Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18185 

percentage of high schools in each State 

implementing the assessment; 

6. Percentage of students in each State 

taking at least one assessment in the 

high school course assessment 

programs; and 

7. Percentage of high schools in each 

State that incorporate courses in the 

high school course assessment programs 

into requirements for high school 

diplomas or certificates. 

VI. Agency Contacts 

For Further Information Contact: 

James Butler, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3C108, Washington, DC 20202– 

6400. Telephone: (202) 453–7246 or by 

e-mail: racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under For Further 

Information Contact in section VI of this 

notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: 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 on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: April 6, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8176 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)— 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program— 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Centers (RERCs) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.133E–1 

and 84.133E–3. 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities for 

two RERCs. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes two priorities for the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by NIDRR. Specifically, 

this notice proposes two priorities for 

RERCs: Universal Design in the Built 

Environment and Technologies for 

Children with Orthopedic Disabilities. 

The Assistant Secretary may use these 

priorities for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2010 and later years. We take this 

action to focus research attention on 

areas of national need. We intend these 

priorities to improve rehabilitation 

services and outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Donna Nangle, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., room 5142, Potomac 

Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202– 

2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by e-mail, use the following address: 

donna.nangle@ed.gov. You must 

include the term ‘‘Proposed Priorities for 

RERCs’’ and the priority title in the 

subject line of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7462 or by e-mail: 

donna.nangle@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: 

This notice of proposed priorities is in 

concert with NIDRR’s Final Long-Range 

Plan for FY 2005–2009 (Plan). The Plan, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 

8165), can be accessed on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/ 

policy.html. 

Through the implementation of the 

Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the 

quality and utility of disability and 

rehabilitation research; (2) foster an 

exchange of expertise, information, and 

training to facilitate the advancement of 

knowledge and understanding of the 

unique needs of traditionally 

underserved populations; (3) determine 

best strategies and programs to improve 

rehabilitation outcomes for underserved 

populations; (4) identify research gaps; 

(5) identify mechanisms of integrating 

research and practice; and (6) 

disseminate findings. This notice 

proposes two priorities that NIDRR 

intends to use for RERC competitions in 

FY 2010 and possibly later years. 

However, nothing precludes NIDRR 

from publishing additional priorities, if 

needed. 

Furthermore, NIDRR is under no 

obligation to make awards for 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 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

priority that each comment addresses. 

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. Please let us 

know of any further ways we could 

reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 6030, 550 12th 

Street, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities; to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities; and to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18186 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Centers Program (RERCs) 

The purpose of the RERC program is 

to improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

by conducting advanced engineering 

research and development on 

innovative technologies that are 

designed to solve particular 

rehabilitation problems, or to remove 

environmental barriers. RERCs also 

demonstrate and evaluate such 

technologies, facilitate service delivery 

system changes, stimulate the 

production and distribution of new 

technologies and equipment in the 

private sector, and provide training 

opportunities. 

General Requirements of RERCs 

RERCs carry out research or 

demonstration activities in support of 

the Rehabilitation Act by— 

• Developing and disseminating 

innovative methods of applying 

advanced technology, scientific 

achievement, and psychological and 

social knowledge: (a) To solve 

rehabilitation problems and to remove 

environmental barriers; and (b) to study 

and evaluate new or emerging 

technologies, products, or environments 

and their effectiveness and benefits; or 

• Demonstrating and disseminating: 

(a) Innovative models for the delivery of 

cost-effective rehabilitation technology 

services to rural and urban areas; and (b) 

other scientific research to assist in 

meeting the employment and 

independent living needs of individuals 

with severe disabilities; and 

• Facilitating service delivery systems 

change through: (a) The development, 

evaluation, and dissemination of 

innovative, consumer-responsive, and 

individual- and family-centered models 

for the delivery to both rural and urban 

areas of innovative cost-effective 

rehabilitation technology services; and 

(b) other scientific research to assist in 

meeting the employment and 

independence needs of individuals with 

severe disabilities. 

Each RERC must be operated by, or in 

collaboration with, one or more 

institutions of higher education or one 

or more nonprofit organizations. 

Each RERC must provide training 

opportunities, in conjunction with 

institutions of higher education or 

nonprofit organizations, to assist 

individuals, including individuals with 

disabilities, to become rehabilitation 

technology researchers and 

practitioners. 

Each RERC must emphasize the 

principles of universal design in its 

product research and development. 

Universal design is ‘‘the design of 

products and environments to be usable 

by all people, to the greatest extent 

possible, without the need for 

adaptation or specialized design’’ (North 

Carolina State University, 1997. http:// 

www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/ 

udprinciplestext.htm). 

Additional information on the RERC 

program can be found at: http:// 

www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/ 

index.html. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 

764(a). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

Proposed Priorities: This notice 

contains two proposed priorities. 

Proposed Priority 1—Universal Design 

in the Built Environment 

Background 

Universal Design (UD) is the design of 

products and environments to be usable 

by all people, to the greatest extent 

possible, without the need for 

adaptation or specialized design (North 

Carolina State University, 1997). UD 

improves function, independence, and 

social participation for the entire 

population, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

Examples of UD in the built 

environment include curb cuts, ramps, 

automatic doors, restrooms, and 

wayfinding strategies. There will be an 

increased need for products and 

environments with UD as the Baby 

Boom generation ages. Many in this 

generation will wish to remain in their 

own homes as they age (Bayer & Harper, 

2000). 

Past work supported by NIDRR has 

contributed substantially to the 

development of the field of UD. With 

NIDRR funding, the Center for Universal 

Design, in collaboration with other 

researchers and practitioners, developed 

and published the following ‘‘principles 

of universal design’’: Equitable use, 

flexibility in use, simple and intuitive 

use, perceptible information, tolerance 

for error, low physical effort, and size 

and space for approach and use 

(http://design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/ 

udprinciples.htm). These seven design 

principles have guided researchers, 

engineers, and planners in designing 

accessible housing and built 

environments (North Carolina State 

University, 1997). Among other 

outcomes, NIDRR funding also has 

contributed to the development of 35 

new State and local visitability 

programs across the U.S. These 

programs apply UD principles in the 

new housing industry by incorporating 

an affordable, sustainable, and inclusive 

design approach for integrating basic 

accessibility features into all newly built 

homes. In addition, NIDRR funding 

contributed to the inclusion of UD 

principles by the New York City 

Department of Design and Construction 

in the official guide for all architects 

working for the city (Danford & Tauke, 

2000). 

Despite this progress, UD has 

experienced relatively slow adoption for 

several reasons. Until recently, 

engineers, designers, and manufacturers 

have focused on creating environments 

and products for individuals of average 

age, size, and ability and have argued 

that accommodations and design for all 

is too costly and complex (Danford & 

Tauke, 2000). In addition, universitylevel architecture and engineering 

programs do not generally include UD 

courses in their curriculum (Tauke, 

2008). The UD field has been criticized 

for a lack of measurable implementation 

guidelines and a lack of explicit 

evidence-based UD practices (Steinfeld, 

2006). Continued research and 

development in the area of UD is 

necessary to address these issues of UD 

adoption and viability. Curricula on UD 

for university-level engineering and 

design students, proper measurement 

tools, guidelines, evidence-based 

practices, and aesthetically pleasing and 

economically viable exemplars of UD 

are needed to demonstrate the efficacy 

of UD in facilitating independence and 

social participation among end users. 

References 

Bayer, A. & Harper, L. (2000). AARP, 

Fixing to stay: A national survey of 

housing and home modification issues, 

24. See http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ 

il/home_mod.pdf. 

Danford, G. & Tauke, B., eds. (2000). 

Universal Design: New York. New York, 

NY: Mayor’s Office for People with 

Disabilities. See http:// 

www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/PubIntro/ 

index.asp. 

North Carolina State University. 

(1997). The principles of universal 

design (1997). Version 2.0—4/1/97. 

Compiled by advocates of universal 

design, listed in alphabetical order: 

Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron 

Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine 

Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly 

Story, and Gregg Vanderheiden. North 

Carolina State University, The Center 

for Universal Design. See http:// 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18187 

design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/ 

udprinciples.htm. 

Tauke, B. (2008). Universal Design— 

The time is now. See http:// 

www.uigarden.net/english/universaldesign-the-time-is-now. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center (RERC) on 

Universal Design (UD) in the Built 

Environment. Under this priority, the 

RERC must research, develop, evaluate, 

and promote UD in commercial and 

private facilities, outdoor environments, 

and housing. In addition, the RERC 

must create measurable UD standards 

and guidelines to facilitate the 

implementation of UD principles, create 

economically viable UD exemplars, aid 

in the development of evidence-based 

practices for UD, and help to design 

curricula on UD for university-level 

engineering and design students. The 

RERC must assist designers, builders, 

and manufacturers incorporate UD into 

their buildings and communities. 

Proposed Priority 2—Technologies for 

Children With Orthopedic Disabilities 

Background 

As of December 1, 2007, 55,131 

students from 6 to 17 years of age were 

reported to the Office of Special 

Education Programs in the U.S. 

Department of Education as having an 

orthopedic impairment (IDEA Data, 

2007). The definition of orthopedic 

impairment in the IDEA regulations 

includes impairments caused by 

congenital anomalies, impairments 

caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, 

bone tuberculosis), and impairments 

from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, 

amputations, and fractures or burns that 

cause contractures) (34 CFR 300.8(c)(8)). 

Children with orthopedic disabilities 

often need assistance to perform a wide 

range of daily living tasks and activities. 

While family members, caregivers, and 

educators are the primary providers of 

this assistance, clinicians, researchers, 

and rehabilitation engineers are 

developing a growing number of 

technological products and 

interventions that assist children with 

orthopedic disabilities to function more 

independently. 

NIDRR has contributed to the research 

and development of technologies for 

children with orthopedic disabilities for 

20 years. Much of this work has 

centered on developing mobility and 

manipulation devices. For example, a 

NIDRR-funded RERC developed 

lightweight orthotic components, 

evaluated the effectiveness of functional 

electrical stimulation to improve gait, 

and studied which stage of development 

is the most beneficial to provide 

children with wheeled mobility. A 

NIDRR-funded RERC also developed the 

Easy Feed Hand, a prosthetic hand that 

is designed to evolve with the growth of 

the child, and made a new mobile arm 

support orthosis commercially 

available. 

Continued efforts are needed to 

develop new products, technologies, 

and therapies that promote 

independence and functional 

rehabilitation. While initial research has 

evaluated assistive technologies for 

children’s independence and 

manipulation, more research and 

development are needed to fully 

implement these technologies. For 

example, light-weight, adjustable 

pediatric wheelchairs can improve 

mobility (Meiser & McEwen, 2007) and 

provide children with better wheelchair 

performance with less exertion (Kirby et 

al., 2008). Manipulation devices, 

whether wheelchair mounted or 

autonomous, can provide greater 

independence and allow children to 

better interact with their environment 

(Machiel Van der Loos & 

Reinkensmeyer, 2008). Several 

rehabilitation therapies have been 

successful for adults with orthopedic 

impairments, and there is emerging 

evidence to suggest that these therapies 

may improve mobility and 

manipulation among children. In this 

regard, rehabilitation therapies such as 

constraint-induced therapy (Taub, 

Ramey, DeLuca, & Echols, 2004; 

Gordon, Charles, & Wolf, 2006), robotassisted therapy (Meyer-Heim et al., 

2009), and virtual reality-based therapy 

(Wille et al., 2009) have yet to be fully 

developed, adapted, and analyzed for 

use with children. 

References 

Code of Federal Regulations. (2008). 

Education, 34 CFR 300.8. 

Gordon, A.M., Charles, J., & Wolf, S.L. 

(2006). Efficacy of constraint-induced 

movement therapy on involved upperextremity use in children with 

hemiplegic cerebral palsy is not agedependent. Pediatrics, Mar, 117. 

Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) Data. (2007). See: 

http://www.ideadata.org/ 

arc_toc9.asp#partbCC Table 1–4 and 1– 

5. 

Kirby, R.L., MacDonald, B., Smith, C., 

MacLeod, D.A., & Webber, A. (2008). 

Comparison between a tilt-in-space 

wheelchair and a manual wheelchair 

equipped with a new rear anti-tip 

device from the perspective of the 

caregiver. Archives of Physical Medical 

Rehabilitation, September 89(9). 

Machiel Van der Loos, H.F. & 

Reinkensmeyer, D.J. (2008). 

Rehabilitation and health care robotics. 

In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), 

Springer Handbook of Robotics (pp. 

1235–1239). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 

Meiser, M.J. & McEwen, I.R. (2007). 

Lightweight and ultralight wheelchairs: 

Propulsion and preferences of two 

young children with spina bifida. 

Pediatric Physical Therapy, Fall 19(3). 

Meyer-Heim, A., Ammann-Reiffer, C., 

Schmartz, A., Scha ̈fer, J., Sennhauser, 

F.H., Heinen, F., Knecht, B., Dabrowski, 

E., & Borggraefe, I. (2009). Improvement 

of walking abilities after robotic-assisted 

locomotion training in children with 

cerebral palsy. Archives of Disease in 

Childhood, August 94(8). 

Taub, E., Ramey, S., DeLuca, S. & 

Echols, K. (2004). Efficacy of constraintinduced movement therapy for children 

with cerebral palsy with asymmetric 

motor impairment. Pediatrics, 113(2). 

Wille, D., Eng, K., Holper, L., 

Chevrier, E., Hauser, Y., Kiper, D., Pyk, 

P., Schlegel, S., & Meyer-Heim, A. 

(2009). Virtual reality-based paediatric 

interactive therapy system (PITS) for 

improvement of arm and hand function 

in children with motor impairment—a 

pilot study. Developmental 

Neurorehabilitation, January–March 

12(1). 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center (RERC) on 

Technologies for Children with 

Orthopedic Disabilities. This RERC will 

focus on innovative technologies and 

new knowledge that will improve the 

lives of children with orthopedic 

disabilities. Under this priority, the 

RERC must research, develop, apply, 

and evaluate new or existing 

technologies and approaches to improve 

the availability and usability of assistive 

devices for children with orthopedic 

disabilities. This work must contribute 

to the improvement of mobility and 

manipulation functions among children 

with orthopedic disabilities as they 

perform daily tasks and activities at 

home, at school, and in the community. 

In addition, the RERC must develop, 

test, and implement rehabilitation 

therapy technologies and strategies for 

use with children with orthopedic 

disabilities. 

Requirements applicable to both 

proposed priorities: The RERC 

established under each of the proposed 

priorities in this notice must be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

designed to contribute to the following 

outcomes: 

(1) Increased technical and scientific 

knowledge relevant to its designated 

priority research area. The RERC must 

contribute to this outcome by 

conducting high-quality, rigorous 

research and development projects. 

(2) Increased innovation in 

technologies, products, environments, 

performance guidelines, and monitoring 

and assessment tools applicable to its 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

through the development and testing of 

these innovations. 

(3) Improved research capacity in its 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by collaborating with the relevant 

industry, professional associations, 

institutions of higher education, health 

care providers, or educators, as 

appropriate. 

(4) Improved awareness and 

understanding of cutting edge 

developments in technologies within its 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by identifying and communicating with 

NIDRR, individuals with disabilities, 

their representatives, disability 

organizations, service providers, 

professional journals, manufacturers, 

and other interested parties regarding 

trends and evolving product concepts 

related to its designated priority 

research area. 

(5) Increased impact of research in the 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by providing technical assistance to 

relevant public and private 

organizations, individuals with 

disabilities, employers, and schools on 

policies, guidelines, and standards 

related to its designated priority 

research area. 

(6) Increased transfer of RERCdeveloped technologies to the 

marketplace. The RERC must contribute 

to this outcome by developing and 

implementing a plan for ensuring that 

all technologies developed by the RERC 

are made available to the public. The 

technology transfer plan must be 

developed in the first year of the project 

period in consultation with the NIDRRfunded Disability Rehabilitation 

Research Project, Center on Knowledge 

Translation for Technology Transfer. 

In addition, under each priority, the 

RERC must— 

• Have the capability to design, build, 

and test prototype devices and assist in 

the technology transfer and 

knowledge translation of successful 

solutions to relevant production and 

service delivery settings; 

• Evaluate the efficacy and safety of 

its new products, instrumentation, or 

assistive devices; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, a plan that describes 

how it will include, as appropriate, 

individuals with disabilities or their 

representatives in all phases of its 

activities, including research, 

development, training, dissemination, 

and evaluation; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, in consultation with 

the NIDRR-funded National Center for 

the Dissemination of Disability 

Research, a plan to disseminate its 

research results to individuals with 

disabilities, their representatives, 

disability organizations, service 

providers, professional journals, 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties; 

• Conduct a state-of-the-science 

conference on its designated priority 

research area in the fourth year of the 

project period, and publish a 

comprehensive report on the final 

outcomes of the conference in the fifth 

year of the project period; and 

• Coordinate research projects of 

mutual interest with relevant NIDRRfunded projects, as identified through 

consultation with the NIDRR project 

officer. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority: We will announce the 

final priorities in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities after considering responses to 

this notice and other information 

available to the Department. This notice 

does not preclude us from proposing 

additional priorities, requirements, 

definitions, or selection criteria, subject 

to meeting applicable rulemaking 

requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use these priorities, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priority justify 

the costs. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The 

benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years in that similar 

projects have been completed 

successfully. These proposed priorities 

will generate new knowledge through 

research and development. Another 

benefit of these proposed priorities is 

that the establishment of new RERCs 

will improve the lives of individuals 

with disabilities. The new RERCs will 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that will 

improve the options for individuals 

with disabilities to fully participate in 

their communities. 

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 computer diskette) 

by contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 5075, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–2550. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7363. If you use a 

TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18189 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: 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 on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: April 6, 2010. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8166 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Notice: Request for Substantive 

Comments on the EAC’s Procedural 

Manual for the Election Assistance 

Commission’s Pilot Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program 

Manual 

AGENCY: United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Notice; Request for Substantive 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) is publishing a 

procedural manual for its Pilot Voting 

System Testing and Certification 

Program Manual for a fifteen day public 

comment period. This program sets the 

administrative procedures for 

manufacturers seeking certification of 

pilot voting systems to be used in a 

federal election. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System 

Certification, Washington, DC (202) 

566–3100, Fax: (202) 566–1392. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. HAVA requires that the 

EAC certify and decertify voting systems 

through testing conducted by accredited 

laboratories. Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA 

(42 U.S.C. 15371) specifically requires 

the EAC to ‘‘* * * provide for the 

testing, certification, decertification and 

recertification of voting system 

hardware and software by accredited 

laboratories.’’ To meet this obligation, 

the EAC has created a voluntary 

program to test pilot voting systems to 

a set of voluntary pilot certification 

requirements. The Pilot Testing 

Certification Program manual sets the 

procedures for the pilot voting system 

manufacturers to follow in order to 

receive certification for their system to 

be used in a pilot project for a state or 

local jurisdiction that require EAC 

certification. 

The Pilot Voting System Testing and 

Certification program manual contains 

program requirements and procedures 

for the following areas: 

1. Voting system manufacturer 

registration. 

2. When voting system intended for 

use in a pilot must be submitted for 

certification. 

3. Certification Testing, Technical 

Review and Grant of Certification for 

Pilot Voting Systems. 

4. Denial of Certification. 

5. Pilot Program Monitoring and 

Reporting. 

6. Requests for Interpretations. 

7. Release of Certification Program 

Information. 

Substantive Comments: The EAC 

seeks substantive comments from the 

public on its proposed procedural 

manual. Please submit comments 

consistent with the information below. 

Comments should identify and cite the 

section of the manual at issue. Where a 

substantive issue is raised, please 

propose a recommended change or 

alternative policy. All comments 

submitted will be published at the end 

of the comment period on the EAC’s 

Web site at http://www.eac.gov. This 

publication and request for comment is 

not required under the rulemaking, 

adjudicative, or licensing provisions of 

the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA). It is a voluntary effort by the 

EAC to gather input from the public on 

the EAC’s administrative procedures for 

certifying voting systems to be used in 

pilot projects. Furthermore, this request 

by the EAC for public comment is not 

intended to make any of the APA’s 

rulemaking provisions applicable to 

development of this or future EAC 

procedural programs. However, in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, a separate notice 

will be published on the Federal 

Register to request comments regarding 

the burden of responding to the 

information collection activities of the 

proposed manual; please refer to the 

EAC’s Web site, http://www.eac.gov, for 

further information about the 

submission of comments regarding 

burden. 

DATES: Submit written or electronic 

comments on this draft procedural 

manual on or before 5 p.m. EDT on 

April 26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments via email to votingsystemguidelines@eac.gov; 

via mail to Brian Hancock, Director of 

Voting System Certification, U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission, 1201 

New York Avenue, Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20005; or via fax to 

202–566–1392. An electronic copy of 

the proposed guidance may be found on 

the EAC’s Web site at http:// 

www.eac.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Masterson, Deputy Director, 

Testing and Certification Program 1201 

New York Avenue, Suite 300, 

Washington, DC, (202) 566–3100, Fax: 

(202) 566–1392. 

Alice Miller, 

Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8150 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13655–000] 

Riverbank Minnesota, LLC; Notice of 

Preliminary Permit Application 

Accepted for Filing and Soliciting 

Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 

Competing Applications 

April 2, 2010. 

On January 12, 2010, Riverbank 

Minnesota, LLC filed an application, 

pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal 

Power Act, proposing to study the 

feasibility of the Granite Falls Pumped 

Storage Project No. 13655, to be located 

east of the City of Granite Falls and the 

Minnesota River in Chippewa County, 

Minnesota. 

The proposed pumped storage project 

would consist of: (1) A new 

approximately 135-acre, 30-foot-deep 

upper reservoir constructed of enclosed 

earth embankments; (2) a new lower 

reservoir excavated in granite bedrock at 

a depth of approximately 1,800 feet 

below the surface, consisting of six 

approximately 150-foot-high, 90-footwide underground galleries; (3) a new 

approximately 20 to 100-foot-diameter 

intake structure; (4) a new 

approximately 1,800-foot-long, 20-footdiameter penstock from the intake 

structure to an underground 

powerhouse; (5) a new approximately 

380-foot-long, 83-foot-wide, and 400- 

foot-high underground powerhouse; (6) 

four new reversible pump-turbines with 

a total combined capacity of 1,000 

megawatts; (7) a new 330-foot-long, 55- 

foot-wide, and 400-foot-high 

transformer gallery; (8) a new 

approximately 1.2-mile-long, 230- 

kilovolt transmission line; and (9) 

appurtenant facilities. The project 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES