Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 13569 

competing Continuation Progress Report 

(PHS 2590), exists for a small group of 

grantees. This collection also includes 

other PHS post-award reporting 

requirements: PHS 416–7 NRSA 

Termination Notice, PHS 2271

Statement of Appointment, 6031–1

NRSA Annual Payback Activities 

Certification, HHS 568 Final Invention 

Statement and Certification, Final 

Progress Report instructions, iEdison, 

and PHS 3734 Statement 

Relinquishing Interests and Rights in a 

PHS Research Grant. The PHS 416–7, 

2271, and 6031–1 are used by NRSA 

recipients to activate, terminate, and 

provide for payback of a NRSA. 

Closeout of an award requires a Final 

Invention Statement (HHS 568) and 

Final Progress Report. iEdison allows 

grantees and Federal agencies to meet 

statutory requirements for reporting 

inventions and patents. The PHS 3734 

serves as the official record of grantee 

relinquishment of a PHS award when an 

award is transferred from one grantee 

institution to another. Pre-award 

reporting requirements are 

simultaneously consolidated under 

0925–0001. Frequency of response: 

Applicants may submit applications for 

published receipt dates. For NRSA 

awards, fellowships are activated and 

trainees appointed. Affected Public: 

Universities and other research 

institutions; Business or other for-profit; 

Not-for-profit institutions; Federal 

Government; and State, Local or Tribal 

Government. Type of Respondents: 

University administrators and principal 

professionals. The annual reporting 

burden is as follows: Total Estimated 

Number of Respondents: 112,986. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. Average Burden Hours 

per Response: 5.6. Estimated Total 

Annual Burden Hours Requested: 

640,677. The annualized cost to 

respondents is estimated to be 

$22,423,709. There are no Capital Costs 

to report. There are no Operating or 

Maintenance Costs to report. 

OMB approval is requested for 3 

years. There are no costs to respondents 

other than their time. The total 

estimated annualized burden hours are 

640,677. 

ESTIMATES OF HOUR BURDEN

Information collection No. or title Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average time 

(hrs) per 

response 

Annual burden 

hours 

RPPR (or 2590 or 416–9) ............................................................................. 40,569 1 15 608,535 

PHS 416–7 .................................................................................................... 3,371 1 30/60 1,686 

PHS 2271 ...................................................................................................... 15,500 1 15/60 3,875 

PHS 6031–1 .................................................................................................. 1,600 1 20/60 528 

HHS 568 ........................................................................................................ 22,681 1 5/60 1,814 

Final Progress Report .................................................................................... 22,681 1 1 22,681 

iEdison ........................................................................................................... 6,000 1 15/60 1,500 

PHS 3734 ...................................................................................................... 584 1 6/60 58 

Totals ...................................................................................................... 112,986 ........................ 5 .6 640,677 

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

Lawrence A. Tabak, 

Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05929 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Community Living 

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. 

CFDA Number: 84.133B–6. 

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 Outcomes Measurement for Home 

and Community Based Services. We 

take this action to focus research 

attention on an area of national need. 

We intend this priority to contribute to 

improved home and community based 

services for individuals with 

disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Carolyn Baron, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 550 12th Street SW., Room 

5134, PCP, Washington, DC 20202– 

2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

carolyn.baron@ed.gov. You must 

include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priorities 

for RRTCs’’ and the priority title in the 

subject line of your electronic message. 

We will not accept comments 

submitted by fax or those submitted 

after the comment period. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. 

• Postal Mail or Commercial Delivery: 

If you mail or deliver your comments 

about these proposed regulations, 

address them to Carolyn Baron, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5134, 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. 

Therefore, commenters should be 

careful to include in their comments 

only information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Baron. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7244 or by email: carolyn.baron@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of proposed priority is in concert 

with NIDILRR’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. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 

The Plan identifies a need for research 

and training that can be used to improve 

outcomes 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 of all ages; 

(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. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of E.O. 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 

sent to NIDILRR 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 selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

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 welldesigned 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 Outcomes Measurement for 

Home and Community Based Services 

Background 

Approximately $140 billion is spent 

nationally on Medicaid long-term 

services and supports (LTSS) (Eiken et 

al., 2014). States continue to rebalance 

their LTSS expenditures to decrease the 

reliance on nursing homes and other 

institutional services for individuals of 

all ages with disabilities. Nearly half of 

Medicaid’s LTSS expenditures go 

toward home and community-based 

services (HCBS) compared to only 18% 

in 1995 (Eiken et al., 2014). The aging 

of the population and growing 

consumer demand to live in home-based 

settings will continue to increase the 

need for home and community-based 

services (HCBS). As more people receive 

LTSS in the community, there is a need 

for validated measures of consumer 

outcomes and experiences that can be 

used as indicators of HCBS quality 

(Commission on Long Term Care, 2013; 

Disability Rights Education & Defense 

Fund, 2013). Compared to measurement 

efforts in clinical settings, non-medical 

performance measures in HCBS are in 

the early stages of development and 

standardization (National Quality 

Forum, 2012). Accordingly, NIDILRR is 

sponsoring a Rehabilitation Research 

and Training Center on Outcomes 

Measurement for Home and Community 

Based Services. 

Efforts to measure the quality of a 

wide variety of services, including 

home- and community-based LTSS, may 

include structural measures (whether a 

particular mechanism is in place), 

process measures (which track the 

performance of a particular action) and 

outcomes measures (the results of 

actions and mechanisms) (Disability 

Rights Education & Defense Fund, 2013; 

Booth & Fralich, 2006). In the long-term 

care context, structural indicators of 

quality may include the ratio of service 

providers to consumers, for example, 

and process indicators of quality may 

include the skill levels of providers and 

the timeliness of the services they 

deliver (Disability Rights Education & 

Defense Fund, 2013). User outcomes are 

also important indicators of service 

quality. In the HCBS context, health 

status and levels of community 

integration, participation, and inclusion 

among service recipients can be 

important markers of HCBS quality 

(Disability Rights Education & Defense 

Fund, 2013). 

For decades, efforts to measure and 

improve long-term care quality have 

focused on nursing homes. Historically, 

the assessment of quality in nursing 

homes and other institutional long-term 

care settings emphasized the protection 

and safety of residents. As the delivery 

of LTSS is increasingly taking place in 

home and community-based settings, 

these institution-based quality 

measurement efforts have not been 

translated into measures that are 

relevant and important to individuals 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 13571 

who are receiving services at home 

(Commission on Long-Term Care, 2013). 

While protection and safety are 

important to HCBS recipients, other 

factors are important and relevant in 

these settings, including levels of 

community integration, participation, 

and inclusion. 

As states continue to rebalance their 

LTSS expenditures to decrease reliance 

on nursing homes and increase service 

delivery in home and community-based 

settings, they have begun the process of 

developing person-centered HCBS 

measures that assess outcomes from the 

perspective of service users. The State of 

Wisconsin, for example, has developed 

and implemented a set of measures that 

assess ‘‘person-centered quality of life’’ 

outcomes that are important to HCBS 

users (Karon & Schlaak, 2012). By 

seeking extensive input from service 

users and other stakeholders, Wisconsin 

has developed quality of life concepts 

and measures that are used to assess the 

extent to which (1) individuals have 

choice over their living arrangements 

and services, (2) individuals have 

desired social relationships and 

participate in meaningful ways in 

society, and (3) individuals are healthy 

and safe (Wisconsin Department of 

Health Services, 2014). Within this 

person-centered outcomes measurement 

system, service users are able to choose 

the specific outcomes that are the most 

important to them and describe the 

extent to which the long-term care 

services they are receiving support their 

achievement of those outcomes. With 

this outcomes assessment system 

Wisconsin has developed state-wide 

quality of life outcomes reports that 

aggregate findings for all of its HCBS 

users, as well as reports that provide 

comparisons of outcomes across 

different HCBS programs and 

subpopulations (Karon & Schlaak, 

2012). 

Recent efforts at the Federal level 

have begun to address the need for 

HCBS quality measures. For example, 

the Administration for Community 

Living (ACL) is contracting with the 

National Quality Forum (NQF) to create 

a conceptual framework for HCBS 

quality measurement and to make 

recommendations for HCBS measure 

development efforts. Through this work, 

ACL aims to create a conceptual 

foundation for the development of 

measures that can be used to assess and 

ultimately support independence and 

community living outcomes of HCBS 

recipients (National Quality Forum, 

2015). Much work remains to 

conceptualize and measure HCBS 

quality in terms of the outcomes that are 

important to long-term care recipients. 

These outcomes include adequacy and 

appropriateness of care, as well as the 

consumers’ level of control, social 

integration, social participation, and 

general quality of life (Kaye, 2014). 

Another foundation for the 

development of person-centered HCBS 

outcomes measures is the ongoing work 

of rehabilitation researchers to create 

valid and reliable measures of 

community participation of people with 

disabilities (Walker, Mellick, Brooks, & 

Whiteneck, 2003; Hammel, Magasi, 

Heinemann, Whiteneck, Bogner & 

Rodriguez, 2012; Whiteneck & Dijkers, 

2009; Heinemann, 2010). These research 

and development efforts include the 

application of advanced item-scaling 

and person-centered measurement 

techniques that can be implemented as 

computerized adaptive tests (CAT) 

(Haley et al., 2008), thus reducing data 

collection burden on people with 

disabilities. These efforts to develop 

participation outcome measures for 

people with disabilities are highly 

relevant to the applied efforts to develop 

person-centered HCBS outcome 

measures. 

These and other Federal and state 

efforts provide a strong foundation for 

further research on and development of 

person-centered HCBS outcomes 

measures and measurement systems that 

assess and promote community living, 

independent living and social 

integration of HCBS users. Accordingly, 

NIDILRR aims to support a 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Center on Outcomes Measurement for 

Home and Community Based Services. 

This RRTC will conduct research and 

development activities in this critical 

area and will serve as a national 

resource center on HCBS outcomes 

measurement for Federal and state-level 

policymakers, people with disabilities 

and other key stakeholders. 

References 

Booth, M., Fralich, J. (2006). Performance 

Measurement: Managing and Using 

Home and Community-Based Services 

Data for Quality Improvement. 

University of Southern Maine: Muskie 

School of Public Service. http://

muskie.usm.maine.edu/Publications/

DA/Performance-MeasurementHCBS.pdf. 

Commission on Long Term Care. (September 

30, 2013). Report to the Congress. http:// 

ltccommission.lmp01.lucidus.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/Commissionon-Long-Term-Care-Final-Report-9-26- 

13.pdf. 

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund 

(2013). Identifying and Selecting Long 

Term Services and Supports Outcomes 

Measures. http://dredf.org/2013- 

documents/Guide-LTSS-OutcomeMeasures.pdf. 

Eiken, Steve, et al. (2014). Medicaid 

Expenditures for Long-Term Services 

and Supports for FFY 2012. http://

www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chipprogram-information/by-topics/longterm-services-and-supports/downloads/

ltss-expenditures-2012.pdf. 

Haley, S., Gandek, B., Siebens, H., BlackSchaffer, R., Sinclair, S., Tao, W., Coster, 

W., Ni, P., & Jette, A. (2008). 

Computerized Adaptive Testing for 

Follow-Up After Discharge From 

Inpatient Rehabilitation: Participation 

Outcomes. Archives of Physical 

Medicine and Rehabilitation. 89(2): 275– 

283. 

Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., 

Whiteneck, G., Bogner, & Rodriguez, E. 

(2008). What Does Participation Mean? 

An Insider Perspective From People 

With Disabilities. Disability and 

Rehabilitation. 30(19): 1445–1460. 

Heinemann, A. (2010). Measurement of 

Participation in Rehabilitation Research. 

Archives of Physical Medicine and 

Rehabilitation. 91(9): S1–S4. 

Karon, S., and Schlaak, M. (2012). PEONIES 

Member Interviews, State Fiscal Year 

2012, Final Report. Madison, WI: Center 

for Health Systems Research and 

Analysis. http://www.chsra.wisc.edu/

peonies/documents/PEONIES%20Final

%20Report%20SFY2012%20-%20

rev%2011-9-2012.pdf. 

Kaye, H. Stephen. Toward a Model LongTerm Services and Supports System: 

State Policy Elements. The Gerontologist. 

(October 2014). http://gerontologist.

oxfordjournals.org/content/54/5/754.

full.pdf+html. 

National Quality Forum (2015). Home and 

Community Based Services Quality. 

http://www.qualityforum.org/Project

Description.aspx?projectID=77692. 

National Quality Forum, ‘‘Measuring 

Healthcare Quality for the Dual Eligible 

Beneficiary Population, Measure 

Application Partnership, Final Report to 

HHS,’’ June, 2012. 

Walker, N., Mellick, D., Brooks, CA, 

Whiteneck, G. (2003). Measuring 

Participation Across Impairment Groups 

Using the Craig Handicap Assessment 

Reporting Technique. American Journal 

of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 

82(12): 936–941. 

Whiteneck, G., & Dijkers, M. (2009). Difficult 

to Measure Constructs. Conceptual and 

Methodological Issues Concerning 

Participation and Environmental Factors. 

Archives of Physical Medicine and 

Rehabilitation. 90(11) S22–S35. 

Wisconsin Department of Health Services 

(2014). Measuring Person-Centered 

Quality. November 11, 2014: https://

www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/familycare/

reports/peonies.htm. 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13572 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 

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 ‘‘scalingup’’ an intervention to other sites and 

contexts. This stage of research can 

include assessing the training needed 

for wide-scale implementation of the 

intervention, and approaches to 

evaluation of the intervention in real 

world applications. 

(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 realworld setting. During this stage of 

research, a project tests the outcomes of 

an evidence-based intervention in 

different settings. It examines the 

challenges to successful replication of 

the intervention, and the circumstances 

and activities that contribute to 

successful adoption of the intervention 

in real-world settings. This stage of 

research may also include well-designed 

studies of an intervention that has been 

widely adopted in practice, but that 

lacks a sufficient evidence-base to 

demonstrate its effectiveness. 

Proposed Priority 

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 Outcomes Measurement for Home 

and Community Based Services. The 

RRTC will engage in research, 

development, and testing of measures to 

assess the quality of HCBS in terms of 

the person-centered outcomes achieved 

by people with disabilities who use the 

services in home and community 

settings. The RRTC will also engage in 

knowledge translation, development of 

informational products, and 

dissemination to enhance the field’s 

capacity to measure the extent to which 

HCBS leads to improved outcomes in 

community living and independent 

living areas that are important to people 

with disabilities and other stakeholders. 

Ultimately, the RRTC’s development of 

non-medical, person-centered outcome 

measures is intended to inform the 

design, implementation, and continuous 

improvement of Federal and state 

policies and programs related to the 

delivery of HCBS to people with 

disabilities. The RRTC must contribute 

to these outcomes by: 

(a) Identifying or developing 

measures, and then testing the proposed 

measures to assess the person-centered 

outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities who are receiving home and 

community-based services. HCBS 

measures developed under this priority 

must be non-medical and must focus on 

the end-users’ experience of community 

living, independent living, social 

integration, community participation, 

and other similar outcomes. The 

measures developed under this priority 

must also be designed to minimize data 

collection burden on HCBS recipients. 

Possible methods for minimizing this 

burden include, but are not limited to, 

use of relevant administrative data, 

modifying administrative data to 

include person-centered goals as well as 

fields to assess progress toward those 

goals, and use of advanced item-scaling 

and person-centered measurement 

techniques that can be implemented as 

computerized adaptive tests (CAT). 

(b) Increasing incorporation of the 

RRTC’s HCBS outcome measures into 

practice and policy. The RRTC must 

contribute to this outcome by— 

(1) Working closely with NIDILRR 

and the Administration for Community 

Living (ACL) at each stage of the 

measure development and testing 

processes to ensure that its activities are 

informing and informed by other HCBS 

quality initiatives taking place within 

ACL and other relevant Federal and 

state agencies. This specifically includes 

the work taking place under the 

National Quality Forum’s work with the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (http://www.qualityforum.org/

ProjectDescription.aspx

?projectID=77692). 

(2) Developing procedures and 

mechanisms for applying HCBS 

outcome measures in policy and service 

delivery settings to maximize quality 

and appropriateness of HCBS from the 

end-user perspective. 

(3) Collaborating with stakeholder 

groups to develop, evaluate, or 

implement strategies to increase 

utilization of new HCBS outcome 

measures. Stakeholder groups include 

but, are not limited to, people with 

disabilities, Federal- and state-level 

policymakers; home and community 

based service providers; advocacy 

organizations; and Centers for 

Independent Living. 

(4) Collaborating with relevant 

NIDILRR-sponsored knowledge 

translation grantees to help promote the 

uptake of RRTC products by relevant 

stakeholders and embed the outcome 

measures into the overall health care 

measurement system. 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to person-centered 

measurement of HCBS outcomes: 

(1) Disseminating information and 

providing technical assistance related to 

HCBS outcome and quality 

measurement to policymakers, service 

providers, people with disabilities and 

their representatives, and other key 

stakeholders; and 

(2) Providing relevant and appropriate 

training, including graduate, preservice, and in-service training, to HCBS 

providers, researchers and qualitymeasurement personnel, and other 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Notices 13573 

disability service providers, to facilitate 

more effective delivery of HCBS to 

people with disabilities. This training 

may be provided through conferences, 

workshops, public education programs, 

in-service training programs, and 

similar activities. 

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 E.O. 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 E.O. 

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 E.O. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

E.O. 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under E.O. 13563, which 

supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in E.O. 12866. To the extent permitted 

by law, E.O. 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. 

E.O. 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 E.O. 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 home and 

community based services. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to E.O. 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: March 11, 2015. 

Kathy Greenlee, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05989 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

[Document Identifier: HHS–OS–0990–New– 

60D] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; Public 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the 

Secretary (OS), Department of Health 

and Human Services, announces plans 

to submit a new Information Collection 

Request (ICR), described below, to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to 

OMB, OS seeks comments from the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES