Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Notices 21729 

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 final 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 final 

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 final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Administration for Community Living 

(ACL), Department of Health and 

Human Services believes that this 

regulatory action is consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, ACL 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 ACL’s programs and 

activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

final priority have been completed 

successfully, and the proposed priority 

will generate new knowledge through 

research. The new RRTC will generate, 

disseminate, and promote the use of 

new information that would improve 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities in the areas of community 

living and participation, employment, 

and health and function. 

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 ACL 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: April 14, 2015. 

John Tschida, 

Director, National Institute on Disability, 

Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 

Research. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09016 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Community Living 

Final 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: Final priority. 

[CFDA Number: 84.133B–3] 

SUMMARY: The Administrator of the 

Administration for Community Living 

announces 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, we 

announce a priority for an RRTC on 

Employment Policy and Measurement. 

The Administrator of the 

Administration for Community Living 

may use this priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We 

take this action to focus research 

attention on an area of national need. 

We intend for this priority to contribute 

to improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective May 20, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6211 or by email: 

patricia.barrett@acl.hhs.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

21730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Notices 

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: 

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)(A). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on February 25, 2015 

(80 FR 10099). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priority. 

There are no differences between the 

proposed priority and this final priority. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority we did not receive any 

comments on the proposed priority. 

Final Priority 

The Administrator of the 

Administration for Community Living 

establishes a priority for an RRTC on 

Employment Policy and Measurement. 

The purpose of the proposed RRTC on 

Employment Policy and Measurement 

(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 

NIDILRR-funded grantees, including 

knowledge translation grantees and 

grantees involved with employment 

research. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (45 CFR part 75). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by: (1) Awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(45 CFR part 75); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the priority over 

an application of comparable merit that 

does not meet the priority (45 CFR part 

75). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (45 

CFR part 75). 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Notices 21731 

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 final 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 final 

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 final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Administration for Community Living 

(ACL), Department of Health and 

Human Services believes that this 

regulatory action is consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, ACL 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 ACL’s programs and 

activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

final priority have been completed 

successfully, and the proposed priority 

will generate new knowledge through 

research. The new RRTC will generate, 

disseminate, and promote the use of 

new information that would improve 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities in the areas of community 

living and participation, employment, 

and health and function. 

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 ACL 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: April 14, 2015. 

John Tschida, 

Director, National Institute on Disability, 

Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 

Research. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09028 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 41050–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Community Living 

[CFDA Number: 84.133B–1] 

Final 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: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Administrator of the 

Administration for Community Living 

announces 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, we 

announce a priority for an RRTC on 

Employer Practices Leading to 

Successful Employment Outcomes for 

Individuals with Disabilities. The 

Administrator of the Administration for 

Community Living may use this priority 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on an area of 

national need. We intend for this 

priority to contribute to improved 

employment practices and successful 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective May 20, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of 

Health And Human Services, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6211 or by email: 

patricia.barrett@acl.hhs.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: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES