[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10111-10114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03882]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Community Living

[CFDA Number: 84.133B-3]


Proposed priority--National Institute on Disability, Independent 
Living, and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and 
Training Centers

AGENCY: Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and 
Human Services.

ACTION: Notice of proposed priority.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living 
proposes a priority for the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center 
(RRTC) Program administered by the National Institute on Disability, 
Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). 
Specifically, this notice proposes a priority for an RRTC on Employment 
Policy and Measurement. We take this action to focus research attention 
on an area of national need. We intend this priority to contribute to 
improved employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail or commercial delivery. We will not accept comments 
submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment 
period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please 
submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket 
ID at the top of your comments.
    <bullet> 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 ``Are you new to the site?''
    <bullet> Postal Mail or Commercial Delivery: If you mail or deliver 
your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to 
Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 400 
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, 
DC 20202-2700.
    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: Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202) 
245-6211 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95e5f4e1e7fcf6fcf4bbf7f4e7e7f0e1e1d5f0f1bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcacbda8aeb5bfb5bdf2bebdaeaeb9a8a89cb9b8f2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priority is in 
concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The 
Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2013 (78 
FR 20299), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: 
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
    The Plan identifies a need for research and training regarding 
employment of individuals with disabilities. To address this need, 
NIDILRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and 
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of research findings, 
expertise, and other information to advance knowledge and understanding 
of the needs of individuals with disabilities and their family members, 
including those from among traditionally underserved populations; (3) 
determine effective practices, programs, and policies to improve 
community living and participation, employment, and health and function 
outcomes for individuals with disabilities; (4) identify research gaps 
and areas for promising research investments; (5) identify and promote 
effective mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) 
disseminate research findings to all major stakeholder groups, 
including individuals with disabilities and their family members in 
formats that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
    This notice proposes one priority that NIDILRR intends to use for 
one or more competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and possibly later 
years. NIDILRR is under no obligation to make an award under this 
priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of 
applications received and available funding. NIDILRR may publish 
additional priorities, as needed.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific topic within the priority that each comment 
addresses.

[[Page 10112]]

    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments by following the instructions found under the ``Are you new to 
the site?'' portion of the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
wwww.regulations.gov. Any comments sent to NIDILRR via postal mail or 
commercial delivery can be viewed in Room 5142, 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 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 self-sufficiency of individuals 
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe 
disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized 
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

    The purpose of the RRTCs, which are funded through the Disability 
and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to achieve 
the goals of, and improve the effectiveness of, services authorized 
under the Rehabilitation Act through well-designed research, training, 
technical assistance, and dissemination activities in important topical 
areas as specified by NIDILRR. These activities are designed to benefit 
rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, family 
members, policymakers and other research stakeholders. Additional 
information on the RRTC program can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/rrtc/index.html#types.

    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority

    This notice contains one proposed priority.

RRTC on Employment Policy and Measurement

Background

    Since the 2007 recession, Social Security Disability Insurance 
(SSDI) applications and awards have increased rapidly. There are nearly 
9 million beneficiaries currently receiving SSDI payments, and this 
figure is expected to grow as workers age and increase their likelihood 
of experiencing disability. With this growth in program participation, 
actuaries estimate that the SSDI trust fund will be depleted in late 
2016 unless substantial changes occur (Social Security Administration, 
2014). Given this scenario, developing informed employment policy 
options is essential. These options require sound research to inform 
policymakers regarding the projected impacts of policies that encourage 
employment among individuals with disabilities while ensuring an 
adequate safety net. Research is also needed to evaluate the long-term 
impacts of policies and programs that aim to facilitate employment and 
improve the quality of life among people with disabilities.
    The interactions between Social Security disability programs and 
public health insurance programs have long been considered a 
substantial barrier to employment for people with disabilities (Loprest 
& Maag, 2001; National Council on Disability, 2007). The 2010 enactment 
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided 
improved access to public and private insurance for all Americans 
including those with disabilities. For example, the ACA prevents health 
care coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions, increases 
coverage requirements, and provides mental health parity for persons 
with psychiatric disabilities. The impact of the ACA on employment 
outcomes for people with disabilities is an important research area.
    Prior RRTC-EPM work focused on examining and improving extant 
methods of measuring disability status, as well as measuring employment 
outcomes among people with disabilities. For example, the RRTC 
illustrated how self-reported disability status changes over time 
through an analysis of longitudinal data focusing on youth (Mann and 
Honeycutt, 2014). These analyses indicated that the proportion of 
respondents with a disability doubled from 12 percent to nearly 25 
percent over the course of 13 years. Multivariate analyses showed that 
women were more likely than men to report changes in health condition 
or disability status, and those with mild disabilities were relatively 
less likely than those without or with severe disabilities to 
experience changes in disability status. The RRTC also studied extant 
surveys and found that commonly used measures overestimated employment 
and underestimated receipt of disability income assistance such as SSDI 
(Burkhauser, Houtenville and Tenant, 2014). Other researchers have 
recently explored similar issues related to the reliability and 
stability of disability measures (Brault, 2013; Davies & Fisher, 2013; 
Sears & Rupp, 2003). Knowledge gained through this work has highlighted 
a need to develop improved methods of measuring both disability and 
employment in ways that generate more reliable and valid research 
findings. Continued innovation is thus needed to develop measures and 
metrics that accurately reflect the changing nature of disability 
across the life span as well as changes in the workforce over time. By 
doing so, research results may be more relevant for policy and program 
decisions aimed at improving employment outcomes for people with 
disabilities.

References

Brault, M. (2013). Reliability and stability of the 6-question 
disability measure in the Survey of Income and Program 
Participation. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from: http://www.census.gov/people/disability/files/sipp_reliability-jsm2013.pdf.
Burkhauser, R., Houtenville, A., and Tennant, J. (2014). Capturing 
the elusive working-age population with disabilities: Reconciling 
conflicting social success estimates from the Current Population 
Survey and American Community Survey. Journal of Disability Policy 
Studies, 24(4) 195-205.
Davies, P., and Fisher, T.L. (2013). Measurement issues associated 
with using survey data matched with administrative data from the 
Social Security Administration. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from: 
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/

[[Page 10113]]

v69n2p1.html.
Loprest, P., and Maag, E. (2001). Barriers to and Supports for Work 
Among Adults with Disabilities: Results from the NHIS-D. Retrieved 
on December 31, 2014, from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/barriers.htm.
Mann, D. and Honeycutt, T. (2014). Changes in disability status and 
survey attrition: A longitudinal analysis. Retrieved January 9, 
2015, from: http://www.researchondisability.org/docs/publications/statsrrtc-r3-longitudinal-study-final-report-12-19-14.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
National Council on Disability (2007). Empowerment for Americans 
with disabilities: Breaking barriers to careers and full employment. 
Retrieved January 19, 2015, from: http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2007/Oct2007.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111--148 
(2010). Retrieved December 31, 2014, from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html.
Sears, J., Rupp, K. (2003). Exploring Social Security payment 
history matched with the Survey of Income and Program Participation. 
Retrieved December 31, 2014, from: http://www.oecd.org/std/36232603.pdf.
Social Security Administration (2014). The 2014 Annual Report of the 
Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and 
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. Retrieved December 31, 
2014, from: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2014/index.html.

Definitions

    The research that is proposed under this priority must be focused 
on one or more stages of research. If the RRTC is to conduct research 
that can be categorized under more than one research stage, or research 
that progresses from one stage to another, those research stages must 
be clearly specified. For purposes of this priority, the stages of 
research are from the notice of final priorities and definitions 
published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34261).
    (a) 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 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.
    (b) 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.
    (c) Intervention Efficacy means the stage of research during which 
a project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is feasible, 
practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the 
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and 
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the 
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research 
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to 
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts. 
This stage of research can include assessing the training needed for 
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to 
evaluation of the intervention in real world applications.
    (d) Scale-Up Evaluation means the stage of research during which a 
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing 
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in 
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests 
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings. 
It examines the challenges to successful replication of the 
intervention, and the circumstances and activities that contribute to 
successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings. This 
stage of research may also include well-designed studies of an 
intervention that has been widely adopted in practice, but that lacks a 
sufficient evidence-base to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Proposed Priority

    The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living 
proposes a priority for an RRTC on Employment Policy and Measurement. 
The purpose of the proposed RRTC on Employment Policy and Measurement 
RRTC (RRTC-EPM) is to investigate the impact of Federal and State 
policies and programs on employment of individuals with disabilities, 
paying particular attention to the effects of program interactions. The 
RRTC-EPM will also examine new ways of measuring employment outcomes 
and facilitate the translation of research findings to guide 
policymaking and program administration. Applicants must identify 
targeted research questions in response to the problems identified 
below and propose rigorous research methodologies to answer these 
questions. Of particular interest is research that investigates the 
interaction between the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI), and employment. The desired outcome of 
this investment is new knowledge about the effect of new or existing 
policies on employment-related decision-making of individuals with 
disabilities, and ultimately on rates and quality of employment by 
these individuals.
    The RRTC must contribute to improving the employment outcomes of 
individuals with disabilities by:
    (a) Generating new knowledge about the effects of program 
interactions on employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities, 
including but not necessarily limited to the interaction between Social 
Security disability benefit programs and the ACA. Specifically, the 
RRTC must generate new knowledge of the potential impacts of varied 
policy scenarios regarding the SSDI trust fund exhaustion on the 
employment and economic outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
    (b) Developing reliable and valid methods of measuring employment 
outcomes for people with disabilities;
    (c) Serving as a national resource center on policy issues that 
impact employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities, and
    (d) Increasing incorporation of research findings from the RRTC 
into practice or policy by:
    (1) Collaborating with stakeholder groups to develop, evaluate, or 
implement strategies to increase utilization of research findings;
    (2) Conducting training and dissemination activities to facilitate 
the utilization of research findings by policymakers, employers, and 
individuals with disabilities;
    (3) Providing technical assistance to facilitate use of information 
produced by the RRTC research; and
    (4) Collaborating and sharing information with other agencies 
across the Federal government. In addition, the RRTC must collaborate 
with appropriate

[[Page 10114]]

NIDILRR-funded grantees, including knowledge translation grantees and 
grantees involved with employment research.

Final Priority

    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register or in a Funding Opportunity 
Announcement posted at www.grants.gov.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive Order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, 
the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with 
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects 
and Centers Program have been well established over the years. Projects 
similar to one envisioned by the proposed priority have been completed 
successfully, and the proposed priority would generate new knowledge 
through research. The new RRTC would generate, disseminate, and promote 
the use of new information that would improve outcomes for individuals 
with disabilities in the area of employment.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive 
Order 12372.
    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: February 19, 2015.
Kathy Greenlee,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-03882 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>