Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30399 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues, and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312d (regulatory documents 

covering administrative or procedural 

requirements) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this NPRM. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the proposal, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. To ensure 

the docket does not contain duplicate 

comments, commenters should send 

only one copy of written comments, or 

if comments are filed electronically, 

commenters should submit only one 

time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under DOT procedures found in 49 CFR 

part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 

44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 

44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 

46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 

47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention 

on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 

1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 2. Amend Appendix G, Section 3 by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(1). 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701 in 

Washington, DC, on May 20, 2015. 

John S. Duncan, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12816 Filed 5–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2015–OSERS–0048] 

Proposed Priority—Technical 

Assistance Center for Vocational 

Rehabilitation Agency Program 

Evaluation and Quality Assurance 

[CFDA Number: 84.263B.] 

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 under the 

Experimental and Innovative Training 

program. The Assistant Secretary may 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

use this priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We 

take this action to focus Federal 

financial assistance on an identified 

national need. We intend the priority to 

support a Training and Technical 

Assistance Center for Vocational 

Rehabilitation Agency Program 

Evaluation and Quality Assurance 

(PEQA). 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before June 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Don 

Bunuan, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5046, 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Bunuan. Telephone: (202) 245–6616 or 

by email: don.bunuan@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: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

priority. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

final priority, we urge you to identify 

clearly the specific section of the 

proposed priority 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 notice by accessing 

regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person in room 5040, 

550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, 

DC 20202–2800, 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: This program is 

designed to (a) develop new types of 

training programs for rehabilitation 

personnel and to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of these new types of 

training programs for rehabilitation 

personnel in providing rehabilitation 

services to individuals with disabilities; 

and (b) develop new and improved 

methods of training rehabilitation 

personnel so that there may be a more 

effective delivery of rehabilitation 

services by State and other 

rehabilitation agencies. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 

772(a)(1). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR parts 385 and 387. 

Proposed Priority: 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

Training and Technical Assistance 

Center for Vocational Rehabilitation 

Agency Program Evaluation and Quality 

Assurance (PEQA). 

Background: 

Federal agencies are increasingly 

being called upon to implement 

accountability systems designed to 

assess and improve the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the programs they 

administer. Legislation such as the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 have 

provided a performance management 

framework that holds Federal agencies 

accountable for achieving program 

results. 

The recently enacted Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) made major changes to improve 

accountability for performance of the 

core programs of the Federal workforce 

system, including the State Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) Services program. In 

particular, WIOA amendments to 

section 106 of the Rehabilitation Act 

eliminate the VR program’s evaluation 

standards and indicators and make the 

program subject to the common 

performance accountability measures, 

established in section 116(b) of WIOA, 

that are applicable to all core programs 

of the workforce development system. 

In addition to required evaluation 

activities under the Rehabilitation Act, 

section 116(e)(1) of WIOA requires 

States, in coordination with local boards 

and the State agencies responsible for 

the administration of the core programs, 

to conduct ongoing evaluations of 

activities carried out under such 

programs ‘‘in order to promote, 

establish, implement, and utilize 

methods for continuously improving 

core program activities in order to 

achieve high-level performance within, 

and high-level outcomes from, the 

workforce development system.’’ 

To carry out the WIOA performance 

accountability and evaluation 

requirements, State VR agencies will 

need to build their capacity to develop 

and evaluate methods to achieve highlevel performance and program 

outcomes, including the effective and 

efficient use of program resources. In 

particular, State VR agencies will need 

personnel with the knowledge and skills 

to improve agency performance 

management systems through rigorous 

program evaluation and the 

implementation of quality assurance 

systems. 

In anticipation of the increased focus 

on improving performance management, 

in 2011, the 36th Institute on 

Rehabilitation Issues (IRI) study group 

recommended that (1) the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration (RSA) work 

with the rehabilitation field to improve 

performance management systems and 

tools, and (2) State agencies embrace 

continuous improvement practices to 

properly inform public policy 

development and measurement of 

effectiveness (IRI, 2011). The 36th IRI 

described how bolstering program 

evaluation and quality assurance within 

State agencies could improve the quality 

of service delivery and better achieve 

successful employment for VR 

consumers. For example, trained 

evaluators could provide agencies with 

valuable data and analysis to use in 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30401 

planning and forecasting, to tailor 

training to meet the needs of staff, to 

evaluate staff performance, to respond 

to policy initiatives, and to monitor 

overall performance of the agency. As a 

result, State VR agencies will be more 

accountable, efficient, and successful. 

The demand for program evaluation 

and quality assurance skill development 

is also evidenced by the growing 

number of grassroots communities of 

practice. These communities of practice, 

which usually consist of VR agency 

staff, have identified that one of the 

greatest needs of State VR agencies is 

structured program evaluation training 

specifically tailored for existing staff. 

For State VR agencies, a workforce 

with skills focused on performance 

evaluation and quality assurance is 

essential. There is a demonstrated 

interest and need in the field for 

additional, structured training 

opportunities for new and existing State 

VR agency staff, and RSA believes a 

training and technical assistance center 

would be ideally suited to meet this 

need. 

Reference: 

Institute on Rehabilitation Issues 

(2011). Performance management: 

Program evaluation and quality 

assurance in vocational rehabilitation. 

Hot Springs, AR: University of Arkansas 

CURRENTS. 

Proposed Priority: 

The purpose of this proposed priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement for a 

training and technical assistance center 

that will assist State vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) agencies to improve 

performance management by building 

their capacity to carry out high quality 

program evaluations and quality 

assurance practices that promote 

continuous program improvement. 

The Training and Technical 

Assistance Center for Program 

Evaluation and Quality Assurance 

(PEQA) will assist State VR agencies in 

building this capacity through 

professional education and training of 

vocational rehabilitation evaluators. To 

this end, PEQA will: 

(a) Provide educational opportunities 

for State VR staff from recognized 

experts in program evaluation and 

quality assurance; 

(b) Develop interagency collaboration 

networks and work teams committed to 

the improvement of quality assurance 

systems and tools; and 

(c) Deliver technical, professional, 

and continuing educational support to 

State VR program evaluators. 

Project Activities: 

To meet the requirements of this 

priority, the PEQA must, at a minimum, 

conduct the following activities: 

Basic Certification Program: 

(a) Develop a one-year certificate 

program in VR program evaluation that 

will result in increasing the numbers 

and qualifications of program evaluators 

in State VR agencies. At a minimum, 

this certificate program must: 

(1) Be designed to develop key 

competencies necessary for successful 

implementation of program evaluation 

and quality assurance activities, 

including, but not limited to: 

(i) Knowledge of the State-Federal VR 

program; 

(ii) Data collection methodologies; 

(iii) Data analysis and interpretation; 

(iv) Making evaluative judgments and 

recommendations; 

(v) Effective communication of results 

(including presentations, drafting 

reports, and building partnerships); and 

(vi) Ethical practice. 

(2) Be responsive to the prior 

knowledge and skills of participants; 

(3) Incorporate adult learning 

principles and opportunities for practice 

into training; 

(4) Be delivered through multiple 

modalities and in an accessible format; 

(5) Assess, at regular intervals, the 

progress of training participants toward 

attainment of the key competencies; and 

(6) Require the completion of a 

capstone project in order to successfully 

complete the program. The capstone 

project must: 

(i) Be completed within one year of 

the completion of formal coursework for 

the certificate program; 

(ii) Be conducted on a topic 

responsive to the needs of the State VR 

agency and agreed to by the PEQA, the 

participant, and the State VR agency; 

and 

(iii) Be completed as part of the 

normal work duties of the participant in 

the State VR agency. 

(7) Be provided at no cost to 

participants, excluding travel and per 

diem costs, which may be provided by 

the sponsoring agency. 

(b) Provide training through the 

certificate program to a cohort of eight 

to ten working professionals in each 

year of the project. 

(c) Select participants for the 

certificate program based, in part, on the 

considered recommendation of their 

employing State VR agencies. 

Special Topical Training: 

(a) Develop a series of special training 

opportunities for intermediate-level 

program evaluators. These training 

opportunities must, at a minimum: 

(1) Be designed to develop higherlevel knowledge, skills, and abilities of 

program participants; 

(2) Be focused on a range of topics 

determined by the PEQA with input 

from State VR agencies and other 

relevant groups or organizations; 

(3) Provide opportunities for hands-on 

application of the competencies 

discussed in the trainings; 

(4) Be of sufficient duration and 

intensity to ensure that participants 

obtain the competencies discussed in 

the trainings; and 

(5) Assess the progress of program 

participants in attaining the 

competencies discussed in the trainings. 

Note: For purposes of this priority, an 

‘‘intermediate-level program evaluator’’ is a 

program evaluator working for a State VR 

agency with the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities typically expected of a professional 

who has been in such a position for at least 

five years. 

(b) Conduct no fewer than four special 

training opportunities each year of the 

project. 

Coordination Activities: 

(a) Establish a community of practice 

that will act as a vehicle for 

communication, exchange of 

information among program evaluation 

professionals, and a forum for sharing 

the results of capstone projects that are 

in progress or have been completed. 

This community of practice must be 

focused on challenges facing project 

evaluation professionals and the 

development of key competencies to 

address such challenges; 

(b) Maintain a Web site that, at a 

minimum: 

(1) Provides a central location for later 

reference and use of capstone projects, 

resources from special training 

opportunities, and other relevant 

materials; and 

(2) Ensures peer-to-peer access 

between State VR project evaluation 

professionals. 

(c) Communicate and coordinate, on 

an ongoing basis, with other relevant 

Department-funded projects and those 

supported by the Departments of Labor, 

Commerce, and Health and Human 

Services; and 

(d) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the RSA project officer and other 

RSA staff as required. 

Application Requirements: 

To be funded under this priority, 

applicants must meet the application 

and administrative requirements in this 

priority. RSA encourages innovative 

approaches to meet these requirements, 

which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance of the Project,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Address State VR agencies’ 

capacity to conduct high quality 

program evaluation and data analysis 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

activities. To address this requirement, 

the applicant must: 

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of 

emerging and best practices in program 

evaluation and quality assurance; 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

State VR and other efforts designed to 

improve evaluation and performance 

management practices. 

(2) Increase the number of program 

evaluators working in State VR agencies 

who have obtained a certificate in their 

field of work and the number and 

quality of program evaluation activities 

performed by State VR agencies. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of Project Services,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; 

(ii) A plan for how the proposed 

project will achieve its intended 

outcomes; and 

(iii) A plan for communicating and 

coordinating with relevant training 

programs and communities of practice, 

State VR agencies, and other RSA 

partners. 

(2) Use a conceptual framework to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or 

theories, as well as the presumed 

relationships or linkages among these 

variables, and any empirical support for 

this framework. 

(3) Be based on current research and 

make use of evidence-based practices. 

To meet this requirement, the applicant 

must describe: 

(i) How the current research about 

adult learning principles and 

implementation science will inform the 

proposed training; and 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and 

evidence-based practices in the 

development and delivery of its 

products and services. 

(4) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Its proposed curriculum for a 

certificate program for VR evaluation 

professionals; 

(ii) Its proposed plan for recruiting 

and selecting trainees for the 

certification program; 

(iii) Its proposed plan for collecting 

information on the impact of capstone 

projects; 

(iv) Its proposed plan for identifying, 

selecting and addressing the special 

topical program evaluation and quality 

assurance related training needs of State 

VR agency staff; 

(v) Its proposed plan for annual 

follow-up with participants in special 

training opportunities; 

(5) Develop products and implement 

services to maximize the project’s 

efficiency. To address this requirement, 

the applicant must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; and 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration. 

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Evaluation Plan,’’ how 

the proposed project will— 

(1) Measure and track the 

effectiveness of the training provided. 

To meet this requirement, the applicant 

must describe its proposed approach 

to— 

(i) Collecting data on the effectiveness 

of training activities; 

(ii) Analyzing and reporting data on 

the effectiveness of training, including 

any proposed standards or targets for 

determining effectiveness; 

(2) Collect and analyze data on 

specific and measurable goals, 

objectives, and intended outcomes of 

the project, including measuring and 

tracking the effectiveness of the training 

provided. To address this requirement, 

the applicant must describe— 

(i) Its proposed evaluation 

methodologies, including instruments, 

data collection methods, and analyses; 

(ii) Its proposed standards or targets 

for determining effectiveness; 

(iii) How it will use the evaluation 

results to examine the effectiveness of 

its implementation and its progress 

toward achieving the intended 

outcomes; and 

(iv) How the methods of evaluation 

will produce quantitative and 

qualitative data that demonstrate 

whether the project and individual 

training activities achieved their 

intended outcomes. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed project will 

encourage applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 

and experience to achieve the project’s 

intended outcomes; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Management Plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks. 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated to the project and how these 

allocations are appropriate and adequate 

to achieve the project’s intended 

outcomes, including an assurance that 

such personnel will have adequate 

availability to ensure timely 

communications with stakeholders and 

RSA; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality; 

and 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives, 

including those of State and local 

personnel, technical assistance 

providers, researchers, and policy 

makers, among others, in its 

development and operation. 

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)). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30403 

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. 

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 proposed 

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 

on 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 would 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 on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits would justify its 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 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 a grant under the 

Rehabilitation Training program have 

been established over the years through 

the successful completion of similar 

training projects funded for the purpose 

of improving the skills of State VR 

agency staff. The proposed priority 

would specifically improve the skills of 

State VR agency evaluators. A project of 

this type will be particularly beneficial 

to State VR agencies in this era of 

increased emphasis on accountability 

and program results. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

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 

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 21, 2015. 

Sue Swenson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12824 Filed 5–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS