```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13597-13600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04695]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[CFDA Number: 84.133B-9.]

Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Center

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the Rehabilitation 
Research and Training Center (RRTC) Program administered by the 
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 
Specifically, this notice proposes a priority for an RRTC on Community 
Living and Participation for Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities. 
The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in 
fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. We take this action to focus 
research attention on an area of national need. We intend the priority 
to contribute to improved community living and participation for 
individuals with psychiatric disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Marlene Spencer, 
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5133, 
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700.
    If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following 
address: marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must include the phrase ``Proposed 
Priority for Community Living and Participation for Individuals with 
Psychiatric Disabilities'' in the subject line of your electronic 
message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene Spencer. 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: This notice of proposed priority is in 
concert with NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was 
published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), 
can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
    Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve 
the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) 
foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training methods to 
facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique 
needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best 
strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for 
underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify 
mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate 
findings.
    This notice proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for one 
or more competitions in FY 2013 and possibly later years. However, 
nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if 
needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award 
using this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the 
quality of applications received and available funding.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this proposed priority in room 5133, 550 12th Street 
SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and 
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related 
activities, including international activities, to develop methods, 
procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full 
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, 
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals 
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe 
disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized 
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

    The purpose of the RRTCs, which are funded through the Disability 
and

[[Page 13598]]

Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to achieve the 
goals of the Rehabilitation Act through advanced research, training, 
technical assistance, and dissemination activities in general problem 
areas, as specified by NIDRR. These activities are designed to benefit 
rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, and 
the family members or other authorized representatives of individuals 
with disabilities. Additional information on the RRTC program can be 
found at: www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.

    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 Community Living and Participation for Individuals with 
Psychiatric Disabilities.
    Background:
    NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that will generate new knowledge about 
community living and participation for individuals with psychiatric 
disabilities and serve as a national resource center for individuals 
with psychiatric disabilities\1\ and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Population studies use a variety of terms to describe 
psychiatric disabilities, including ``serious mental illness,'' 
``mental health disorder,'' and ``psychiatric disability.'' In this 
notice we use the term ``psychiatric disability,'' except where 
quoting specific population studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mental health disorders are one of the leading causes of disability 
in the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
2010) with an estimated 13 million adults (approximately 1 in 17) 
diagnosed with a seriously debilitating mental illness. Individuals 
with psychiatric disabilities include individuals from diverse 
geographic, cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds, as well 
as people who may have additional physical, mental, or sensory 
disabilities (Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard, 2012; Gamm, Stone, & 
Pittman, 2010; Metraux, Caplan, Klugman, & Hadley, 2007).
    Most individuals with psychiatric disabilities today live in 
community settings--a result of the deinstitutionalization movement of 
the 1960s to 1980s, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and 
the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision (National Council on 
Disability, 2008; Nelson, 2010; Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999); 
Salzer, Kaplan, & Atay, 2006). However, despite moving into community 
settings, many individuals with psychiatric disabilities continue to 
experience segregation, isolation, stigma, and unequal access in areas 
such as housing, employment, education, transportation, recreation, 
health, safety, and family life (National Council on Disability, 2008; 
Stephan, 2009).
    Research has shown that individuals with psychiatric disabilities 
tend to live disproportionately in the poorest neighborhoods, often 
with limited access to community resources and in settings that do not 
adequately promote dignity and independence (Metraux, Brusilovskiy, 
Prvu-Bettger, Wong, & Salzer, 2012; Metraux, Caplan, Klugman, & Hadley, 
2007; National Council on Disability, 2008; Nelson, 2010). Parents with 
psychiatric disabilities continue to struggle for custody rights of 
their children (National Council on Disability, 2012; Callow, Buckland, 
& Jones, 2011). Individuals with psychiatric disabilities from diverse 
cultural and linguistic backgrounds continue to encounter barriers and 
ineffective approaches to prevention, treatment, and community 
inclusion (Hernandez, Nesman, Mowery, Acevedo-Polakovich, & Callejas, 
2009). Individuals with psychiatric disabilities also have high rates 
of unemployment, yet disability-related income support programs create 
disincentives to work (National Council on Disability, 2008). Finally, 
an important part of community living is staying safe during 
emergencies such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks, yet there 
is very little research on effective emergency preparedness, 
mitigation, response, or recovery for individuals with psychiatric 
disabilities (National Council on Disability, 2006; National Council on 
Disability, 2011).

References

Callow, E., Buckland, K., & Jones, S. (2011). Parents with 
disabilities in the United States: Prevalence, perspectives, and a 
proposal for legislative change to protect the right to family in 
the disability community. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil 
Rights, 17(1), 9-41.
Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., & Pollard, R. (2012). Mental health of 
deaf people. The Lancet, 379, 1037-1044.
Gamm, L., Stone, S., & Pittman, S. (2010). Mental health and mental 
disorders--A rural challenge: A literature review. Rural Healthy 
People, 97-113.
Hernandez, M., Nesman, T., Mowery, D., Acevedo-Polakovich, I.D., & 
Callejas, L.M. (2009). Cultural competence: A literature review and 
conceptual model for mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 
60(8), 1046-1050.
Metraux, S., Brusilovskiy, E., Prvu-Better, J.A., Wong, Y.I., & 
Salzer, M. (2012). Geographic access to and availability of 
community resources for persons diagnosed with severe mental 
illness. Health and Place, 18, 621-629.
Metraux, S., Caplan, J.M., Klugman, D., & Hadley, T.R. (2007). 
Assessing residential segregation among Medicaid recipients with 
psychiatric disability in Philadelphia. Journal of Community 
Psychology, 35(2), 239-255.
National Council on Disability (2006). The needs of people with 
psychiatric disabilities during and after Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita: Position paper and recommendations. Washington, DC: Author. 
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/peopleneeds.htm. Accessed 
January 4, 2013.
National Council on Disability (2008). Inclusive livable communities 
for people with psychiatric disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. 
www.ncd.gov/publications/2008/03172008. Accessed January 4, 2013.
National Council on Disability (2011). National disability policy: A 
progress report. Washington, DC: Author. www.ncd.gov/progress_reports/Oct312011. Accessed January 4, 2013.
National Council on Disability (2012). Rocking the cradle: Ensuring 
the rights of parents with disabilities and their children. 
Washington, DC: Author. www.ncd.gov/publications/2012/Sep272012/. 
Accessed January 4, 2013.
Nelson, G. (2010). Housing approaches for people with serious mental 
illness: Approaches, evidence, and transformative change. Journal of 
Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXVII (4), 123-146.
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
Salzer, M., Kaplan, K., & Atay, J. (2006). State psychiatric 
hospital census after the 1999 Olmstead decision: Evidence of 
decelerating deinstitutionalization. Psychiatric Services, 57(10), 
1501-1504.
Stephan, S. (2009). Beyond residential segregation: The application 
of Olmstead to segregated employment settings. Georgia State 
University Law Review, 26 (3), Article 12.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease 
Prevention and Health Promotion (2010). Healthy People 2020. 
Washington, DC: Author. www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicId=28. Accessed January 4, 
2013.

    Definitions:
    The research that is proposed under this priority must be focused 
on one or more stages of research. If the RRTC is to conduct research 
that can be categorized under more than one research stage, or research 
that progresses from one stage to another, those research stages must 
be clearly specified. For the purposes of this priority, the stages of 
research, which we published for comment on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 
5330), are:
    (i) Exploration and Discovery means the stage of research that 
generates hypotheses or theories by conducting

[[Page 13599]]

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.
    (ii) 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 intervention 
study. Results from this stage of research may be used to inform the 
design of a study to test the efficacy of an intervention.
    (iii) Intervention Efficacy means the stage of research during 
which a project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is 
feasible, practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes 
for individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the 
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and 
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the 
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research 
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to 
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts. 
This stage of research can include assessing the training needed for 
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to 
evaluation of the intervention in real world applications.
    (iv) Scale-Up Evaluation means the stage of research during which a 
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing 
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in 
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests 
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings. 
The project 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 Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for an RRTC on Community Living and 
Participation for Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities.
    The RRTC must contribute to improving the community living and 
participation outcomes of individuals with psychiatric disabilities by:
    (a) Conducting research activities in one or more of the following 
priority areas, focusing on individuals with psychiatric disabilities 
as a group or on individuals in specific disability or demographic 
subpopulations of individuals with psychiatric disabilities:
    (i) Technology to improve community living and participation 
outcomes for individuals with psychiatric disabilities.
    (ii) Individual and environmental factors associated with improved 
community living and participation outcomes for individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities.
    (iii) Interventions that contribute to improved community living 
and participation outcomes for individuals with psychiatric 
disabilities. Interventions include any strategy, practice, program, 
policy, or tool that, when implemented as intended, contributes to 
improvements in outcomes for individuals with psychiatric disabilities.
    (iv) Effects of government practices, policies, and programs on 
community living and participation outcomes for individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities.
    (v) Practices and policies that contribute to improved community 
living and participation outcomes for transition-aged youth with 
psychiatric disabilities;
    (b) Focusing research on one or more specific stages of research. 
If the RRTC plans to conduct research that can be categorized under 
more than one of the research stages, or research that progresses from 
one stage to another, those stages must be clearly specified. These 
stages and their definitions are provided in the Definitions section of 
this notice; and
    (c) Serving as a national resource center related to community 
living and participation for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, 
their families, service and support providers, and other stakeholders 
by conducting knowledge translation activities that include, but are 
not limited to:
    (i) Providing information and technical assistance to service 
providers, individuals with psychiatric disabilities and their 
representatives, and other key stakeholders;
    (ii) Providing training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to rehabilitation service providers and other 
disability service providers, to facilitate more effective delivery of 
services to individuals with psychiatric disabilities. This training 
may be provided through conferences, workshops, public education 
programs, in-service training programs, and similar activities;
    (iii) Disseminating research-based information and materials 
related to community living and participation for individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities;
    (iv) Involving key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted 
under paragraph (a) in order to maximize the relevance and usability of 
the new knowledge generated by the RRTC.
    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 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.

[[Page 13600]]

    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 referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, 
the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with 
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects 
and Centers Program have been well established over the years. Projects 
similar to the RRTC 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.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts 
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. 
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: February 25, 2013.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-04695 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```