Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 26513 

Dated: May 1, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10823 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Numbers: 84.133A–3 and 84.133A– 

9; 84.133A–4 and 84.133A–10; and 84.133A– 

5 and 84.133A–11] 

Final Priorities and Definitions—NIDRR 

DRRP—Community Living and 

Participation, Health and Function, and 

Employment of Individuals With 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces priorities and 

definitions for the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program administered by the 

National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 

Specifically, we announce priorities and 

definitions for Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) 

on Community Living and Participation 

of Individuals with Disabilities (Priority 

1), Health and Function of Individuals 

with Disabilities (Priority 2), and 

Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities (Priority 3). 

If an applicant proposes to conduct 

research under these priorities, the 

research must be focused on one of the 

four stages of research defined in this 

notice of final priorities and definitions. 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

may use these priorities and definitions 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on areas of 

national need. We intend these 

priorities to improve community living 

and participation, health and function, 

and employment outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities 

and definitions are effective June 6, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7532 or by email: 

marlene.spencer@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: 

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). 

DRRPs 

DRRPs carry out one or more of the 

following types of activities, as specified 

and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 

350.19: research, training, 

demonstration, development, 

dissemination, utilization, and technical 

assistance. An applicant under this 

program must demonstrate in its 

application how it will address, in 

whole or in part, the needs of 

individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds (34 CFR 

350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant 

may take to meet this requirement are 

found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). 

Additional information on the DRRP 

program can be found at: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/ 

res-program.html#DRRP. 

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

and 764(a). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities and definitions for this 

program in the Federal Register on 

January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5330). That 

notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing these particular priorities and 

definitions. 

There are differences between the 

notice of proposed priorities and 

definitions and this notice of final 

priorities and definitions as discussed 

in the Analysis of Comments and 

Changes section elsewhere in this 

notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priorities and definitions, seven parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes or 

suggested changes the law does not 

authorize us to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed priority 

or definitions. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in these priorities since 

publication of the notice of proposed 

priorities and definitions follows. 

DRRP on Community Living and 

Participation of Individuals With 

Disabilities (Priority 1) 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that NIDRR revise the 

priority to require applicants to include 

Family-to-Family Health Information 

Centers, Parent Training and 

Information Centers, and Centers for 

Independent Living among the 

stakeholders under paragraph (1)(d). 

Discussion: Applicants can propose 

collaboration with Family-to-Family 

Health Information Centers, Parent 

Training and Information Centers, and 

Centers for Independent Living. 

However, NIDRR does not believe that 

it should specify the stakeholders that 

applicants must involve in their 

research and development activities. 

The stakeholders recommended by the 

commenter may not be relevant to many 

of the research or development topics 

that could be proposed under this 

priority, and we do not want to limit the 

number and breadth of applications that 

could be submitted. The peer review 

process will determine the merits of 

each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters noted 

that socioeconomic barriers often 

magnify disability-related barriers to 

community living and participation. 

These commenters recommended that 

NIDRR focus this priority on the 

development of, or research on, 

interventions for improving community 

living and participation outcomes for 

low income and ethnic minority 

individuals with disabilities. 

Discussion: Applicants are free to 

specify their target population as 

individuals with disabilities who are 

ethnic minorities or who have low 

income. The priority areas under 

paragraph (a) allow applicants to specify 

target populations of individuals with 

disabilities generally or within specific 

disability or demographic groups. 

NIDRR does not want to limit the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
26514 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

number and breadth of applications 

submitted under this priority by further 

specifying the target population. The 

peer review process will determine the 

merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that NIDRR focus this 

priority on the use of social-networking 

tools to enhance community living and 

participation outcomes among people 

with disabilities. 

Discussion: Applicants are free to 

propose research or development 

projects that focus on the use of socialnetworking tools to enhance community 

living and participation among 

individuals with disabilities. A focus on 

social-networking tools could be 

proposed under many of the priority 

areas that are listed under paragraph 

(1)(a). However, we do not want to limit 

the number and breadth of applications 

submitted under this priority by 

requiring all applicants to focus their 

proposed research or development 

activities on social-networking tools. 

The peer review process will determine 

the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that NIDRR should focus 

the priority on building the evidence 

base for peer mentoring and related 

community supports that are designed 

to enhance community living and 

participation outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities. 

Discussion: Applicants are free to 

propose research or development 

projects that focus on peer mentoring 

and related community supports. A 

focus on peer mentoring and related 

community supports could be proposed 

under many of the priority areas that are 

listed under paragraph (1)(a). However, 

we do not want to limit the number and 

breadth of applications submitted under 

this priority area by requiring all 

applicants to focus their proposed 

research or development activities on 

peer mentoring or related supports. The 

peer review process will determine the 

merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Health and Function of Individuals 

With Disabilities (Priority 2) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that NIDRR revise paragraph (1)(a)(iv) to 

require applicants to focus on the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a policy 

contributing to improved health and 

function of individuals with disabilities. 

Further, the commenter suggested that 

the priority require applicants to 

conduct research on programs that 

highlight State-level implications of the 

ACA. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that 

research related to ACA implementation 

at the State level is timely and 

potentially relevant to the health and 

function outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities. Applicants are free to 

propose research related to the ACA. 

However, NIDRR does not believe it 

should require applicants to focus on 

specific policies under paragraph 

(1)(a)(iv) or specify whether the research 

should be at the local, State, or national 

level. We also do not want to limit the 

number and breadth of applications 

submitted under this priority by 

precluding research or development 

related to other policies that are relevant 

to the health and function of individuals 

with disabilities. The peer review 

process will determine the merits of 

each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: In relation to paragraph 

(1)(a)(vi) of the proposed priority, one 

commenter noted that transitions from 

pediatric to adult health care services 

and providers can be complex for youth 

with disabilities. To address this 

complexity, the commenter 

recommended that NIDRR revise the 

priority to require applicants to include 

Family-to-Family Health Information 

Centers and Centers for Independent 

Living among the stakeholders under 

paragraph (1)(d). 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that health 

care transitions may be a good topic for 

research or development activities 

under paragraph (1)(a)(vi). Applicants 

choosing to address this priority area are 

free to propose collaboration with 

Family-to-Family Health Information 

Centers and Centers for Independent 

Living. However, NIDRR does not want 

to further specify the stakeholders that 

applicants must involve in their 

research and development activities. 

The stakeholders recommended by the 

commenter may not be relevant to many 

of the research or development topics 

that could be proposed under this 

priority, and we do not want to limit the 

number and breadth of applications that 

could be submitted. The peer review 

process will determine the merits of 

each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

DRRP on Employment of Individuals 

With Disabilities (Priority 3) 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that NIDRR revise the 

priority to require applicants to include 

Parent Training and Information Centers 

and Centers for Independent Living 

among the stakeholders under 

paragraph (1)(d). 

Discussion: Applicants are free to 

propose collaboration with Parent 

Training and Information Centers and 

Centers for Independent Living. 

However, NIDRR does not believe it 

should further specify the stakeholders 

that applicants must involve in their 

research and development activities. 

The stakeholders recommended by the 

commenter may not be relevant to many 

of the research or development topics 

that could be proposed under this 

priority. We do not want to limit the 

number and breadth of applications that 

could be submitted under this priority. 

The peer review process will determine 

the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comments on all three priorities: 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the best way to improve outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities is through 

local-level collaboration and planning. 

This commenter suggested that all three 

priorities require applicants to 

collaborate with stakeholders at the 

local level, including church groups, 

volunteer organizations, and individuals 

with disabilities and their families. 

Discussion: Generally, this suggestion 

is consistent with each priority’s 

requirement that the DRRPs involve key 

stakeholder groups in their research or 

development activities. However, 

NIDRR does not believe it should 

specify that stakeholder involvement 

must occur at the local level since the 

involvement of local stakeholders might 

not be relevant to the proposed research. 

We expect applicants to involve 

stakeholders whose contributions will 

enhance the outcomes of the research 

investment. The peer review process 

will determine the merits of each 

proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

NIDRR include a priority area for 

transition-aged youth in each of the 

three proposed priorities. The 

commenter recommended that NIDRR 

revise this priority area in each priority 

to specify that transition age begins at 

14. 

Discussion: NIDRR has purposefully 

written this and other priority areas 

broadly so that applicants may specify 

the details of their proposed research or 

development projects according to their 

knowledge and expertise and the 

specific needs for knowledge that they 

see in their respective fields. We do not 

want to limit the number and breadth of 

applications submitted by defining 

transition-age too specifically. 

Applicants who respond under this 

priority area are free to specify the age 

range that defines transition-aged youth. 

The peer review process will determine 

the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 26515 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: NIDRR has determined 

that the priority area, ‘‘research, 

knowledge translation, and capacity 

building,’’ described in paragraph 

(1)(a)(v) of each of the three priorities 

does not belong in the list of possible 

priority areas in which an applicant 

may propose to conduct research or 

development activities in our fieldinitiated competitions. The other 

priority areas listed in paragraph (1)(a) 

are examples of substantive topics on 

which the project may focus its research 

or development activities. Further, 

paragraph (1)(c) already requires 

grantees to conduct knowledge 

translation activities in order to 

facilitate use of interventions, programs, 

technologies or products resulting from 

research or development activities 

supported by the project. 

Changes: NIDRR has removed 

paragraph (1)(a)(v) from each of the 

three priorities and renumbered the 

paragraph or paragraphs that follow 

accordingly. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: NIDRR is making minor 

wording adjustments to the introductory 

text of paragraph (1)(a) of each priority, 

and to the priority areas that follow the 

introductory text of paragraph (1)(a). As 

originally written, each broad topic area 

repeated the same language about the 

target audience, namely, ‘‘individuals 

with disabilities as a group or on 

individuals in specific disability or 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with disabilities.’’ This 

language was repeated subsequently in 

each of the priority areas. NIDRR is 

simplifying the priority by identifying 

the target population in the overall 

introduction and eliminating it from 

each specific priority area. 

Changes: NIDRR has amended 

paragraph (1)(a) and its subordinate 

paragraph in each of the three priorities, 

so that it is clear to applicants that they 

may focus on individuals with 

disabilities as a group or on individuals 

in specific disability or demographic 

subpopulations of individuals with 

disabilities. 

Comments on the proposed 

definitions. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that NIDRR modify the 

definitions of ‘‘intervention 

development’’ and ‘‘intervention 

efficacy’’ to emphasize that 

interventions may be more or less 

efficacious depending on the sociodemographic characteristics of the target 

population. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenter’s rational but believes that 

the proposed definitions of 

‘‘intervention development’’ and 

‘‘intervention efficacy’’ already include 

these points and thus do not need to be 

changed. For example, the definitions 

include the point that ‘‘intervention 

development’’ involves specifying target 

populations. The definitions also state 

that ‘‘intervention efficacy’’ research 

may ‘‘identify factors or individual 

characteristics that affect the 

relationship between the intervention 

and outcomes.’’ Because these 

definitions already allow for the type of 

sub-population analysis and findings 

that the commenter suggests, we are not 

making changes to these definitions. 

Changes: None. 

FINAL PRIORITIES: 

DRRPs on Community Living and 

Participation of Individuals with 

Disabilities; Health and Function of 

Individuals with Disabilities; and 

Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities. 

Note: Each of these priorities is associated 

with two CFDA numbers—one for use by 

applicants who are proposing research 

activities, and one for use by applicants who 

are proposing development activities. We 

describe the appropriate use of these CFDA 

numbers in the Notice Inviting Applications 

that is published elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register. 

Priority 1—DRRP on Community Living 

and Participation of Individuals With 

Disabilities 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for a Disability 

Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) 

on Community Living and Participation 

of Individuals with Disabilities. The 

DRRPs must contribute to the outcome 

of maximizing the community living 

and participation outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities. 

(1) To contribute to this outcome, the 

DRRP must— 

(a) Conduct either research activities 

or development activities, in one or 

more of the following priority areas, 

focusing on individuals with disabilities 

as a group or on individuals in specific 

disability or demographic 

subpopulations of individuals with 

disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved 

community living and participation 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved community living and 

participation outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. Interventions include 

any strategy, practice, program, policy, 

or tool that, when implemented as 

intended, contributes to improvements 

in outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government policies and 

programs on community living and 

participation outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved community 

living and participation outcomes for 

transition-aged youth with disabilities; 

(b) If conducting research under 

paragraph (1)(a) of this priority, focus its 

research on a specific stage of research. 

