—Community Living and
Participation, Health and Function, and
Employment of Individuals With
Disabilities
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities and
definitions.
AGENCY:
CFDA Numbers: 84.133A–3, 84.133A–4, and
84.133A–5.
The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes funding priorities and
definitions for the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program administered by the
National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).
Specifically, this document proposes
priorities for a Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP)
on Community Living and Participation
of Individuals with Disabilities
(Proposed Priority 1), a DRRP on Health
and Function of Individuals with
Disabilities (Proposed Priority 2), and a
DRRP on Employment of Individuals
with Disabilities (Proposed Priority 3). If
an applicant proposes to conduct
research under these priorities, the
research must be focused on one of the
four stages of research. This document
proposes definitions for the four stages
of research: exploration and discovery,
intervention development, intervention
efficacy, and scale-up evaluation. The
Assistant Secretary may use one or more
of these priorities and definitions for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013
and later years. We take this action to
focus research attention on areas of
national need. We intend these
priorities and definitions to contribute
to improved employment and
independent living outcomes for
individuals with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before February 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this document to Marlene Spencer, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC
20202–2700.
If you prefer to send your comments
by email, use the following address:
marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must
include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priorities
for Combined RRTC Notice’’ 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.
This
notice of proposed priorities and
definitions is in concert with NIDRR’s
currently approved Long-Range Plan
(Plan). The currently approved 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: https://
www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/
other/2006-1/021506d.pdf.
Through the implementation of the
currently approved 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 document proposes three
priorities and four definitions that
NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP
competition in FY 2013 and possibly
later years. However, nothing precludes
NIDRR from publishing additional
priorities and definitions, if needed.
Furthermore, NIDRR is under no
obligation to make an award using any
of these priorities. 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
document. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities,
we urge you to identify clearly the
specific priority or definition that each
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed priorities and
definitions. 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 document in Room 5133, 550
12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday
through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this document. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects and Centers Program
is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and
related activities, including
international activities, to develop
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation
technology, that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society,
employment, independent living, family
support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with
the most severe disabilities, and to
improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation
Act).
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects
The purpose of NIDRR’s DRRPs,
which are funded through the Disability
and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Program, is to improve the
effectiveness of services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5331
An applicant under this program must
demonstrate in its application how it
will address, in whole or in part, the
needs of individuals with disabilities
from minority backgrounds (34 CFR
350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant
may take to meet this requirement are
found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional
information on the DRRP program can
be found at: www.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.
Proposed Priorities
This document contains three
proposed priorities. Each priority
reflects a major area or domain of
NIDRR’s research agenda. These
domains include community living and
participation, health and function, and
employment of individuals with
disabilities.
If the applicant proposes to conduct
research under these priorities, the
research must be focused on a specific
stage of research. If the DRRP is to
conduct research that can be categorized
under more than one stage, or research
that progresses from one stage to
another, those stages must be clearly
specified. For purposes of these
priorities, the stages of research (i.e.,
exploration and discovery, intervention
development, intervention efficacy, and
scale-up evaluation) are defined in the
DEFINITIONS section of this document.
Proposed Priority 1—Disability
Rehabilitation Research Project on
Community Living and Participation of
Individuals With Disabilities
Background
The United States Supreme Court’s
Olmstead decision, 527 U.S. 581 (1999),
requires States to provide services ‘‘in
the most integrated setting appropriate
to the needs of qualified individuals
with disabilities,’’ except in the rare
instances where the individual objects
or competent professionals consider it
inappropriate. Id. at 607. Federal efforts
to support the implementation of this
decision have included, among others,
the New Freedom Initiative, the Year of
Community Living, Community First
Choice, and the Money Follows the
Person demonstration program. Despite
these national efforts, individuals with
disabilities of all ages continue to
experience significant barriers to living
in the community and participating in
the typical educational, employment,
recreational, and civic and social
activities (Reinhart, et al., 2011;
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
5332
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Houtenville et al., 2011; Brault, 2008;
National Council on Disability (NCD),
2004; Rimmer et al., 2004; Gibson,
2003). Barriers to community living and
participation include, but are not
limited to, insufficient affordable home
and community-based long-term
services and supports (LTSS), such as
personal assistance, assistance for
family caregivers, assistive technologies
and devices, and home modifications;
shortages of affordable and accessible
housing; inadequate transportation
services; limited personal knowledge of
community resources; and poor health
status (Cooper, O’Hara & Zovistowski,
2011; Reinhart et al., 2011; NCD, 2004;
Rimmer, et al., 2004; Gibson, 2003).
U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that
an estimated 8 million adults in the
non-institutionalized population need
personal assistance with activities of
daily living (e.g., bathing, dressing, and
toileting) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).
By 2030, this number is estimated to
increase to between 8.8 million and 12.3
million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In
addition, while studies show that most
adults requiring assistance with daily
activities prefer to live with support in
their own homes (Salomon, 2010;
Gibson, 2003), there is a growing
disparity between the need for and
supply of paid and informal direct care
workers and family caregivers
(Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute
(PHI), 2008; Hewitt et al., 2008; U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services, 2003). In a 2007 national
survey, 86 percent of States considered
the shortage of direct care workers to be
a serious issue affecting their ability to
meet the growing demand for long-term
services and supports among adults
with disabilities (PHI, 2009).
Individuals with disabilities,
especially those with more significant
disabilities, report feeling socially
isolated and lonely in their
communities (Price, Stephenson, Krantz
& Ward, 2011). They are less satisfied
with their community participation than
their counterparts without disabilities
(National Organization on Disability,
2000; Sheppard-Jones, Prout & Kleinert,
2005), and participate in fewer
community activities than their
counterparts without disabilities. For
example, despite the evidence of
benefits of regular physical activity for
health and functioning, individuals
with disabilities are far less likely to
engage in physically active lifestyles
than are individuals without disabilities
(Rimmer, et al., 2004; Spivock, et al.,
2008). Similarly, individuals with
disabilities are much less likely than
those without disabilities to be actively
engaged in the workforce.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Approximately 18 percent of
individuals with disabilities who are
age 16 or older are employed, compared
to 64 percent of those without
disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor,
2012). To address disparities in
community participation, and to
improve the opportunities and abilities
of individuals with disabilities to live as
integrated members of their
communities, NIDRR proposes to fund
one or more Disability Rehabilitation
Research Project(s) (DRRPs) on
Community Living and Participation for
Individuals with Disabilities.
NIDRR has funded a wide range of
disability research and development
projects related to the community living
and participation of individuals with
disabilities. In accordance with NIDRR’s
Plan, NIDRR seeks to build on these
investments by supporting innovative
and well-designed research and
development projects that fall under one
or more of NIDRR’s general ‘‘community
living and participation’’ priority areas,
as described in the following proposed
priority. NIDRR hopes to increase
competition and innovation by allowing
applicants to specify the research topics
under the broad priority areas within
the community living and participation
domain. If an applicant proposes to
conduct research activities, the
applicant must identify the relevant
priority area or areas, indicate the stage
or stages of the proposed research (i.e.,
exploration and discovery, intervention
development, intervention efficacy, and
scale-up evaluation), justify the need
and rationale for research at the
proposed stage or stages, and describe
fully an appropriate methodology or
methodologies for the proposed
research.
References
Brault, M.W. (2012) Americans with
Disabilities: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census
Bureau. Economics and Statistics
Administration, July 2012.
Brault, M.W. (2008) Americans with
Disabilities. Current Population Reports.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Cooper, E., O’Hara, A., Zovistoski, A. (2011).
Priced Out: The Housing Crisis for
People with Disabilities. Technical
Assistance Collaborative, Inc.
Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities, Housing Task Force.
Available from: www.tacinc.org/
downloads/Priced%20Out%202010/
PricedOut2010.pdf.
Gibson M.J. (2003) Beyond 50.03: A Report
to the Nation on Independent Living and
Disability. Washington, DC: AARP
Public Policy Institute (PPI). Available
from: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/
beyond_50_il_1.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hewitt, A, Larson, S., Edelstein, S., Seavey,
D., Hoge, M., Morris, J. (2008). A
Synthesis of Direct Service Workforce
Demographics and Challenges Across
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities,
Aging, Physical Disabilities, and
Behavioral Health. National Direct
Service Workforce Resource Center.
Available from: www.dswresourcecenter.
org.
Houtenville, A., Ruiz, T., Gould, P., Guntz,
N., Gianino, M., Paradis, J., Kurtz, M.,
Abraham, D., Brucker, D. (2011) 2011
Annual Disability Statistics
Compendium. Durham NH: University of
New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.
National Council on Disability (NCD). (2004)
Livable Communities for Adults with
Disabilities. National Council on
Disability: Washington, DC. Published
December 2, 2004. Available from:
www.ncd.gov.
National Organization on Disability (2000).
N.O.D./Harris Community Participation
Study. Available from: https://nod.org/
research_publications/nod_harris_
survey/2000_survey_of_community_
participation/.
PHI (formerly the Paraprofessional
Healthcare Institute) (2008).
Occupational Projections for Direct-Care
Workers 2006–2016, Facts 1. Bronx, NY:
PHI. Available from: www.directcare
clearinghouse.org/download/BLSfact
Sheet4–10–08.pdf.
PHI (formerly the Paraprofessional
Healthcare Institute) (2009). The 2007
National Survey of State Initiatives on
the Direct-Care Workforce: Key Findings.
Prepared by PHI and the Direct Care
Workers Association of North Carolina
(DCWA–NC). Available from: www.direct
careclearinghouse.org/download/PHIStateSweepReport%20final%2012%
209%2009.pdf.
Price, P., Stephenson, S., Krantz, L., Ward, K.
(2011) Beyond my Front Door: The
Occupational and Social Participation of
Adults with Spinal Cord Injury. OTJR:
Occupation, Participation, and Health.
31(2): 81–88.
Reinhart, SC, Kassner, E, Houser, A. and
Mollica, R. (September 2011) Raising
Expectations: A State Scorecard on LongTerm Services and Supports for Older
Adults, People with Physical
Disabilities, and Family Caregivers. The
AARP Foundation: Washington, DC.
Available from: https://assets.aarp.org/
rgcenter/ppi/ltc/ltss_scorecard.pdf.
Rimmer J, Riley B, Wang E, Rauworth A.,
Jurkowski J. (2004) Physical Activity
Participation Among Persons with
Disabilities: Barriers and Facilitators.
American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 26(5): 419–425.
Salomon, E. (2010) AARP Public Policy
Institute: Housing Policy Solutions to
Support Aging in Place. Fact Sheet 172.
ARRP Center for Housing Policy:
Washington, DC. Available from: https://
assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-com/
fs172-aging-in-place.pdf.
Sheppard-Jones, K, Prout, T, Kleinert, H.
Quality of Life Dimensions for Adults
with Developmental Disabilities: A
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Comparative Study. Mental Retardation.
43(4): 281–291.
Spivock M., Gauvin L., Riva M, Brodeur JM.
(2008). Promoting Active Living Among
People with Physical Disabilities:
Evidence for Neighborhood-Level Buoys.
American Journal of Preventive
Medicine; 34(4): 291–298.
U.S. Census Bureau (2009) American
Community Survey 2005–2009. Based on
tabulations prepared by the Center for
Personal Assistance Services of public
use data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
American Community Survey (ACS) for
2009. Available from:
www.pascenter.org/state_based_stats/
disability_stats/
adl_projections.php?state=us.
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2003), Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
The Future Supply of Long-Term Care
Workers in Relation to the Aging Baby
Boom Generation: Report To Congress.
May 14, 2003. Available from: https://
aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/ltcwork.pdf.
U.S. Department of Labor (2012a). Economic
News Release: Table A–6. Employment
Status of the Civilian Population by Sex,
Age, and Disability Status, not
Seasonally Adjusted. Available from:
www.bls.gov/news.release/
empsit.t06.htm.
Proposed Priority 1
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
proposes a priority for a Disability
Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP)
on Community Living and Participation
of Individuals with Disabilities. The
DRRPs must contribute to the outcome
of maximizing the community living
and participation outcomes of
individuals with disabilities.
(1) To contribute to this outcome, the
DRRP must—
(a) Conduct either research activities
or development activities, in one or
more of the following priority areas:
(i) Technology to improve community
living and participation outcomes for
individuals with disabilities, generally
or within specific disability or
demographic groups.
(ii) Individual and environmental
factors associated with improved
community living and participation
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities generally or within specific
disability or demographic groups.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to
improved community living and
participation outcomes for individuals
with disabilities generally or within
specific disability or demographic
groups. Interventions include any
strategy, practice, program, policy, or
tool that, when implemented as
intended, contributes to improvements
in outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
(iv) Effects of government policies and
programs on community living and
participation outcomes for individuals
with disabilities generally or in specific
disability or demographic groups.
(v) Research, knowledge translation,
and capacity building for improved
community living and participation
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities generally or within specific
disability or demographic groups.
(vi) Practices and policies that
contribute to improved community
living and participation outcomes for
transition-aged youth with disabilities;
(b) If conducting research under
paragraph (1)(a) of this priority, focus its
research on a specific stage of research.
If the DRRP is to conduct research that
can be categorized under more than one
stage, including research that progresses
from one stage to another, those stages
must be clearly specified. These stages,
exploration and discovery, intervention
development, intervention efficacy, and
scale-up evaluation, are defined in this
document;
(c) Conduct knowledge translation
activities (i.e., training, technical
assistance, utilization, dissemination) in
order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g.,
individuals with disabilities, employers,
policymakers, practitioners) use of the
interventions, programs, technologies,
or products that resulted from the
research or development activities
conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of this
priority; and
(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in
the activities conducted under
paragraph (1)(a) of this priority in order
to maximize the relevance and usability
of the research or development products
to be developed under this priority.
Proposed Priority 2—Disability
Rehabilitation Research Project on
Health and Function of Individuals
With Disabilities
Background
In the United States, approximately
56.7 million individuals have a
disability, including 38.3 million who
have a severe disability (Brault, 2012).
Research has contributed to a wide
variety of policies, programs, services,
interventions, and products to enhance
the health and function of individuals
with disabilities. Despite this work, a
large number of individuals with
disabilities with significant health
conditions and functional limitations
lack adequate access to health care,
personal assistance services, and
rehabilitation services (National Council
on Disability, 2009). Maximizing the
health and function of individuals with
disabilities is critical to their general
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5333
well-being and their fulfillment of
personal aspirations in areas such as
employment and community
participation (Henry et al., 2007;
Waghorn et al., 2008).
Adults with disabilities are
substantially more likely than adults
without disabilities to be in fair or poor
health (as opposed to excellent, very
good, or good health), and to experience
a wide variety of diseases and chronic
conditions (Bureau for Health
Information, Statistics, Research, and
Evaluation, 2011). Health risks often
vary by condition. For example,
individuals with significant vision loss
or with an intellectual disability have a
greater prevalence of obesity,
hypertension, and heart disease than
individuals without disabilities
(Capella-McDonnall, 2007; Stancliffe et
al., 2011). Such risks often have major
adverse health outcomes, including
reduced longevity. For example, 60
percent of individuals with serious
mental illness die 25 or more years
earlier than the general population due
to preventable or treatable chronic
diseases (Colton, Manderschied, 2006).
Despite their substantial health needs
and elevated risk of adverse health
outcomes, individuals with disabilities
are at a substantial disadvantage in
obtaining access to needed health care
services compared to those without
disabilities (National Council on
Disability, 2009; Yee, 2011).
In addition to health impairments,
individuals with disabilities experience
a wide range of functional limitations
that jeopardize their access to
employment and other forms of
community participation. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau 5 million adults
need assistance from another person to
perform one or more activities of daily
living, such as getting around inside the
home, getting into or out of bed,
bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting.
Approximately 15 million individuals
have difficulty with one or more
instrumental activities of daily living
such as going outside the home,
managing money, preparing meals,
doing housework, taking prescription
medication, and using the phone
(Brault, 2012). As the number of
individuals with disabilities in the
United States continues to grow
(Institute on Medicine, 2007), it will be
necessary to improve the Nation’s
capacity to meet their needs and access
their talents. This will require the
development and refinement of policies,
programs, practices, and technologies
that reduce functional limitations and
improve health outcomes for these
individuals.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
5334
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
NIDRR has funded a wide range of
disability research and development
projects related to the health and
functional outcomes of individuals with
disabilities. In accordance with NIDRR’s
Plan, NIDRR seeks to build on these
investments by supporting innovative
and well-designed research and
development projects that fall under one
or more of NIDRR’s general ‘‘health and
function’’ priority areas, as described in
the following proposed priority. NIDRR
hopes to increase competition and
innovation by allowing applicants to
specify the research topics under the
broad priority areas within the health
and function domain. If an applicant
proposes to conduct research activities,
the applicant must identify the relevant
priority area or areas, indicate the stage
or stages of the proposed research in its
application (i.e., exploration and
discovery, intervention development,
intervention efficacy, and scale-up
evaluation), justify the need and
rationale for research at the proposed
stage or stages, and describe fully an
appropriate methodology or
methodologies for the proposed
research.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
References
Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with
Disabilities: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau,
U.S. Department of Commerce. (available
at: www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70131.pdf.
Bureau for Health Information, Statistics,
Research, and Evaluation (2011). A
Profile of Health Among Massachusetts
Adults, 2010: Results from the
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System. Massachusetts Department of
Public Health. (available at:
www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/
disabilityandhealth/data.html).
Capella-McDonnall, M. (2007). The Need for
Health Promotion for Adults Who Are
Visually Impaired, Journal of Visual
Impairment and Blindness, 101(3): 133–
145. (available at: https://lvib.org/2010/
09/02/september-awareness/).
Colton CW, Manderscheid RW (2006).
Congruencies In Increased Mortality
Rates, Years of Potential Life Lost, and
Causes of Death Among Public Mental
Health Clients in Eight States. Preventing
Chronic Disease, 3(2): 1–10. (available at:
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/
05_0180.htm).
Henry, A., Banks, S., Clark, R., &
Himmelstein, J. (2007). Mobility
Limitations Negatively Impact Work
Outcomes Among Medicaid Enrollees
with Disabilities. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(3), 355–
369.
Institute on Medicine (2007). The Future of
Disability in America. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Council on Disability (2009). The
Current State of Health Care for People
with Disabilities. National Council on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Disability. Washington, DC. (available at:
www.ncd.gov/publications/2009/
Sept302009).
National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (2006). Notice of
Final Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years
2005–2009. Federal Register. Vol 71, No
31. P 8166–8200.
Stancliffe, R., Lakin, K.C., Larson, S., Taub,
S., Bershadsky, J., & Fortune, J. (2011).
Overweight and obesity among adults
with intellectual disabilities who use ID/
DD services in the U.S. American Journal
on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 116(6), 401–418.
Waghorn, G., Loyd, C., Abraham, B.,
Silvester, D., & Chant, D. (2008).
Comorbid physical health conditions
hinder employment among people with
psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 31(3), 243–247.
Yee, Sylvia (2011). Health and Health Care
Disparities Among People with
Disabilities. Disability Rights Education
& Defense Fund. Berkeley, CA. (available
at: www.dredf.org/healthcare/Healthand-Health-Care-Disparities-AmongPeople-with-Disabilities.pdf).
Proposed Priority 2
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
proposes a priority for a Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP)
on Health and Function of Individuals
with Disabilities. The DRRPs must
contribute to the outcome of
maximizing health and function
outcomes of individuals with
disabilities.
(1) To contribute to this outcome, the
DRRP must—
(a) Conduct either research activities
or development activities in one or more
of the following priority areas:
(i) Technology to improve health and
function outcomes for individuals with
disabilities, generally or within specific
disability or demographic groups.
(ii) Individual and environmental
factors associated with improved access
to rehabilitation and healthcare and
improved health and function outcomes
for individuals with disabilities
generally or within specific disability or
demographic groups.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to
improved health and function outcomes
for individuals with disabilities
generally or within specific disability or
demographic groups. Interventions
include any strategy, practice, program,
policy, or tool that, when implemented
as intended, contributes to
improvements in outcomes for
individuals with disabilities.
(iv) Effects of government policies and
programs on health care access and on
health and function outcomes for
individuals with disabilities generally
or within specific disability or
demographic groups.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(v) Research, knowledge translation,
and capacity building for improved
health and function outcomes for
individuals with disabilities generally
or within specific disability groups.
(vi) Practices and policies that
contribute to improved health and
function outcomes for transition-aged
youth with disabilities;
(b) If conducting research under
paragraph (1)(a) of this priority, focus its
research on a specific stage of research.
If the DRRP is to conduct research that
can be categorized under more than one
stage, including research that progresses
from one stage to another, those stages
must be clearly specified. These stages,
exploration and discovery, intervention
development, intervention efficacy, and
scale-up evaluation, are defined in this
document;
(c) Conduct knowledge translation
activities (i.e., training, technical
assistance, utilization, dissemination) in
order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g.,
individuals with disabilities, employers,
policymakers, practitioners) use of the
interventions, programs, technologies,
or products that resulted from the
research or development activities
conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of this
priority; and
(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in
the activities conducted under
paragraph (1)(a) of this priority in order
to maximize the relevance and usability
of the research or development products
to be developed under this priority.
Proposed Priority 3—Disability
Rehabilitation Research Project on
Employment of Individuals With
Disabilities
Background
Despite the enactment of legislation
and the implementation of a variety of
policy and program efforts at the
Federal and State levels to improve
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities, the employment rate
for individuals with disabilities remains
substantially lower than the rate for
those without disabilities.
Approximately 18 percent of
individuals with a disability aged 16
years and older are employed, compared
to 64 percent of individuals of the same
age without a disability. The
unemployment rate for these two
populations is 13.5 percent, and 7.3
percent, respectively (U.S. Department
of Labor, 2012). The economic
downturn in recent years has
disproportionately impacted
employment outcomes of individuals
with disabilities; among individuals 25
to 54 years of age during the recent
recession, the unemployment rate of
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
individuals with a disability ranged
from 2.0 to 2.3 times that of individuals
without a disability (Fogg, Harrington,
McMahon, 2010). Not only are
individuals with a disability much less
likely to be employed, the median
earnings for individuals with a
disability who are employed are $19,735
per year as compared to $30,285 per
year earned by persons without a
disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
NIDRR has funded a wide range of
disability research and development
projects related to the employment
outcomes of individuals with
disabilities. In accordance with NIDRR’s
Plan, NIDRR seeks to build on these
investments by supporting innovative
and well-designed research and
development projects that fall under one
or more of NIDRR’s general employment
priority areas as described in the
following proposed priority. NIDRR
hopes to increase competition and
innovation by allowing applicants to
specify the research topics under the
broad priority areas within the
employment domain. If an applicant
proposes to conduct research activities,
the applicant must identify the relevant
priority area or areas, indicate the stage
or stages of the proposed research in its
application (i.e., exploration and
discovery, intervention development,
intervention efficacy, and scale-up
evaluation), justify the need and
rationale for research at the proposed
stage or stages and describe fully an
appropriate methodology or
methodologies for the proposed
research.
References
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Fogg, N.P., Harrington, P.E., & McMahon,
B.T. (2011). The Underemployment of
Persons with Disabilities During the
Great Recession. The Rehabilitation
Professional, 19(1), 3–10.
U.S. Census Bureau (2011) American
Community Survey: Table B18140.
Available from: https://
factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/
pages/index.xhtml.
U.S. Department of Labor (2012). Economic
News Release: Table A–6. Employment
Status of the Civilian Population by Sex,
Age, and Disability Status, Not
Seasonally Adjusted. Available from:
www.bls.gov/news.release/
empsit.t06.htm.
Proposed Priority 3
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
announces a priority for a Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP)
on Employment of Individuals with
Disabilities. The DRRPs must contribute
to the outcome of maximizing
employment outcomes of individuals
with disabilities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
(1) To contribute to this outcome, the
DRRP must—
(a) Conduct either research activities
or development activities, in one or
more of the following priority areas:
(i) Technology to improve
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities, generally or within
specific disability or demographic
groups.
(ii) Individual and environmental
factors associated with improved
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities generally or within
specific disability or demographic
groups.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to
improved employment outcomes for
individuals with disabilities generally
or within specific disability or
demographic groups. Interventions
include any strategy, practice, program,
policy, or tool that, when implemented
as intended, contributes to
improvements in outcomes for
individuals with disabilities.
(iv) Effects of government policies and
programs on employment outcomes for
individuals with disabilities generally
or in specific disability or demographic
groups.
(v) Research, knowledge translation,
and capacity building for improved
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities generally or within
specific disability groups.
(vi) Practices and policies that
contribute to improved employment
outcomes for transition-aged youth with
disabilities.
(vii) Vocational rehabilitation (VR)
practices that contribute to improved
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities;
(b) If conducting research under
paragraph(1)(a) of this priority, focus its
research on a specific stage of research.
If the DRRP is to conduct research that
can be categorized under more than one
stage, including research that progresses
from one stage to another, those stages
must be clearly specified. These stages,
exploration and discovery, intervention
development, intervention efficacy, and
scale-up evaluation, are defined in this
document;
(c) Conduct knowledge translation
activities (i.e., training, technical
assistance, utilization, dissemination) in
order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g.,
individuals with disabilities, employers,
policymakers, practitioners) use of the
interventions, programs, technologies,
or products that resulted from the
research activities, development
activities, or both, conducted under
paragraph (1)(a) of this priority; and
(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in
the activities conducted under
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5335
paragraphs (1)(a) of this priority in order
to maximize the relevance and usability
of the research or development products
to be developed under this priority.
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)).
Proposed Definitions
Background
For the purpose of NIDRR’s DRRPs
and other programs that NIDRR uses to
sponsor research activities, definitions
of the four stages of research (i.e.,
exploration and discovery, intervention
development, intervention efficacy, and
scale-up evaluation) are proposed in
this document.
Proposed Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
proposes the following definitions for
this program. We may apply one or
more of these definition in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Exploration and discovery means the
stage of research that generates
hypotheses or theories by conducting
new and refined analyses of data,
producing observational findings, and
creating other sources of research-based
information. This research stage may
include identifying or describing the
barriers to and facilitators of improved
outcomes of individuals with
disabilities, as well as identifying or
describing existing practices, programs,
or policies that are associated with
important aspects of the lives of
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
5336
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
individuals with disabilities. Results
achieved under this stage of research
may inform the development of
interventions or lead to evaluations of
interventions or policies. The results of
the exploration and discovery stage of
research may also be used to inform
decisions or priorities.
Intervention development means the
stage of research that focuses on
generating and testing interventions that
have the potential to improve outcomes
for individuals with disabilities.
Intervention development involves
determining the active components of
possible interventions, developing
measures that would be required to
illustrate outcomes, specifying target
populations, conducting field tests, and
assessing the feasibility of conducting a
well-designed interventions study.
Results from this stage of research may
be used to inform the design of a study
to test the efficacy of an intervention.
Intervention efficacy means the stage
of research during which a project
evaluates and tests whether an
intervention is feasible, practical, and
has the potential to yield positive
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities. Efficacy research may assess
the strength of the relationships
between an intervention and outcomes,
and may identify factors or individual
characteristics that affect the
relationship between the intervention
and outcomes. Efficacy research can
inform decisions about whether there is
sufficient evidence to support ‘‘scalingup’’ an intervention to other sites and
contexts. This stage of research can
include assessing the training needed
for wide-scale implementation of the
intervention, and approaches to
evaluation of the intervention in real
world applications.
Scale-up evaluation means the stage
of research during which a project
analyzes whether an intervention is
effective in producing improved
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities when implemented in a realworld setting. During this stage of
research, a project tests the outcomes of
an evidence-based intervention in
different settings. It examines the
challenges to successful replication of
the intervention, and the circumstances
and activities that contribute to
successful adoption of the intervention
in real-world settings. This stage of
research may also include well-designed
studies of an intervention that has been
widely adopted in practice, but that
lacks a sufficient evidence-base to
demonstrate its effectiveness.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Final Priorities and Definitions
We will announce the final priorities
and definitions in a notice in the
Federal Register. We will determine the
final priorities and definitions after
considering responses to this document
and other information available to the
Department. This document does not
preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities and
definitions, 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 proposed
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);
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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 these proposed
priorities and definitions only on a
reasoned determination that their
benefits would justify their 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 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 in that similar
projects have been completed
successfully. These proposed priorities
and definitions would generate new
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules
knowledge through research and
development. Another benefit of these
proposed priorities and definitions is
that the establishment of new DRRPs
would improve the lives of individuals
with disabilities. The new DRRPs would
generate, disseminate, and promote the
use of new information that would
improve outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: January 18, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–01418 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0033]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria—
Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jan 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.368
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria under
the Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Grant program, also called the Enhanced
Assessment Grants (EAG) program. The
Assistant Secretary may use one or more
of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for
competitions using funds from fiscal
year (FY) 2012 and later years. The
Department takes these actions in order
to establish priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that
are likely to recognize high-quality
proposals and to help focus Federal
financial assistance on the pressing
needs of, and promising developments
in, developing or enhancing
assessments under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA).
We must receive your comments
on or before February 25, 2013, and we
encourage you to submit comments well
in advance of this date.
DATES:
Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by email. To ensure
we do not receive duplicate comments,
please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID and the term ‘‘Enhanced
Assessment Grants—Comments’’ at the
top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘How To Use This Site.’’
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or
Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, address them to the
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (Attention: Enhanced
Assessment Grants—Comments), U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., room 3w110, Washington,
DC 20202–6132.
ADDRESSES:
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is
to make all comments received from
members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information
that they wish to make publicly available.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5337
Erin
Shackel. Telephone: (202) 453–6423 or
by email: erin.shackel@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
Please note that we have included
existing requirements and selection
criteria in this document to provide
context and to make it easier to
comment on the requirements and
selection criteria we are proposing. We
seek comment only on the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways the
Department 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 3W110, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request the
Department will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary to aid 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 EAG program is to enhance the
quality of assessment instruments and
systems used by States for measuring
the academic achievement of
elementary and secondary school
students.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5330-5337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01418]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
Proposed Priorities and Definitions--NIDRR DRRP--Community Living
and Participation, Health and Function, and Employment of Individuals
With Disabilities
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CFDA Numbers: 84.133A-3, 84.133A-4, and 84.133A-5.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes funding priorities and definitions for
the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program
administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this document proposes priorities for a
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) on Community
Living and Participation of Individuals with Disabilities (Proposed
Priority 1), a DRRP on Health and Function of Individuals with
Disabilities (Proposed Priority 2), and a DRRP on Employment of
Individuals with Disabilities (Proposed Priority 3). If an applicant
proposes to conduct research under these priorities, the research must
be focused on one of the four stages of research. This document
proposes definitions for the four stages of research: exploration and
discovery, intervention development, intervention efficacy, and scale-
up evaluation. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these
priorities and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013
and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on
areas of national need. We intend these priorities and definitions to
contribute to improved employment and independent living outcomes for
individuals with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this document to Marlene Spencer,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133,
Potomac
[[Page 5331]]
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must include the phrase ``Proposed
Priorities for Combined RRTC Notice'' 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 priorities and
definitions is in concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range
Plan (Plan). The currently approved 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: https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2006-1/021506d.pdf.
Through the implementation of the currently approved 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 document proposes three priorities and four definitions that
NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP competition in FY 2013 and possibly
later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing
additional priorities and definitions, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is
under no obligation to make an award using any of these priorities. 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 document. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific priority or definition that each comment
addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
priorities and definitions. 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 document in Room 5133, 550 12th Street SW., PCP,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this document. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related
activities, including international activities, to develop methods,
procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living,
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe
disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is
to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act 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.
An applicant under this program must demonstrate in its application
how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with
disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 350.40(a)). The
approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement are found in
34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on the DRRP program can be
found at: www.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.
Proposed Priorities
This document contains three proposed priorities. Each priority
reflects a major area or domain of NIDRR's research agenda. These
domains include community living and participation, health and
function, and employment of individuals with disabilities.
If the applicant proposes to conduct research under these
priorities, the research must be focused on a specific stage of
research. If the DRRP is to conduct research that can be categorized
under more than one stage, or research that progresses from one stage
to another, those stages must be clearly specified. For purposes of
these priorities, the stages of research (i.e., exploration and
discovery, intervention development, intervention efficacy, and scale-
up evaluation) are defined in the DEFINITIONS section of this document.
Proposed Priority 1--Disability Rehabilitation Research Project on
Community Living and Participation of Individuals With Disabilities
Background
The United States Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, 527 U.S. 581
(1999), requires States to provide services ``in the most integrated
setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with
disabilities,'' except in the rare instances where the individual
objects or competent professionals consider it inappropriate. Id. at
607. Federal efforts to support the implementation of this decision
have included, among others, the New Freedom Initiative, the Year of
Community Living, Community First Choice, and the Money Follows the
Person demonstration program. Despite these national efforts,
individuals with disabilities of all ages continue to experience
significant barriers to living in the community and participating in
the typical educational, employment, recreational, and civic and social
activities (Reinhart, et al., 2011;
[[Page 5332]]
Houtenville et al., 2011; Brault, 2008; National Council on Disability
(NCD), 2004; Rimmer et al., 2004; Gibson, 2003). Barriers to community
living and participation include, but are not limited to, insufficient
affordable home and community-based long-term services and supports
(LTSS), such as personal assistance, assistance for family caregivers,
assistive technologies and devices, and home modifications; shortages
of affordable and accessible housing; inadequate transportation
services; limited personal knowledge of community resources; and poor
health status (Cooper, O'Hara & Zovistowski, 2011; Reinhart et al.,
2011; NCD, 2004; Rimmer, et al., 2004; Gibson, 2003).
U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that an estimated 8 million adults
in the non-institutionalized population need personal assistance with
activities of daily living (e.g., bathing, dressing, and toileting)
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). By 2030, this number is estimated to
increase to between 8.8 million and 12.3 million (U.S. Census Bureau,
2009). In addition, while studies show that most adults requiring
assistance with daily activities prefer to live with support in their
own homes (Salomon, 2010; Gibson, 2003), there is a growing disparity
between the need for and supply of paid and informal direct care
workers and family caregivers (Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute
(PHI), 2008; Hewitt et al., 2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2003). In a 2007 national survey, 86 percent of States
considered the shortage of direct care workers to be a serious issue
affecting their ability to meet the growing demand for long-term
services and supports among adults with disabilities (PHI, 2009).
Individuals with disabilities, especially those with more
significant disabilities, report feeling socially isolated and lonely
in their communities (Price, Stephenson, Krantz & Ward, 2011). They are
less satisfied with their community participation than their
counterparts without disabilities (National Organization on Disability,
2000; Sheppard-Jones, Prout & Kleinert, 2005), and participate in fewer
community activities than their counterparts without disabilities. For
example, despite the evidence of benefits of regular physical activity
for health and functioning, individuals with disabilities are far less
likely to engage in physically active lifestyles than are individuals
without disabilities (Rimmer, et al., 2004; Spivock, et al., 2008).
Similarly, individuals with disabilities are much less likely than
those without disabilities to be actively engaged in the workforce.
Approximately 18 percent of individuals with disabilities who are age
16 or older are employed, compared to 64 percent of those without
disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). To address disparities
in community participation, and to improve the opportunities and
abilities of individuals with disabilities to live as integrated
members of their communities, NIDRR proposes to fund one or more
Disability Rehabilitation Research Project(s) (DRRPs) on Community
Living and Participation for Individuals with Disabilities.
NIDRR has funded a wide range of disability research and
development projects related to the community living and participation
of individuals with disabilities. In accordance with NIDRR's Plan,
NIDRR seeks to build on these investments by supporting innovative and
well-designed research and development projects that fall under one or
more of NIDRR's general ``community living and participation'' priority
areas, as described in the following proposed priority. NIDRR hopes to
increase competition and innovation by allowing applicants to specify
the research topics under the broad priority areas within the community
living and participation domain. If an applicant proposes to conduct
research activities, the applicant must identify the relevant priority
area or areas, indicate the stage or stages of the proposed research
(i.e., exploration and discovery, intervention development,
intervention efficacy, and scale-up evaluation), justify the need and
rationale for research at the proposed stage or stages, and describe
fully an appropriate methodology or methodologies for the proposed
research.
References
Brault, M.W. (2012) Americans with Disabilities: 2010. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Economics and
Statistics Administration, July 2012.
Brault, M.W. (2008) Americans with Disabilities. Current Population
Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census
Bureau.
Cooper, E., O'Hara, A., Zovistoski, A. (2011). Priced Out: The
Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities. Technical Assistance
Collaborative, Inc. Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities,
Housing Task Force. Available from: www.tacinc.org/downloads/Priced%20Out%202010/PricedOut2010.pdf.
Gibson M.J. (2003) Beyond 50.03: A Report to the Nation on
Independent Living and Disability. Washington, DC: AARP Public
Policy Institute (PPI). Available from: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/beyond_50_il_1.pdf.
Hewitt, A, Larson, S., Edelstein, S., Seavey, D., Hoge, M., Morris,
J. (2008). A Synthesis of Direct Service Workforce Demographics and
Challenges Across Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities, Aging,
Physical Disabilities, and Behavioral Health. National Direct
Service Workforce Resource Center. Available from:
www.dswresourcecenter.org.
Houtenville, A., Ruiz, T., Gould, P., Guntz, N., Gianino, M.,
Paradis, J., Kurtz, M., Abraham, D., Brucker, D. (2011) 2011 Annual
Disability Statistics Compendium. Durham NH: University of New
Hampshire, Institute on Disability.
National Council on Disability (NCD). (2004) Livable Communities for
Adults with Disabilities. National Council on Disability:
Washington, DC. Published December 2, 2004. Available from:
www.ncd.gov.
National Organization on Disability (2000). N.O.D./Harris Community
Participation Study. Available from: https://nod.org/research_publications/nod_harris_survey/2000_survey_of_community_participation/.
PHI (formerly the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute) (2008).
Occupational Projections for Direct-Care Workers 2006-2016, Facts 1.
Bronx, NY: PHI. Available from: www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/BLSfactSheet4-10-08.pdf.
PHI (formerly the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute) (2009). The
2007 National Survey of State Initiatives on the Direct-Care
Workforce: Key Findings. Prepared by PHI and the Direct Care Workers
Association of North Carolina (DCWA-NC). Available from:
www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/PHI-StateSweepReport%20final%2012%209%2009.pdf.
Price, P., Stephenson, S., Krantz, L., Ward, K. (2011) Beyond my
Front Door: The Occupational and Social Participation of Adults with
Spinal Cord Injury. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health.
31(2): 81-88.
Reinhart, SC, Kassner, E, Houser, A. and Mollica, R. (September
2011) Raising Expectations: A State Scorecard on Long-Term Services
and Supports for Older Adults, People with Physical Disabilities,
and Family Caregivers. The AARP Foundation: Washington, DC.
Available from: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/ltc/ltss_scorecard.pdf.
Rimmer J, Riley B, Wang E, Rauworth A., Jurkowski J. (2004) Physical
Activity Participation Among Persons with Disabilities: Barriers and
Facilitators. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26(5): 419-
425.
Salomon, E. (2010) AARP Public Policy Institute: Housing Policy
Solutions to Support Aging in Place. Fact Sheet 172. ARRP Center for
Housing Policy: Washington, DC. Available from: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-com/fs172-aging-in-place.pdf.
Sheppard-Jones, K, Prout, T, Kleinert, H. Quality of Life Dimensions
for Adults with Developmental Disabilities: A
[[Page 5333]]
Comparative Study. Mental Retardation. 43(4): 281-291.
Spivock M., Gauvin L., Riva M, Brodeur JM. (2008). Promoting Active
Living Among People with Physical Disabilities: Evidence for
Neighborhood-Level Buoys. American Journal of Preventive Medicine;
34(4): 291-298.
U.S. Census Bureau (2009) American Community Survey 2005-2009. Based
on tabulations prepared by the Center for Personal Assistance
Services of public use data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American
Community Survey (ACS) for 2009. Available from: www.pascenter.org/state_based_stats/disability_stats/adl_projections.php?state=us.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The Future Supply
of Long-Term Care Workers in Relation to the Aging Baby Boom
Generation: Report To Congress. May 14, 2003. Available from: https://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/ltcwork.pdf.
U.S. Department of Labor (2012a). Economic News Release: Table A-6.
Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex, Age, and
Disability Status, not Seasonally Adjusted. Available from:
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm.
Proposed Priority 1
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research
Project (DRRP) on Community Living and Participation of Individuals
with Disabilities. The DRRPs must contribute to the outcome of
maximizing the community living and participation outcomes of
individuals with disabilities.
(1) To contribute to this outcome, the DRRP must--
(a) Conduct either research activities or development activities,
in one or more of the following priority areas:
(i) Technology to improve community living and participation
outcomes for individuals with disabilities, generally or within
specific disability or demographic groups.
(ii) Individual and environmental factors associated with improved
community living and participation outcomes for individuals with
disabilities generally or within specific disability or demographic
groups.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to improved community living
and participation outcomes for individuals with disabilities generally
or within specific disability or demographic groups. Interventions
include any strategy, practice, program, policy, or tool that, when
implemented as intended, contributes to improvements in outcomes for
individuals with disabilities.
(iv) Effects of government policies and programs on community
living and participation outcomes for individuals with disabilities
generally or in specific disability or demographic groups.
(v) Research, knowledge translation, and capacity building for
improved community living and participation outcomes for individuals
with disabilities generally or within specific disability or
demographic groups.
(vi) Practices and policies that contribute to improved community
living and participation outcomes for transition-aged youth with
disabilities;
(b) If conducting research under paragraph (1)(a) of this priority,
focus its research on a specific stage of research. If the DRRP is to
conduct research that can be categorized under more than one stage,
including research that progresses from one stage to another, those
stages must be clearly specified. These stages, exploration and
discovery, intervention development, intervention efficacy, and scale-
up evaluation, are defined in this document;
(c) Conduct knowledge translation activities (i.e., training,
technical assistance, utilization, dissemination) in order to
facilitate stakeholder (e.g., individuals with disabilities, employers,
policymakers, practitioners) use of the interventions, programs,
technologies, or products that resulted from the research or
development activities conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of this
priority; and
(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted
under paragraph (1)(a) of this priority in order to maximize the
relevance and usability of the research or development products to be
developed under this priority.
Proposed Priority 2--Disability Rehabilitation Research Project on
Health and Function of Individuals With Disabilities
Background
In the United States, approximately 56.7 million individuals have a
disability, including 38.3 million who have a severe disability
(Brault, 2012). Research has contributed to a wide variety of policies,
programs, services, interventions, and products to enhance the health
and function of individuals with disabilities. Despite this work, a
large number of individuals with disabilities with significant health
conditions and functional limitations lack adequate access to health
care, personal assistance services, and rehabilitation services
(National Council on Disability, 2009). Maximizing the health and
function of individuals with disabilities is critical to their general
well-being and their fulfillment of personal aspirations in areas such
as employment and community participation (Henry et al., 2007; Waghorn
et al., 2008).
Adults with disabilities are substantially more likely than adults
without disabilities to be in fair or poor health (as opposed to
excellent, very good, or good health), and to experience a wide variety
of diseases and chronic conditions (Bureau for Health Information,
Statistics, Research, and Evaluation, 2011). Health risks often vary by
condition. For example, individuals with significant vision loss or
with an intellectual disability have a greater prevalence of obesity,
hypertension, and heart disease than individuals without disabilities
(Capella-McDonnall, 2007; Stancliffe et al., 2011). Such risks often
have major adverse health outcomes, including reduced longevity. For
example, 60 percent of individuals with serious mental illness die 25
or more years earlier than the general population due to preventable or
treatable chronic diseases (Colton, Manderschied, 2006). Despite their
substantial health needs and elevated risk of adverse health outcomes,
individuals with disabilities are at a substantial disadvantage in
obtaining access to needed health care services compared to those
without disabilities (National Council on Disability, 2009; Yee, 2011).
In addition to health impairments, individuals with disabilities
experience a wide range of functional limitations that jeopardize their
access to employment and other forms of community participation.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau 5 million adults need assistance
from another person to perform one or more activities of daily living,
such as getting around inside the home, getting into or out of bed,
bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting. Approximately 15 million
individuals have difficulty with one or more instrumental activities of
daily living such as going outside the home, managing money, preparing
meals, doing housework, taking prescription medication, and using the
phone (Brault, 2012). As the number of individuals with disabilities in
the United States continues to grow (Institute on Medicine, 2007), it
will be necessary to improve the Nation's capacity to meet their needs
and access their talents. This will require the development and
refinement of policies, programs, practices, and technologies that
reduce functional limitations and improve health outcomes for these
individuals.
[[Page 5334]]
NIDRR has funded a wide range of disability research and
development projects related to the health and functional outcomes of
individuals with disabilities. In accordance with NIDRR's Plan, NIDRR
seeks to build on these investments by supporting innovative and well-
designed research and development projects that fall under one or more
of NIDRR's general ``health and function'' priority areas, as described
in the following proposed priority. NIDRR hopes to increase competition
and innovation by allowing applicants to specify the research topics
under the broad priority areas within the health and function domain.
If an applicant proposes to conduct research activities, the applicant
must identify the relevant priority area or areas, indicate the stage
or stages of the proposed research in its application (i.e.,
exploration and discovery, intervention development, intervention
efficacy, and scale-up evaluation), justify the need and rationale for
research at the proposed stage or stages, and describe fully an
appropriate methodology or methodologies for the proposed research.
References
Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with Disabilities: 2010. U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (available at: www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.
Bureau for Health Information, Statistics, Research, and Evaluation
(2011). A Profile of Health Among Massachusetts Adults, 2010:
Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health. (available at:
www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/data.html).
Capella-McDonnall, M. (2007). The Need for Health Promotion for
Adults Who Are Visually Impaired, Journal of Visual Impairment and
Blindness, 101(3): 133-145. (available at: https://lvib.org/2010/09/02/september-awareness/).
Colton CW, Manderscheid RW (2006). Congruencies In Increased
Mortality Rates, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Causes of Death
Among Public Mental Health Clients in Eight States. Preventing
Chronic Disease, 3(2): 1-10. (available at: www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/05_0180.htm).
Henry, A., Banks, S., Clark, R., & Himmelstein, J. (2007). Mobility
Limitations Negatively Impact Work Outcomes Among Medicaid Enrollees
with Disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(3),
355-369.
Institute on Medicine (2007). The Future of Disability in America.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Council on Disability (2009). The Current State of Health
Care for People with Disabilities. National Council on Disability.
Washington, DC. (available at: www.ncd.gov/publications/2009/Sept302009).
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (2006).
Notice of Final Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009. Federal
Register. Vol 71, No 31. P 8166-8200.
Stancliffe, R., Lakin, K.C., Larson, S., Taub, S., Bershadsky, J., &
Fortune, J. (2011). Overweight and obesity among adults with
intellectual disabilities who use ID/DD services in the U.S.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,
116(6), 401-418.
Waghorn, G., Loyd, C., Abraham, B., Silvester, D., & Chant, D.
(2008). Comorbid physical health conditions hinder employment among
people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal, 31(3), 243-247.
Yee, Sylvia (2011). Health and Health Care Disparities Among People
with Disabilities. Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund.
Berkeley, CA. (available at: www.dredf.org/healthcare/Health-and-Health-Care-Disparities-Among-People-with-Disabilities.pdf).
Proposed Priority 2
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Project (DRRP) on Health and Function of Individuals with
Disabilities. The DRRPs must contribute to the outcome of maximizing
health and function outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
(1) To contribute to this outcome, the DRRP must--
(a) Conduct either research activities or development activities in
one or more of the following priority areas:
(i) Technology to improve health and function outcomes for
individuals with disabilities, generally or within specific disability
or demographic groups.
(ii) Individual and environmental factors associated with improved
access to rehabilitation and healthcare and improved health and
function outcomes for individuals with disabilities generally or within
specific disability or demographic groups.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to improved health and function
outcomes for individuals with disabilities generally or within specific
disability or demographic groups. Interventions include any strategy,
practice, program, policy, or tool that, when implemented as intended,
contributes to improvements in outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
(iv) Effects of government policies and programs on health care
access and on health and function outcomes for individuals with
disabilities generally or within specific disability or demographic
groups.
(v) Research, knowledge translation, and capacity building for
improved health and function outcomes for individuals with disabilities
generally or within specific disability groups.
(vi) Practices and policies that contribute to improved health and
function outcomes for transition-aged youth with disabilities;
(b) If conducting research under paragraph (1)(a) of this priority,
focus its research on a specific stage of research. If the DRRP is to
conduct research that can be categorized under more than one stage,
including research that progresses from one stage to another, those
stages must be clearly specified. These stages, exploration and
discovery, intervention development, intervention efficacy, and scale-
up evaluation, are defined in this document;
(c) Conduct knowledge translation activities (i.e., training,
technical assistance, utilization, dissemination) in order to
facilitate stakeholder (e.g., individuals with disabilities, employers,
policymakers, practitioners) use of the interventions, programs,
technologies, or products that resulted from the research or
development activities conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of this
priority; and
(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted
under paragraph (1)(a) of this priority in order to maximize the
relevance and usability of the research or development products to be
developed under this priority.
Proposed Priority 3--Disability Rehabilitation Research Project on
Employment of Individuals With Disabilities
Background
Despite the enactment of legislation and the implementation of a
variety of policy and program efforts at the Federal and State levels
to improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, the
employment rate for individuals with disabilities remains substantially
lower than the rate for those without disabilities.
Approximately 18 percent of individuals with a disability aged 16
years and older are employed, compared to 64 percent of individuals of
the same age without a disability. The unemployment rate for these two
populations is 13.5 percent, and 7.3 percent, respectively (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2012). The economic downturn in recent years has
disproportionately impacted employment outcomes of individuals with
disabilities; among individuals 25 to 54 years of age during the recent
recession, the unemployment rate of
[[Page 5335]]
individuals with a disability ranged from 2.0 to 2.3 times that of
individuals without a disability (Fogg, Harrington, McMahon, 2010). Not
only are individuals with a disability much less likely to be employed,
the median earnings for individuals with a disability who are employed
are $19,735 per year as compared to $30,285 per year earned by persons
without a disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
NIDRR has funded a wide range of disability research and
development projects related to the employment outcomes of individuals
with disabilities. In accordance with NIDRR's Plan, NIDRR seeks to
build on these investments by supporting innovative and well-designed
research and development projects that fall under one or more of
NIDRR's general employment priority areas as described in the following
proposed priority. NIDRR hopes to increase competition and innovation
by allowing applicants to specify the research topics under the broad
priority areas within the employment domain. If an applicant proposes
to conduct research activities, the applicant must identify the
relevant priority area or areas, indicate the stage or stages of the
proposed research in its application (i.e., exploration and discovery,
intervention development, intervention efficacy, and scale-up
evaluation), justify the need and rationale for research at the
proposed stage or stages and describe fully an appropriate methodology
or methodologies for the proposed research.
References
Fogg, N.P., Harrington, P.E., & McMahon, B.T. (2011). The
Underemployment of Persons with Disabilities During the Great
Recession. The Rehabilitation Professional, 19(1), 3-10.
U.S. Census Bureau (2011) American Community Survey: Table B18140.
Available from: https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
U.S. Department of Labor (2012). Economic News Release: Table A-6.
Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex, Age, and
Disability Status, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Available from:
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm.
Proposed Priority 3
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Project (DRRP) on Employment of Individuals with Disabilities.
The DRRPs must contribute to the outcome of maximizing employment
outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
(1) To contribute to this outcome, the DRRP must--
(a) Conduct either research activities or development activities,
in one or more of the following priority areas:
(i) Technology to improve employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities, generally or within specific disability or demographic
groups.
(ii) Individual and environmental factors associated with improved
employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities generally or
within specific disability or demographic groups.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to improved employment outcomes
for individuals with disabilities generally or within specific
disability or demographic groups. Interventions include any strategy,
practice, program, policy, or tool that, when implemented as intended,
contributes to improvements in outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
(iv) Effects of government policies and programs on employment
outcomes for individuals with disabilities generally or in specific
disability or demographic groups.
(v) Research, knowledge translation, and capacity building for
improved employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
generally or within specific disability groups.
(vi) Practices and policies that contribute to improved employment
outcomes for transition-aged youth with disabilities.
(vii) Vocational rehabilitation (VR) practices that contribute to
improved employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities;
(b) If conducting research under paragraph(1)(a) of this priority,
focus its research on a specific stage of research. If the DRRP is to
conduct research that can be categorized under more than one stage,
including research that progresses from one stage to another, those
stages must be clearly specified. These stages, exploration and
discovery, intervention development, intervention efficacy, and scale-
up evaluation, are defined in this document;
(c) Conduct knowledge translation activities (i.e., training,
technical assistance, utilization, dissemination) in order to
facilitate stakeholder (e.g., individuals with disabilities, employers,
policymakers, practitioners) use of the interventions, programs,
technologies, or products that resulted from the research activities,
development activities, or both, conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of
this priority; and
(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted
under paragraphs (1)(a) of this priority in order to maximize the
relevance and usability of the research or development products to be
developed under this priority.
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)).
Proposed Definitions
Background
For the purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs and other programs that NIDRR uses
to sponsor research activities, definitions of the four stages of
research (i.e., exploration and discovery, intervention development,
intervention efficacy, and scale-up evaluation) are proposed in this
document.
Proposed Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes the following definitions for this program. We may
apply one or more of these definition in any year in which this program
is in effect.
Exploration and discovery means the stage of research that
generates hypotheses or theories by conducting new and refined analyses
of data, producing observational findings, and creating other sources
of research-based information. This research stage may include
identifying or describing the barriers to and facilitators of improved
outcomes of individuals with disabilities, as well as identifying or
describing existing practices, programs, or policies that are
associated with important aspects of the lives of
[[Page 5336]]
individuals with disabilities. Results achieved under this stage of
research may inform the development of interventions or lead to
evaluations of interventions or policies. The results of the
exploration and discovery stage of research may also be used to inform
decisions or priorities.
Intervention development means the stage of research that focuses
on generating and testing interventions that have the potential to
improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Intervention
development involves determining the active components of possible
interventions, developing measures that would be required to illustrate
outcomes, specifying target populations, conducting field tests, and
assessing the feasibility of conducting a well-designed interventions
study. Results from this stage of research may be used to inform the
design of a study to test the efficacy of an intervention.
Intervention efficacy means the stage of research during which a
project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is feasible,
practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes for
individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts.
This stage of research can include assessing the training needed for
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to
evaluation of the intervention in real world applications.
Scale-up evaluation means the stage of research during which a
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings.
It examines the challenges to successful replication of the
intervention, and the circumstances and activities that contribute to
successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings. This
stage of research may also include well-designed studies of an
intervention that has been widely adopted in practice, but that lacks a
sufficient evidence-base to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Final Priorities and Definitions
We will announce the final priorities and definitions in a notice
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities and
definitions after considering responses to this document and other
information available to the Department. This document does not
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities and
definitions, 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 proposed 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 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 these proposed priorities and definitions only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their 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 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 in that
similar projects have been completed successfully. These proposed
priorities and definitions would generate new
[[Page 5337]]
knowledge through research and development. Another benefit of these
proposed priorities and definitions is that the establishment of new
DRRPs would improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new
DRRPs would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new
information that would improve outcomes for individuals with
disabilities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: January 18, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-01418 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
