[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23032-23034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Community Living
Final Priority; National Institute on Disability, Independent
Living, and Rehabilitation Research; Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects Program
AGENCY: Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and
Human Services.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CFDA Number: 84.133A-7.
SUMMARY: The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living
announces a priority for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects (DRRPs) Program administered by the National Institute on
Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR).
Specifically, we announce a priority for a DRRP on Promoting Universal
Design in the Built Environment. 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 strengthened evidence-base
for UD standards and strategies and improved access to the built
environment for individuals with disabilities.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective May 26, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of
Health And Human Services, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-
7532 or by email: [email protected].
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 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).
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
The purpose of NIDILRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is
to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act by developing methods, procedures, and
rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent
living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities,
especially individuals with the most significant disabilities. 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, utilization, dissemination, and
technical assistance.
An applicant for assistance 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: www.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 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 differences between the proposed priority and this final
priority.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority, six parties submitted comments on the proposed
priority.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
and of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP
follows.
Comment: Two commenters noted that research on the costs of, as
well as the benefits of and savings from universal design (UD)
applications, can facilitate future adoption of UD principles. These
commenters suggested that the priority be revised to require such
research on the costs and benefits of UD.
Discussion: Paragraph (a) requires research toward developing
evidence-based practices for UD implementation. Research under this
paragraph could include analysis of the costs, benefits, and savings
associated with UD applications. Nothing in the priority precludes such
research. NIDILRR does not wish to further specify the research
requirements as suggested by the commenters and thereby limit the
breadth of research topics proposed under this priority. However, we do
agree that findings from analyses of the costs, benefits, and savings
associated with UD implementation could help facilitate further
adoption of UD principles into mainstream architecture and the
development and construction of built environments.
Changes: We have modified the priority to include analyses of the
costs, savings, and benefits of UD implementation as an optional
activity that applicants may propose. The peer
[[Page 23033]]
review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Comment: One commenter requested that NIDILRR refer to individuals
with different abilities, instead of individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: NIDILRR aims to sponsor research that is directly
applicable to, and serves, the needs of individuals with disabilities.
While we understand that UD applications are intended to be beneficial
to people with a wide range of different abilities, NIDILRR's aim is to
generate new knowledge, products, and environments that can be used to
provide full opportunities and accommodations for its citizens with
disabilities. NIDILRR's applicants and stakeholders are accustomed to
our focus on improving the outcomes of individuals with disabilities
through research and development, and we think that we should be
consistent in our terminology. Therefore we will continue to directly
refer to people with disabilities as our primary stakeholders.
Changes: None.
Comment: One Commenter suggested that NIDILRR modify the priority
to require the DRRP to engage in design and construction of practical
and tangible physical projects that incorporate and demonstrate
universal design concepts.
Discussion: NIDILRR's intended outcome of this DRRP is further
adoption of universal design principles into mainstream architecture
and the development and construction of built environments. We will
contribute to this outcome by sponsoring research, training, technical
assistance, as well as the development of new UD curricula and new UD
standards and guidelines. Through these activities we will contribute
to much wider implementation of universally designed facilities,
outdoor environments, and housing. We do not intend the DRRP's limited
resources to be used for the design or construction of a small number
of universally designed projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDILRR revise the priority
to specify that Universal Design incorporates the concept of ``healthy
indoor environmental quality'' (IEQ) to make buildings healthier for
everyone and more accessible for people with chemical or electrical
sensitivities.
Discussion: Nothing in the priority precludes applicants from
including IEQ in its conceptualization of universal design, or in its
work to facilitate the further adoption of universal design principles
into the mainstream architecture and the development and construction
of built environments. However, NIDILRR does not have a sufficient
basis for further specifying the purposefully broad, long-standing
principles of UD that the DRRP is intended to promote.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that NIDILRR modify the priority
to include specific reference to the ``Goals of Universal Design,'' as
published by Steinfeld and Maisel in 2012. This commenter suggested
that these goals can be used by the DRRP to define and measure outcomes
of UD practice and to frame the transfer of knowledge about UD into
practice.
Discussion: The intended outcome of this priority is to expand UD
practice into the mainstream of design, architecture, and construction
of built environments. Nothing in the priority precludes applicants
from using the ``Goals of Universal Design'' to frame or guide their
work toward this outcome. However, NIDILRR does not wish to further
specify the conceptual or measurement framework that is to be used by
the DRRP, because we do not want to limit the breadth of approaches
that various applicants may propose to meet this critical need. The
peer review process will determine the merits of each proposal.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living
establishes a priority for a DRRP on Promoting Universal Design in the
Built Environment.
The intended outcome of the DRRP on Universal Design is further
adoption of universal design principles into mainstream architecture
and the development and construction of built environments. The DRRP
must contribute to this outcome by:
(a) Conducting research activities toward developing evidence-based
practices for UD implementation in commercial and private facilities,
outdoor environments, and housing. This research may include analyses
of the costs, benefits, and savings associated with universal design
implementation.
(b) Creating measurable UD standards and guidelines to facilitate
the implementation of UD principles in commercial and private
facilities, outdoor environments, and housing.
(c) Developing and promoting curricula on UD for university-level
architecture, engineering, and design students.
(d) Providing training and technical assistance to designers,
architects, and builders to incorporate UD principles and features into
their buildings, projects, and communities.
(e) Providing training and technical assistance to NIDILRR's
engineering and assistive technology grantees to incorporate UD
strategies and standards into development projects serving the needs of
individuals with disabilities and the broader population.
(f) Partnering with relevant stakeholders in carrying out all DRRP
activities. Stakeholders include but are not limited to: individuals
with disabilities, professional organizations that teach design
principles, researchers, engineers, planners, designers, developers,
architects, and builders.
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 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 75); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over an application of comparable
merit that does not meet the priority (45 CFR 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 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
[[Page 23034]]
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 DRRP 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 21, 2015.
John Tschida,
Director, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and
Rehabilitation Research.
[FR Doc. 2015-09606 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P