Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 5555 

State (DOS) or the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

Participating voluntary agencies agree 

to match the ORR grant with cash and 

in-kind contributions of goods and 

services from the community. Currently, 

ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by 

the agency up to a maximum of $2,200 

in federal funds per client. 

Single-source awards are made to the 

following organizations: 

Grantee name Location 

Total 

federal 

annual 

award 

Church World Service/Immigration & Refugee Program ........................................................ New York, NY .................................... $5,885,000 

Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A New York, NY .................................... 4,241,600 

Ethiopian Community Development Council/Refugee Resettlement Program ...................... Arlington, VA ...................................... 2,059,200 

HIAS, Inc. (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society)/Refugee and Immigrant Services ..................... New York, NY .................................... 1,566,400 

International Rescue Committee/Resettlement ...................................................................... New York, NY .................................... 9,143,200 

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service .............................................................................. Baltimore, MD .................................... 7,530,600 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ...................................................................... Washington, DC ................................. 18,977,200 

US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants ........................................................................ Arlington, VA ...................................... 11,501,600 

World Relief Corporation of National Association of Evangelicals/Refugee & Immigration 

Programs.

Baltimore, MD .................................... 4,404,400 

Statutory Authority: Section 412(c)(1)(A) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1522(c)(1)(A); Section 7(a) and (b) of 

the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 

(Pub. L. 99–605) (8 U.S.C. 1522 note). 

Christopher Beach, 

Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Office of 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01841 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Community Living 

Termination of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico’s Protection and 

Advocacy for Persons With 

Developmental Disabilities Award 

AGENCY: Administration for Community 

Living, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Hearing: Termination 

of PADD funding. Action to Terminate 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s 

Protection and Advocacy for Persons 

with Developmental Disabilities (PADD) 

Award. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to regulations at 45 

CFR part 1386, subpart D, this notice 

announces an administrative hearing 

regarding termination of Federal 

funding (that is, ‘‘the allotment’’) for the 

Protection and Advocacy for Persons 

with Developmental Disabilities (PADD) 

Award to the designated Protection and 

Advocacy agency in the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico: Oficina del Procurador 

de las Personas con Impedimentos 

(OPPI) (Ombudsman for Persons with 

Disabilities). This notice includes the 

following information: Who will preside 

at the hearing, the organizations or 

entities that are parties to the hearing 

without making a specific request to 

participate, the due dates for those who 

are not parties as of right to file a 

petition to participate as a party or as an 

amicus curiae, the date and place of the 

hearing, how certain procedural 

provisions in the applicable regulations 

have been modified, and a description 

of the issues to be considered at the 

hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Reines-Graubard, Director, 

Appellate Division, Departmental 

Appeals Board, Cohen Building, Rm. G– 

644, MS 6127, 330 Independence Ave. 

SW., Washington, DC 20201, 202–565– 

0116. 

Background: The Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 

Act of 2000 (DD Act) (codified at 42 

U.S.C. 15001 et seq.) provides states and 

territories with federal money for the 

purpose of assuring that ‘‘individuals 

with developmental disabilities and 

their families participate in the design 

of and have access to needed 

community services, individualized 

supports, and other forms of assistance 

that promote self-determination, 

independence, productivity, and 

integration and inclusion in all facets of 

community life, through culturally 

competent programs authorized’’ by the 

Act. DD Act § 101(b) (42 U.S.C. 

15001(b)). While a number of programs 

are authorized under the DD Act, the 

relevant program for this proceeding is 

the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) 

system, described in Subtitle C of Title 

I of the DD Act and, relatedly, the State 

Council on Developmental Disabilities 

(SCDD), described in Subtitle B of such 

Title. 

P&A systems are to ‘‘protect the legal 

and human rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities.’’ DD Act 

§ 101(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 15001(b)(2)). State 

Councils are to engage in ‘‘advocacy, 

capacity building, and systemic change 

activities that are consistent with the 

purpose and policies of the Act,’’ DD 

Act § 101(b)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 

15001(b)(1)(A)), and that ‘‘contribute[] 

to a coordinated, consumer- and familycentered, consumer- and familydirected, comprehensive system that 

includes needed community services, 

individualized supports, and other 

forms of assistance that promote selfdetermination for individuals with 

developmental disabilities and their 

families.’’ DD Act § 101(b)(1)(B) (42 

U.S.C. 15001(b)(1)(B)). As a condition of 

funding the SCDD, the State must 

establish a P&A system to ‘‘to protect 

and advocate the rights of individuals 

with developmental disabilities.’’ DD 

Act § 143(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(1)). 

Under the DD Act, a P&A system must 

have certain powers. Such powers 

include, but are not limited to, the 

authority to ‘‘pursue legal, 

administrative, and other appropriate 

remedies or approaches to ensure the 

protection of, and advocacy for, the 

rights of such individuals within the 

State who are or who may be eligible for 

treatment, services, or habilitation, or 

who are being considered for a change 

in living arrangements, with particular 

attention to members of ethnic and 

racial minority groups,’’ as well as to 

‘‘investigate incidents of abuse and 

neglect . . . if the incidents are reported 

to the system or if there is probable 

cause to believe that the incidents 

occurred.’’ DD Act § 143(a)(2)(A)(i) and 

(B) (42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(2)(A)(i) and (B)). 

Pertinent regulations implementing 

the DD Act are contained in 45 CFR 

parts 1385 and 1386. Part 1385 includes 

general requirements applicable to most 

programs and projects authorized under 

the DD Act, including both the SCDDs 

and P&A systems. Part 1386 is specific 

to SCDDs and P&A systems. Subpart A 

of Part 1386 contains regulations 

applicable to both programs; Subpart B 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 

is specific to P&A systems; Subpart C is 

specific to SCDDs, and Subpart D 

contains the practices and procedures 

for administrative hearings, such as the 

hearing in this proceeding. 

Designation of Presiding Officer: 

Section 1386.100(a) of 45 CFR states 

that the ‘‘presiding officer at a hearing 

must be the Assistant Secretary’’— 

defined in section 1386.80 as the 

Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families—‘‘or someone designated by 

the Assistant Secretary.’’ In 2013, the 

Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families delegated his authorities under 

the DD Act to the Administrator, 

Administration for Community Living 

(ACL). 78 FR 16510 (Mar. 15, 2013). The 

Administrator, ACL, has designated 

Leslie A. Sussan, a member of the 

Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), as 

the Presiding Officer at the hearing. The 

Presiding Officer will certify the entire 

record, including recommended 

findings and a proposed decision, to the 

Administrator, ACL, who will issue a 

decision in accordance with 45 CFR 

1386.111. 

Requests for Participation: Pursuant 

to 45 CFR 1386.94(a), the 

Administration for Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) 

within ACL; OPPI; the Puerto Rico 

Developmental Disabilities Council 

(PRDDC); and the Office of the 

Governor, on behalf of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are 

parties to the hearing without making a 

specific request to participate. Any 

individual or group not a party as of 

right under section 1386.94(a) that 

wishes to participate as a party must file 

a petition containing the information 

required by section 1386.94(b)(2)(i)–(iv) 

with the Presiding Officer no later than 

15 days after the date of publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register. 

Any interested person or organization 

that wishes to participate as an amicus 

curiae must file a petition that contains 

the information required by section 

1386.94(c)(1)(i)–(iii). The petition must 

also state whether the interested person 

or organization will submit a written 

statement of position prior to the 

hearing and whether it wishes to 

present a brief oral statement at the 

hearing and/or to submit a brief or 

written statement at such time as the 

parties submit briefs. The petition must 

be filed with the Presiding Officer at 

least 15 days before the scheduled 

hearing date below in order to facilitate 

hearing arrangements. 

If the deadline for filing a petition 

falls on a federal non-workday (a 

Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or a 

day which by statute or Executive Order 

is declared to be a non-workday for 

federal employees), the submission may 

be filed on the next federal workday. 

Effect of a Final Determination: The 

decision of the Presiding Officer will be 

reviewed by the Administrator of ACL, 

in accordance with 45 CFR 1386.111. If 

the Administrator reaches a final 

determination that OPPI does not 

comply with Federal requirements, and 

determines that Federal funding (i.e., 

allotments) will not be made pursuant 

to such decision, thus terminating the 

PADD grant, such decision will also 

terminate funding for the 

Commonwealth’s SCDD in addition to 

the P&A. Pursuant to section 143(a) of 

the DD Act (42 U.S.C. 15043(a)), as well 

as 45 CFR 1386.21(a), in order for a 

State to receive an allotment for its 

SCDD, the State must have in effect a 

P&A system meeting Federal 

requirements. 

Other HHS programs providing grants 

to P&A organizations incorporate the DD 

Act. These programs are: 

(a) The Protection and Advocacy for 

Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) 

program. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 

10802(2) defines an eligible system as a 

system ‘‘established in a State to protect 

and advocate the rights of persons with 

developmental disabilities under 

subtitle C of the Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 

Act of 2000.’’ 

(b) The Protection and Advocacy for 

Voting Access (PAVA) program under 

the Help America Vote Act of 2002. 

Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 15461(a) states 

that the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services ‘‘shall pay the protection and 

advocacy system (as defined in section 

15002 of this title) of each state . . . .’’ 

(c) The Protection and Advocacy for 

Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) 

program. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 300d– 

53(m) defines a ‘‘protection and 

advocacy system’’ as a ‘‘protection and 

advocacy system established under part 

C of the Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. . . .’’ 

Such programs either require the 

existence of a P&A under the DD Act or 

define the P&A with reference to such 

Act. Therefore, a final decision that the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico does not 

have a system in effect to protect and 

advocate the rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities because OPPI 

does not meet the statutory and 

regulatory requirements to serve as a 

P&A may also result in suspension or 

termination of grant funding under 

these programs based on ineligibility. 

Federal programs outside HHS (such 

as the Protection and Advocacy for 

Individual Rights (PAIR) program under 

section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794e)) also 

refer to the DD Act. However, this 

Notice does not address the effect of a 

final decision in this case on those 

programs. 

Date, Time and Place Of Hearing: 

Pursuant to 45 CFR 1386.84, the 

Administrator, ACL, modifies the 

requirements for the notice of hearing in 

section 1386.90 as follows, having 

determined that this modification will 

serve justice and will not unduly 

prejudice any party. 

Rather than setting an exact time and 

a specific calendar date for the hearing, 

this Notice announces that the hearing 

will commence 45 days from the date 

this notice is published in the Federal 

Register (or the first federal workday 

thereafter, if the 45th day falls on a 

federal non-workday) at a time to be 

determined by the Presiding Officer. If 

the Presiding Officer reschedules the 

hearing pursuant to 45 CFR 

1386.101(a)(1), the Presiding Officer 

will notify all parties and amici curiae. 

The hearing is expected to be 

conducted using videoconference. A 

non-federal party (including a nonfederal party under section 1396.94(a)) 

that believes an in-person hearing is 

necessary because it is incapable of 

reasonably presenting its case by 

videoconference must submit a 

statement to that effect with supporting 

reasons no later than the date specified 

above for filing a petition to participate 

as a party. If the Presiding Officer 

determines that an in-person hearing is 

warranted, the Presiding Officer will 

notify the parties of the hearing location 

after consulting with the parties. 

Otherwise, the Departmental Appeals 

Board will arrange for appropriate 

videoconference facilities for the nonfederal parties in Puerto Rico. Because 

it is based in Washington, DC, AIDD 

will participate in person, rather than by 

videoconference. A party may also 

request that an individual witness’s 

testimony be taken by telephone if it is 

not feasible for the witness to appear by 

videoconference or in person. 

The Presiding Officer will schedule a 

pre-hearing conference after ruling on 

any petitions to participate as a party 

pursuant to section 1386.94(b)(2). The 

pre-hearing conference will be held by 

teleconference or by videoconference. 

Filing and Service Requirements: 

Pursuant to 45 CFR 1386.84, the 

Administrator, ACL, modifies the 

requirements for filing and service of 

papers in section 1386.85 as follows, 

having determined that this 

modification will serve justice and will 

not unduly prejudice any party. 

Parties as of right under section 

1386.94(a) are required to use the 

Departmental Appeals Board’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 5557 

1Although 45 CFR 1386.21(a) cites to section 142 

of the DD Act, section 143 of DD Act of 2000 

superseded such section. Section 401 of the DD Act 

of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–402) repealed the prior version 

of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and 

Bill of Rights Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq. 

System requirements for the P&A previously 

included in section 142 of the Act are now included 

in section 143 of the Act (compare 42 U.S.C. 6042 

(1999) with 42 U.S.C. 15043 (2014)). 

electronic filing system (DAB E-File) for 

all submissions. Instructions for using 

DAB E-File are at https://dab.efile.hhs.

gov/appeals/Board/Appellate_Div_

instructions. Any other party, as well as 

any amicus curiae, must file its petition 

to participate by paper and must use 

DAB E-File for all submissions that are 

filed after its petition to participate has 

been granted unless the party or amicus 

files with its petition an explanation of 

why it is unable to file submissions 

electronically and the Presiding Officer 

permits the party or amicus to file paper 

submissions. 

A submission will be deemed to have 

been filed with the Presiding Officer on 

a given day if it is uploaded to DAB EFile on or before 11:59 p.m. eastern time 

of that day. A submission filed by paper 

will be deemed to have been filed with 

the Presiding Officer on the postmark 

date, the date sent by registered or 

certified mail, or the date deposited 

with a commercial delivery service. A 

party using DAB E-File must serve a 

paper copy of its submissions on any 

party or amicus curiae permitted by the 

Presiding Officer to file submissions by 

paper. 

All submissions should be addressed 

to Leslie A. Sussan, Presiding Officer. 

The mailing address for paper 

submissions to the Presiding Officer is 

Departmental Appeals Board, Appellate 

Division, Cohen Building, Room G–644, 

MS6127, 330 Independence Ave. SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

In order to facilitate compliance with 

section 1386.82 (providing that all 

documents filed are subject to public 

inspection), parties and amici curiae 

should redact all briefs, exhibits, and 

other written submissions in order to 

avoid the disclosure of any personally 

identifiable information (PII) and other 

information the disclosure of which 

might violate the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act 

(HIPAA), the Privacy Act of 1974, or 

State or other privacy or confidentiality 

requirements. 

Discovery Procedures: Pursuant to 45 

CFR 1386.84, the Administrator, ACL, 

modifies the provisions for discovery in 

section 1386.103 as follows, having 

determined that this modification will 

serve justice and will not unduly 

prejudice any party, as it conforms to 

the discovery procedures already used 

in other HHS administrative 

proceedings. 

AIDD and OPPI, as the parties named 

in the notice issued under 45 CFR 

1386.90, have the right to conduct 

discovery, but the Presiding Officer will 

not necessarily follow the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, which do not by 

their own terms apply to administrative 

proceedings. Before filing a discovery 

motion, a party should seek voluntary 

production from the other party. Any 

motion should describe specifically the 

information sought and state how this 

information is relevant and necessary to 

the party’s case. The Presiding Officer 

will order production of specific items 

of information if the Presiding Officer 

determines that the party needs that 

information to address a dispositive 

issue in the case. Neither interrogatories 

nor depositions will be permitted unless 

the Presiding Officer determines that 

these are the only means to adequately 

develop the record on a dispositive 

issue. 

Issues To Be Considered at the 

Hearing: The issues to be considered at 

the hearing are: 

• Whether the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico has in effect a system to 

protect and advocate the rights of 

individuals with developmental 

disabilities that meets the definition in 

section 102 of the DD Act (42 U.S.C. 

15002) and that complies with sections 

143(a) and 144 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

15043(a) and 15044), as well as 

regulations at 45 CFR part 1386, subpart 

B. It is the position of AIDD that OPPI 

has failed to demonstrate that OPPI, as 

the Commonwealth’s designated P&A 

system, has sufficient operations, 

independence, staff, and expertise to 

exercise the authorities necessary and 

required under the DD Act to protect the 

legal and human rights of people with 

developmental disabilities. The 

following sub-issues are considered: 

Æ Whether OPPI exercises the 

authorities of the P&A as required by 

sections 143(a)(2)(A) and (B) 1 of the DD 

Act and 45 CFR 1386.21(a)&(c). OPPI 

has failed to demonstrate that the P&A 

is pursuing legal, administrative, and 

other appropriate remedies or 

approaches, such as individual legal 

advocacy, individual case 

representation, and systemic litigation, 

to ensure the protection of, and 

advocacy for, the rights of individuals 

with developmental disabilities. OPPI 

documentation provides for an 

administrative hearing process, but not 

other litigation, legal action or advocacy 

that would ensure the protection and 

advocacy envisioned by the statute and 

regulations. 45 CFR 1386.21(c) states 

that a P&A system ‘‘shall not implement 

a policy or practice restricting the 

remedies which may be sought on 

behalf of the individuals with 

developmental disabilities or 

compromising the authority of the . . . 

P&A . . . system to pursue such 

remedies through litigation, legal action 

or other forms of advocacy.’’ Because 

OPPI has a policy for only one type of 

remedy (an administrative remedy) and 

does not have policies regarding other 

types of legal remedies, OPPI has not 

provided sufficient assurances or 

evidence that the P&A is not de facto 

restricted from pursuing appropriate 

legal remedies to ensure the protection 

of, and advocacy for, the rights of 

individuals with developmental 

disabilities. OPPI also has failed to 

demonstrate that the P&A is providing 

information and referral services 

consistent with the DD Act. OPPI has an 

information and referral form to 

document the nature of an individual’s 

disability, but it has not provided any 

other document, policy or evidence for 

how it carries out information and 

referral consistent with the 

requirements in the DD Act. OPPI has 

failed to demonstrate that the P&A is 

conducting investigations of incidents 

of abuse and neglect of individuals with 

developmental disabilities. 

Æ Whether OPPI, as a government 

agency, exercises the authorities of the 

P&A as required by sections 

143(a)(2)(A), (B) and (G) of the DD Act 

and 45 CFR 1386.21(a)&(c). OPPI does 

not have sufficient independence from 

the Governor for the P&A to adequately 

pursue legal, administrative, and other 

appropriate remedies or approaches to 

ensure the protection of, and advocacy 

for, the rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities. Specifically, 

OPPI lacks the financial, structural, and 

leadership independence necessary to 

adequately carry out the requirements of 

a P&A system. With respect to financial 

independence, OPPI is a government 

agency and subject to the budgeting 

priorities and processes of other 

government agencies. OPPI has 

repeatedly informed AIDD that it does 

not have access to PADD funds to hire 

new attorneys or to travel to receive 

training related to the PADD grant. With 

respect to structural independence, as a 

government agency, the P&A must 

follow certain requirements that 

interfere with its ability to carry out the 

functions of the DD Act, such as 

maintaining a minimum amount of 

administrative staff. Limits on financial 

and structural independence also result 

in OPPI not maintaining necessary staff. 

Currently, only two attorneys are 

employed by OPPI, and such attorneys 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 

serve at the pleasure of the Governor; as 

state-funded employees, they are at risk 

of losing their positions, thus 

implicating the ability to truly 

investigate and bring cases against Staterun institutions. With respect to 

independent leadership, both the OPPI 

Ombudsman, who is the Executive 

Director of the P&A, and the Advisory 

Council are appointed by the Governor, 

and the Ombudsman can be removed by 

the Governor. As such, OPPI fails to 

operate free of influence from the 

Governor. Section 143(a)(2)(G) requires 

that the P&A be independent of any 

agency that provides treatment, services, 

or habilitation to individuals with 

developmental disabilities. Act 78, 

Article 6 requires that the Advisory 

Council have members representing 

service-providing entities making it 

unclear whether this supports P&A 

independence as required in the DD 

Act. 

Æ Whether OPPI maintains sufficient 

numbers and types of staff (qualified by 

training and experience) to carry out the 

P&A system’s functions, as required by 

section 143(a)(2)(K) of the DD Act and 

45 CFR 1386.21(e), and is free from any 

State policies which prevent the P&A 

from carrying out its authorities and 

other mandates under the Act, 

including whether the P&A is exempt 

from hiring freezes, reductions in force, 

prohibitions on travel, or other policies 

to the staff of the system, to the extent 

that such policies would impact the 

staff or functions of the system funded 

with Federal funds or would prevent the 

system from carrying out the functions 

of the system, as required by section 

143(a)(2)(K) of the DD Act and 45 CFR 

1386.21(d). OPPI has only two attorneys 

on its staff of more than 70 employees. 

Neither attorney is authorized to 

practice before the Federal courts in the 

Commonwealth. This is a barrier to the 

P&A being able to preserve and exercise 

its authority to pursue legal, 

administrative, and other appropriate 

remedies or approaches authorized 

under the DD act, as cases invoking the 

authority of a Federal statute would be 

brought in Federal court. Further, two 

attorneys is an insufficient number for 

a P&A to preserve and exercise its 

authority to pursue legal, 

administrative, and other appropriate 

remedies or approaches. The P&A has 

an administrative staff of over 50 

people; however, it is unclear what role 

and activities this staff is performing 

related to the PADD grant. All P&A staff 

are subjected to state hiring practices, 

including hiring freezes, which prevents 

the P&A from obtaining appropriate 

staffing to carry out its mandates, and in 

violation of the above-cited regulations 

(45 CFR 1386.21(d) and (e)). The P&A 

lost advocate positions under the reorganization plan implemented in 2012 

and was not able to replace those 

positions. OPPI has repeatedly informed 

AIDD that it does not have access to 

PADD funds to hire new attorneys or to 

travel to receive training related to the 

PADD grant. 

Æ Whether the individuals served by 

the P&A are individuals with 

developmental disabilities as defined in 

section 102(8) and whether the P&A 

takes action with regard to goals and 

priorities, developed through data 

driven strategic planning, for the 

system’s activities as required by section 

143(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) and (D) of the DD 

Act and in keeping with 45 CFR 

1386.21(c) and 45 CFR 1386.23. OPPI 

has a form to determine eligibility for 

the PADD program; however, the 2012 

AIDD Monitoring and Technical 

Assistance Review System (MTARS) 

report states that OPPI had a poor 

understanding of the difference between 

developmental disabilities and other 

disabilities and seemed unclear about 

which clients of the P&A qualify for 

PADD funding. Therefore, this form 

does not provide adequate assurances 

that the people served with PADD 

funding are people with developmental 

disabilities. Furthermore, this form does 

not include information about whether 

the individual’s issues fall within the 

P&A’s priorities. The 2012 MTARS 

report states: ‘‘OPPI receives all 

complaints that include people with 

disabilities, regardless of the relativity 

of the complaint. Based on the limited 

resources available, OPPI is unable to 

handle every meritorious complaint. 

Therefore, OPPI needs to clarify the 

organizational structure and framework, 

then redevelop and apply the Goals and 

Priorities to determine which cases they 

may take, and which to refer out.’’ OPPI 

has not presented evidence that it has a 

statement of goals and priorities (SGP) 

unique to the PADD program or that 

anticipates priorities for selecting 

specific cases or determining an 

individual advocacy caseload, systemic 

advocacy work and training activities, 

and outcomes it wishes to accomplish. 

OPPI submitted a Fiscal Year 2014 SGP 

to AIDD. However, the AIDD review of 

the SGP found it to be inadequate, as it 

was not based on any public comment, 

as required under the DD Act, and its 

goals lacked the specificity necessary to 

provide meaningful direction for the use 

of PADD funds and PADD case 

selection. As a result, AIDD did not 

approve the SGP. OPPI took minimal 

action to correct the SGP by submitting 

commentary on its goal setting process, 

but it did not change the goals, or 

provide record of public comment. 

AIDD determined OPPI’s minimal 

action was not sufficient to address the 

deficiencies. Failure to have an 

adequate SGP in place to guide the P&A 

activities means that OPPI is likely 

failing to meet the necessary priorities 

and mandates of the DD Act. 

Æ Whether the P&A exercises the 

authority to access all records and 

individuals with developmental 

disabilities as required by Section 

143(a)(2)(H–J) of the DD Act and 45 CFR 

1386.22. The 2012 MTARS identified 

that OPPI has the authority to access 

and conduct on-site monitoring visits of 

any individual with a developmental 

disability in Puerto Rico where services 

are provided. However, OPPI staff is 

generally unaware of their authority to 

access residential facilities and 

community settings. Therefore OPPI did 

not exercise this authority. Without 

fully exercising the P&A access 

authority, OPPI cannot fulfill its 

statutory mandate to protect the legal 

and human rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities, in 

accordance with the purposes of the DD 

Act (section 101(b)(2) of the DD Act). 

The P&A is limited in its ability to carry 

out the legal, administrative, and other 

appropriate remedies in accordance 

with sections 143(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of 

the DD Act, if it does not demonstrate 

that it accesses records and/or 

individuals in accordance with sections 

143(a)(2)(H)–(J) and 45 CFR 1386.22. 

Æ Whether the P&A meets the 

requirements in Section 144(a)(5) that 

the majority of the members of an 

advisory council shall be individuals 

with disabilities, including individuals 

with developmental disabilities who are 

eligible for, have received or are 

receiving services through the system; or 

parents, family members, guardians, 

advocates, or authorized representatives 

of such individuals. Act 78, Article 6 

requires that the Advisory Council have 

9 members: 1 person with a disability; 

1 parent of a person with a disability; 

1 legal advisor with experience in the 

field of disability rights; 1 vocational 

rehabilitation professional; 1 special 

education professional; 1 healthcare 

professional; and 2 people committed to 

fulfilling the principles outlined in the 

law creating OPPI. This does not 

guarantee that the Advisory Council 

meets the majority requirements in the 

DD Act. 

Æ Whether the P&A is conducting 

PADD activities since they have not 

utilized FY2014 funds. The PADD grant 

to OPPI is classified as high risk with 

restrictions on the funds. Payment is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 5559 

made to OPPI on a reimbursement basis. 

OPPI has not submitted a request for 

reimbursement under the FY 2014 

PADD grant award leaving the entire 

amount of the award unspent. It is 

unclear, then, how OPPI is exercising 

the P&A authorities and conducting 

P&A activities without utilizing the 

federal financial assistance. 

Dated: January 27, 2015. 

Kathy Greenlee, 

Administrator and Assistant Secretary for 

Aging. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01857 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–1497] 

Toxicological Principles for the Safety 

Assessment of Food Ingredients; 

Public Meeting on Updates and Safety 

and Risk Assessment Considerations; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification of public meeting; 

request for comments; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

extending the comment period for the 

notification of public meeting and 

request for comments that appeared in 

the Federal Register of October 30, 

2014. The notification requested 

comments on certain topics related to 

our guidance titled ‘‘Toxicological 

Principles for the Safety Assessment of 

Food Ingredients,’’ known less formally 

as the ‘‘Redbook’’. We are taking this 

action in response to requests for an 

extension to allow interested persons 

additional time to submit comments. 

DATES: FDA is extending the comment 

period on the notification of public 

meeting and request for comments 

published October 30, 2014 (79 FR 

64603). Submit either electronic or 

written comments by May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following ways: 

• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper submissions): Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket No. (FDA– 

2014–N–1497) for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, see the ‘‘Request for 

Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number, found in brackets in the 

heading of this document, into the 

‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts 

and/or go to the Division of Dockets 

Management, Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremiah Fasano, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–255), Food 

and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 

Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 

240–402–1173, jeremiah.fasano@

fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In the Federal Register of October 30, 

2014 (79 FR 64603), we published a 

notification of public meeting and 

requested comments on certain topics 

related to the Redbook. The Redbook 

provides guidance to industry and other 

stakeholders (e.g., academia and other 

regulatory groups) regarding the 

information used by FDA’s Center for 

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to 

evaluate the safety of food additives and 

color additives. The Redbook is 

intended to help interested parties 

understand FDA’s expectations 

regarding: 

• Determining the human exposure 

that will occur from the use of the 

ingredient in foods; 

• Determining which toxicity studies 

are appropriate; 

• Designing, conducting, and 

reporting the results of toxicity studies; 

and 

• Submitting the information to FDA 

as part of a safety assessment. 

Comments on the Redbook will 

inform our future efforts on what should 

be included, changed, or even excluded 

from the updated Redbook. We are 

interested in expanding the scope of the 

Redbook to emphasize the principles of 

safety and risk assessment that are 

shared across different regulatory 

contexts for foods and cosmetics, while 

still providing specific guidance for 

applying these principles in particular 

contexts such as the requirements for 

premarket safety submissions or for risk 

assessments conducted on foods and 

cosmetics already on the market. 

We have received a request for a 90- 

day extension of the comment period for 

the notification of public meeting and 

request for comments. The request 

conveyed-concern that the current 90- 

day comment period (which would 

otherwise expire on February 9, 2015) 

does not allow sufficient time to 

develop meaningful or thoughtful 

responses to the notification of public 

meeting and request for comments. 

We have considered the request and 

are extending the comment period for 

90 days, until May 10, 2015. We believe 

that a 90-day extension allows adequate 

time for interested persons to submit 

comments without significantly 

delaying further action on these 

important issues. 

II. Request for Comments 

Interested persons may submit either 

electronic comments regarding this 

document to http://www.regulations.gov 

or written comments to the Division of 

Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). 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, and 

will be posted to the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: January 27, 2015. 

Leslie Kux, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01858 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–2031] 

For Nominations on the Food Advisory 

Committee; Extension of Closing Date 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice; extension of closing 

date. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is extending the 

closing date for the notice that appeared 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES