5330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 

360j, 371. 

■ 2. In subpart E, add § 886.4155 to read 

as follows: 

§ 886.4155 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. 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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: http:// 

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 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. 

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; 


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. 

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: http://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: http://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: http://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: http:// 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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: http:// 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
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. 

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: http://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/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. 

(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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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: http:// 

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 


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. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0033] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

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). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 25, 2013, and we 

encourage you to submit comments well 

in advance of this date. 

ADDRESSES: 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. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with