If the DRRP is to conduct research that 

can be categorized under more than one 

stage, including research that progresses 

from one stage to another, those stages 

must be clearly specified. These stages, 

exploration and discovery, intervention 

development, intervention efficacy, and 

scale-up evaluation, are defined in this 

notice; 

(c) Conduct knowledge translation 

activities (i.e., training, technical 

assistance, utilization, dissemination) in 

order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g., 

individuals with disabilities, employers, 

policymakers, practitioners) use of the 

interventions, programs, technologies, 

or products that resulted from the 

research or development activities 

conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of this 

priority; and 

(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in 

the activities conducted under 

paragraph (1)(a) of this priority in order 

to maximize the relevance and usability 

of the research or development products 

to be developed under this priority. 

Priority 2—Health and Function of 

Individuals With Disabilities 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for a Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) 

on Health and Function of Individuals 

with Disabilities. The DRRPs must 

contribute to the outcome of 

maximizing health and function 

outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities. 

(1) To contribute to this outcome, the 

DRRP must— 

(a) Conduct either research activities 

or development activities in one or more 

of the following priority areas, focusing 

on individuals with disabilities as a 

group or on individuals in specific 

disability or demographic 

subpopulations of individuals with 

disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve health and 

function outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
26516 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved access 

to rehabilitation and healthcare and 

improved health and function outcomes 

for individuals with disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved health and function outcomes 

for individuals with disabilities. 

Interventions include any strategy, 

practice, program, policy, or tool that, 

when implemented as intended, 

contributes to improvements in 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government policies and 

programs on health care access and on 

health and function outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved health and 

function outcomes for transition-aged 

youth with disabilities; 

(b) If conducting research under 

paragraph (1)(a) of this priority, focus its 

research on a specific stage of research. 

If the DRRP is to conduct research that 

can be categorized under more than one 

stage, including research that progresses 

from one stage to another, those stages 

must be clearly specified. These stages, 

exploration and discovery, intervention 

development, intervention efficacy, and 

scale-up evaluation, are defined in this 

notice; 

(c) Conduct knowledge translation 

activities (i.e., training, technical 

assistance, utilization, dissemination) in 

order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g., 

individuals with disabilities, employers, 

policymakers, practitioners) use of the 

interventions, programs, technologies, 

or products that resulted from the 

research or development activities 

conducted under paragraph (1)(a) of this 

priority; and 

(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in 

the activities conducted under 

paragraph (1)(a) of this priority in order 

to maximize the relevance and usability 

of the research or development products 

to be developed under this priority. 

Priority 3—DRRP on Employment of 

Individuals With Disabilities 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for a Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) 

on Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities. The DRRPs must contribute 

to the outcome of maximizing 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities. 

(1) To contribute to this outcome, the 

DRRP must— 

(a) Conduct either research activities 

or development activities, in one or 

more of the following priority areas, 

focusing on individuals with disabilities 

as a group or on individuals in specific 

disability or demographic 

subpopulations of individuals with 

disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

Interventions include any strategy, 

practice, program, policy, or tool that, 

when implemented as intended, 

contributes to improvements in 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government policies and 

programs on employment outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for transition-aged youth with 

disabilities. 

(vi) Vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

practices that contribute to improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities; 

(b) If conducting research under 

paragraph(1)(a) of this priority, focus its 

research on a specific stage of research. 

If the DRRP is to conduct research that 

can be categorized under more than one 

stage, including research that progresses 

from one stage to another, those stages 

must be clearly specified. These stages, 

exploration and discovery, intervention 

development, intervention efficacy, and 

scale-up evaluation, are defined in this 

notice; 

(c) Conduct knowledge translation 

activities (i.e., training, technical 

assistance, utilization, dissemination) in 

order to facilitate stakeholder (e.g., 

individuals with disabilities, employers, 

policymakers, practitioners) use of the 

interventions, programs, technologies, 

or products that resulted from the 

research activities, development 

activities, or both, conducted under 

paragraph (1)(a) of this priority; and 

(d) Involve key stakeholder groups in 

the activities conducted under 

paragraphs (1)(a) of this priority in order 

to maximize the relevance and usability 

of the research or development products 

to be developed under this priority. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

FINAL DEFINITIONS: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definition in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

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. 

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. 

Intervention efficacy means the stage 

of research during which a project 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 26517 

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. 

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. 

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 one or more of these priorities and 

definitions, 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 

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 these final priorities 

and definitions only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

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, 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. 

Summary of potential costs and 

benefits: 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years in that similar 

projects have been completed 

successfully. These final priorities and 

definitions will generate new 

knowledge through research and 

development. 

Another benefit of these final 

priorities is that establishing new 

DRRPs will improve the lives of 

individuals with disabilities. The new 

DRRPs will provide support and 

assistance for NIDRR grantees as they 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that will 

improve the options for individuals 

with disabilities to perform regular 

activities of their choice in the 

community. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
26518 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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: May 2, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of Assistant Secretary 

for Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10829 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 52 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Government Property 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99), 

revised as of October 1, 2012, on page 

411, in section 52.249–2, paragraph (i) 

of the clause is reinstated to read as 

follows: 

52.249–2 Termination for Convenience of 

the Government (Fixed-Price). 

* * * * * 

(i) The cost principles and procedures 

of part 31 of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation, in effect on the date of this 

contract, shall govern all costs claimed, 

agreed to, or determined under this 

clause. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–10955 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1501–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 120905422–3394–01] 

RIN 0648–BC50 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; Exempted Fishery for the 

Spiny Dogfish Fishery in the Waters 

East and West of Cape Cod, MA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule 

modifies the regulations implementing 

the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) to allow 

vessels fishing with a NE Federal spiny 

dogfish permit to fish in an area east of 

Cape Cod, MA (Eastern Exemption 

Area) with gillnet and longline gear, 

from June through December and with 

handgear from June through August, 

and to fish in Cape Cod Bay (Western 

Exemption Area) with longline gear and 

handgear from June through August. 

This action allows vessels to harvest 

spiny dogfish in a manner that is 

consistent with the bycatch reduction 

objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP. 

DATES: Effective June 1, 2013. 

Comments on the Western Exemption 

Area must be received no later than 5 

p.m., eastern daylight time, on June 6, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: An environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared for this 

action and other considered alternatives 

and provides an analysis of the impacts 

of the approved measures and 

alternatives. Copies of this action, 

including the EA and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

are available on request from John K. 

Bullard, Regional Administrator, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

These documents are also available 

online at http://www.nero.noaa.gov. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0195, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Written comments (paper, disk, or 

CD–ROM) should be sent to Thomas A. 

Nies, Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

Mark the outside of the envelope, 

‘‘Comments on Spiny Dogfish Exempted 

Fishery.’’ 

• Comments also may be sent via 

facsimile (fax) to (978) 465–3116. 

• Submit all electronic public 

comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal. Go to www.regulationss.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- 

0195, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments will be 

posted for public viewing as they are 

received. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9233; fax 978–281–9135; 

email: travis.ford@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Current regulations, implemented 

under Framework Adjustment 9 (60 FR 

19364, April 18, 1995) and expanded 

under Amendment 7 to the FMP (61 FR 

27710, May 31, 1996), contain a NE 

multispecies fishing mortality and 

bycatch reduction measure that is 

applied to the Gulf of Maine (GOM), 

Georges Bank (GB), and Southern New 

England Exemption Areas found in 

§ 648.80. A vessel may not fish in these 

areas unless it is fishing under a NE 

multispecies or a scallop days-at-sea 

(DAS) allocation; is fishing with 

exempted gear; is fishing under the 

Small Vessel, Handgear (A or B) or 

Party/Charter permit restrictions; or is 

fishing in an exempted fishery. The 

procedure for adding, modifying, or 

deleting fisheries from the list of 

exempted fisheries is found in § 648.80. 

A fishery may be exempted by the 

Regional Administrator (RA) if, after 

consultation with the New England 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

the RA determines, based on sufficient 

available data or information, that the 

bycatch of regulated species (the subset 

of NE multispecies that requires vessels 

to use regulated mesh) is, or can be 

reduced to, less than 5 percent by 

weight of the total catch, and that such 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES