11742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(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 

these proposed priorities are 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 RRTCs have been 

completed successfully, and the 

proposed priorities will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RRTCs 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 26, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04644 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[ CFDA Number: 84.133B–3.] 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Rehabilitation Research 

and Training Centers 

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 Employment for 

Individuals with Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities. We take this 

action to focus research attention on an 

area of national need. We intend for this 

priority to contribute to improved 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 2, 2014. 

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 Patricia 

Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

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: 

Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202) 245– 

6211 or by email: patricia.barrett@

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 currently approved Longmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 11743 

1According to 34 CFR 361.5(b)(11) competitive 

employment must be performed in an integrated 

setting, and must result in a wage ‘‘that is not less 

than the customary wage and level of benefits paid 

by the employer for the same or similar work 

performed by individuals who are not disabled.’’ 

Integrated setting as it refers to employment is 

defined in 34 CFR 361(b)(33) as being a setting 

where applicants or eligible individuals interact 

with non-disabled individuals . . . to the same 

extent that non-disabled individuals in comparable 

positions interact with other persons.’’ 

Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20299), 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 research findings, expertise 

and other information to advance 

knowledge and understanding of the 

needs of individuals with disabilities 

and their family members, including 

those from among traditionally 

underserved populations; (3) determine 

effective practices, programs and 

policies to improve community living 

and participation, employment and 

health and function outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities of all ages; 

(4) identify research gaps and areas for 

promising research investments; (5) 

identify and promote effective 

mechanisms for integrating research and 

practice; and (6) disseminate research 

findings to all major stakeholder groups, 

including individuals with disabilities 

and their families in formats that are 

appropriate and meaningful to them. 

This notice proposes one priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for one or more 

competitions in FY 2014 and possibly in 

later years. NIDRR is under no 

obligation to make an award under this 

priority. The decision to make an award 

will be based on the quality of 

applications received and available 

funding. NIDRR may publish additional 

priorities, as needed. 

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 

5142, 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 selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities. This 

program is also intended to improve the 

effectiveness of services authorized 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (Rehabilitation Act). 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Centers 

The purpose of the RRTCs, which are 

funded through the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program, is to achieve the goals 

of, and improve the effectiveness of, 

services authorized under the 

Rehabilitation Act through welldesigned research, training, technical 

assistance, and dissemination activities 

in important topical areas as specified 

by NIDRR. These activities are designed 

to benefit rehabilitation service 

providers, individuals with disabilities, 

family members, policymakers and 

other research stakeholders. Additional 

information on the RRTC program can 

be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/

rschstat/research/pubs/

resprogram.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 Employment for Individuals 

with Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

Background: 

Intellectual and developmental 

disabilities are defined by limitations in 

adaptive functioning associated with 

substantial intellectual or physical 

impairments first evident in childhood 

(Schalock et al., 2010; Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 

Act of 2000). It has been estimated that 

about 1 percent of working-age adults in 

the United States, or 1.96 million 

individuals, have intellectual and 

developmental disabilities (Houtenville, 

2013; Larson et al., 2001). Persons with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities want to work (U.S. Senate 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor 

and Pensions, 2011). Although there are 

no national estimates of rates of 

employment specifically for persons 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities, data from the 2008–2010 

American Community Survey 

(ACS)(U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) show 

an employment rate of only 23 percent 

among working age adults with 

cognitive disabilities, which includes 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. In the ACS 

data, an individual with a cognitive 

disability is a person with a physical, 

mental, or emotional condition that 

results in serious difficulty with 

concentration, memory, or decisionmaking. 

For the population of individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities who are employed in 

integrated community employment 

settings, other research has shown that 

they work an average of only 15 to 20 

hours per week, typically at or only 

slightly above minimum wage (Human 

Services Research Institute, 2011). 

According to data gathered from a 

national survey of State intellectual and 

developmental disabilities agencies, 

significantly higher numbers of persons 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities participate in facility based 

work and non-work settings than in 

integrated competitive employment.1

Data reported by these agencies show 

that of the total 566,188 individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities in integrated employment, 

sheltered employment, and non-work 

settings in 2010, only 19 percent were 

in integrated, competitive employment 

(Butterworth et al., 2012). The reported 

number of individuals in integrated, 

competitive employment is virtually 

unchanged over the past few decades 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(Migliore et al., 2007; Butterworth et al., 

2012). 

Researchers, advocates, policy 

makers, and providers of vocational 

rehabilitation and other employment 

services are seeking ways to improve 

employment outcomes and earned 

income for persons with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. Research has 

identified a number of practices 

associated with successful employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities, including customized, 

person-centered job development and 

training; on-job coaching by 

professionals and co-workers; and 

computer technologies that guide, 

monitor, and provide quality control for 

specific work activities (Claes et al., 

2010; McInnes et al., 2008; Van 

Laarhoven et al., 2009). 

Research and development programs 

have developed and validated a number 

of effective job development, placement, 

and support practices for persons with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. Through these practices 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities can and do 

make valuable contributions to their 

employers and to their communities 

(Olson et al., 2001; Storey, 2003; 

Wehman, 2007; Hendricks, 2010). 

However, as the low employment 

statistics, the high reliance on nonintegrated work, and the low numbers of 

hours worked demonstrate, significant 

challenges remain. Among those 

challenges are: Increasing knowledge 

about effective ways to prepare persons 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities in their homes, schools, and 

communities for competitive integrated 

work; effectively bundling individual 

practices and experiences associated 

with desirable employment outcomes 

into more effective programs of 

employment supports; and scaling-up 

effective practices and programs to 

provide substantially increased 

opportunities for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities to experience well-designed, 

effective employment support. In 

addition, more effective methods for 

engaging employers in providing 

opportunities for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities to demonstrate their abilities 

as employees are also needed. 

NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that 

will generate new knowledge about and 

expand access to practices that will 

improve employment outcomes and 

opportunities for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities and that will serve as a 

national resource center on employment 

for these individuals, their families, 

vocational rehabilitation and other 

employment service providers, 

employers, and policymakers. 

References 

Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C., 

Migliore, A., Winsor, J., Domin, D., & 

Timmons, J. C. (2012). State data: The 

national report on employment services 

and outcomes. Retrieved from http://

statedata.info/statedatabook/img/

statedata2011_Fweb.pdf. 

Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van 

Loon, J., & Schalock, R.L. (2010). PersonCentered Planning: Analysis of Research 

and Effectiveness. Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities, 48(6), pp. 

432–453. 

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and 

Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 

402). 

Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S. 

(2013). Disability Statistics from the 2011 

American Community Survey (ACS). 

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Employment and Disability Institute 

(EDI). Retrieved from 

www.disabilitystatistics.org. 

Hendricks, D. (2010). Employment and adults 

with autism spectrum disorders: 

Challenges and strategies for success. 

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 

32(2), 125–134. 

Houtenville, A. (2013). Annual Compendium 

of Disability Statistics. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire, Institute 

on Disability. Retrieved from: http://

www.disabilitycompendium.org/

compendium-statistics/population-andprevelance/1-10-civilians-ages-18-64- 

years-living-in-the-community-for-the-us-cognitive-disability 

Human Services Research Institute (2011). 

National Core Indicators: Adult 

Consumer Survey 2010–2011. 

Cambridge, MA. 

Larson, S.A., Lakin, K.C., Anderson, L., Lee, 

N.K., Lee, J.K., & Anderson, D. (2001). 

Prevalence of mental retardation and 

developmental disabilities: Estimates 

from the 1994/1995 National Health 

Interview Survey Disability 

Supplements. American Journal on 

Mental Retardation, 106(3), 231–252. 

McInnes, M.M., Ozturk, O.D., McDermott, S., 

& Mann, H. (2008). Does Job Coaching 

Work?: Evidence from South Carolina. 

SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://

ssrn.com/abstract=1113170. 

Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossi, T., & Rogan, 

P. (2007). Integrated employment or 

sheltered workshops: Preferences of 

adults with intellectual disabilities, their 

families, and staff. Journal of Vocational 

Rehabilitation, 26(1), 5–19. 

Olson, D., Cioffi, A., Yovanoff, P., & Mank, 

D. (2001). Employers’ perceptions of 

employees with mental retardation. 

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 

16(2), 125–133. 

Storey, K. (2003). A review of research on 

natural support interventions in the 

workplace for people with disabilities. 

International Journal of Rehabilitation 

Research, 26(2), 79–84. 

Van Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J.W., Van 

Laarhoven-Myers, T., Grider, K.L., & 

Grider, K.M. (2009). The effectiveness of 

using a video iPod as a prompting device 

in employment settings. Journal of 

Behavioral Education, 18(2), pp. 119– 

141. 

Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A., 

Bradley, V.J., Buntinx, W.H.E., Coulter, 

D.L., Craig, E.M., Gomez, S.C., 

Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R., Reeve, A., 

Shogren, K.A., Snell, M.E., Spreat, S., 

Tasse, M.J., Thompson, J.R., VerdugoAlonso, M.A., Wehmeyer, M.L., & 

Yeager, M.H. (2010). Intellectual 

disability: Definition, classification, and 

systems of supports (11th ed.). 

Washington, DC: American Association 

on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

U.S. Census Bureau, (2011). 2008–2010 

Disability Employment Tabulation. 

American Community Survey. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. (http://

www.census.gov/people/

disabilityemptab/data) 

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor and Pensions, (2011). Full 

committee hearing–improving 

employment opportunities for persons 

with intellectual disabilities. Retrieved 

from http://www.help.senate.gov/

hearings/hearing/?id=536891af-5056- 

9502-5d9c-9a3e588e3214. 

Wehman, P. (2007). Real work for real pay: 

Inclusive employment for people with 

disabilities. Paul H Brookes Pub Co. 

Definitions 

Stages of Research: For purposes of 

this priority, the stages of research are 

from the notice of final priorities and 

definitions published in the Federal 

Register on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34261). 

(i) 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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 11745 

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 ‘‘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. 

(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 realworld 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 welldesigned 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 

Employment for Individuals with 

Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

The RRTC must contribute to 

improving the employment outcomes of 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities by: 

(a) Conducting well-designed research 

activities in one or more of the 

following priority areas, focusing on 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities as a group or 

on individuals in specific disability or 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

(ii) Individual, work environment, or 

employer factors associated with 

improved employment opportunities or 

outcomes for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

Interventions include any one or 

combination of the following: strategies, 

practices, programs, policies, or tools 

that, when implemented as intended, 

contribute to improvements in 

opportunities or outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities, and may 

include interventions focused on 

individuals, families, employers, or 

service providers. 

(iv) Effects of current or modified 

government practices, policies, and 

programs on employment outcomes for 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for transition-aged youth with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

(b) Identifying and focusing its 

research on one or more specific stages 

of research, including specifically at 

least one significant evaluation project 

focused on scaling up existing validated 

employment interventions or programs 

to multiple employment settings. If the 

RRTC is 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 should be clearly specified. 

(These stages and their definitions are 

provided in the Definitions section of 

this notice.) 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to employment for 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities, their 

families, and other stakeholders by 

conducting knowledge translation 

activities that include, but are not 

limited to: 

(i) Providing information and 

technical assistance on job development 

and placement, job training and 

support, customized employment, and 

other aspects of supported employment 

to school-based transition programs, 

employment service providers, 

employers, individuals with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities and their 

representatives, and other key 

stakeholders. 

(ii) Providing training, including 

graduate, pre-service, and in-service 

training, to vocational rehabilitation, 

school-based transition programs, and 

other employment service providers, to 

achieve integrated, competitive 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. This training may be 

provided through conferences, 

workshops, public education programs, 

in-service training programs, and 

similar activities. 

(iii) Disseminating, in accessible 

formats, research-based information and 

materials related to employment for 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental 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. Such 

stakeholder groups may vary depending 

on the specific activity proposed, but 

could include representatives of 

agencies such as the State 

Developmental Disabilities program/

service agencies, State Developmental 

Disability Planning Councils, State 

Protection and Advocacy Agencies, 

State Vocational Rehabilitation 

agencies, State Employment First 

coalitions, as well as consumer 

advocacy agencies such as The Arc, 

UCP, TASH, and People First. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

these proposed priorities are 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 RRTCs have been 

completed successfully, and the 

proposed priorities will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RRTCs 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 26, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04641 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS