21418 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and to determine whether a radius has been 

removed or damaged. 

(i) If gouging or scratches are found, before 

further flight, burnish or blend the gouges 

and scratches. 

(ii) If the radius has been removed or 

damaged, before further flight, restore the 

radius. 

(2) Do an ultrasound inspection to measure 

the dimensions of the lower coupe rails. 

(i) If the coupe rail has an ‘‘X’’ dimension 

of 0.246 (6.248 millimeters (mm)) or greater, 

and a ‘‘Y’’ dimension of 0.148 (3.759 mm) or 

greater, before further flight, identify the 

coupe rail, in accordance with table 1 of 

Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 

40–56–03, Revision 1, dated October 15, 2012 

(for S/Ns 45–2000 through 45–2120 

inclusive, and S/Ns 45–2122 through 45– 

2130 inclusive); or Bombardier 

Recommended Service Bulletin 45–56–3, 

Revision 1, dated October 15, 2012 (for S/Ns 

45–005 through 45–427 inclusive). 

(ii) If the coupe rail has an ‘‘X’’ dimension 

between 0.246 (6.248 mm) and 0.166 (4.216 

mm) or a ‘‘Y’’ dimension between 0.148 

(3.759 mm) and 0.134 (3.403 mm), before 

further flight, identify the coupe rail, in 

accordance with table 2 of Bombardier 

Recommended Service Bulletin 40–56–03, 

Revision 1, dated October 15, 2012 (for S/Ns 

45–2000 through 45–2120 inclusive, and S/ 

Ns 45–2122 through 45–2130 inclusive); or 

Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 

45–56–3, Revision 1, dated October 15, 2012 

(for S/Ns 45–005 through 45–427 inclusive). 

(iii) If any coupe rail ‘‘X’’ dimension is 

below 0.166 (4.216 mm) or ‘‘Y’’ dimension is 

below 0.134 (3.403 mm), before further flight, 

replace that coupe rail with a new coupe rail. 

(3) Do a flange and radius eddy current 

inspection for cracks of the left-hand and 

right-hand lower coupe rails. 

(i) If no crack is found, before further flight, 

mark the new data plate. 

(ii) If any crack is found, before further 

flight, replace the coupe rail with a new 

coupe rail. 

(h) Maintenance/Inspection Program 

Revision 

Within 30 days after the effective date of 

this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection 

program, as applicable, by incorporating the 

applicable inspection reference number (IRN) 

tasks identified in table 1 to this paragraph, 

as specified in Chapter 4, Airworthiness 

Limitations, of the applicable maintenance 

manual specified in table 1 to this paragraph. 

The initial task compliance time is the 

applicable initial compliance time specified 

in table 1 to this paragraph, or within 30 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (h) OF THIS AD—IRN TASK REVISION

Model— IRN— Initial Compliance Time— Chapter 4 of— 

Model 40 airplanes .......... U5323167 Within 600 flight hours or 36 months, whichever 

occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

Bombardier Learjet 40 Maintenance Manual MM– 

105, Revision 25, dated June 11, 2012. 

Model 40 airplanes .......... U5323168 Within 5,000 flight hours after accomplishment of 

Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 40– 

56–03, Revision 1, dated October 15, 2012.

Bombardier Learjet 40 Maintenance Manual MM– 

105, Revision 25, dated June 11, 2012. 

Model 45 airplanes .......... U5323167 Within 600 flight hours or 36 months, whichever 

occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

Bombardier Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual MM– 

104, Revision 57, dated June 11, 2012. 

Model 45 airplanes .......... U5323168 Within 5,000 flight hours after accomplishment of 

Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 45– 

56–3, Revision 1, dated October 15, 2012.

Bombardier Learjet 45 Maintenance Manual MM– 

104, Revision 57, dated June 11, 2012. 

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals 

After accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative 

IRN task or interval may be used unless the 

IRN task or interval is approved as an 

alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 

Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, KS 67209; 

phone: 316–946–4152; fax: 316–946–4152; 

email: paul.chapman@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet 

Way, Wichita, KS 67209–2942; telephone 

316–946–2000; fax 316–946–2220; email 

ac.ict@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http:// 

www.bombardier.com. You may view the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 1, 

2014. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08605 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0018] 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program—Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Centers 

[CFDA Number: 84.133E–4.] 

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 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this 

notice proposes a priority for a 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Center (RERC) on Improving the 

Accessibility, Usability, and 

Performance of Technology for 

Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of 

Hearing. We take this action to focus 

research attention on areas of national 

need. We intend to use this priority to 

improve rehabilitation services and 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 16, 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21419 

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, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5142, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2700. 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 LongRange 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. 

The Plan identifies a need for research 

and training in a number of areas, 

including issues related to individuals 

with hearing impairments. To address 

this need, 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 a priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for competitions 

in FY 2014 and possibly in later years. 

NIDRR is under no obligation to make 

awards for this priority. The decision to 

make an award will be based on the 

quality of applications received and 

available funding. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priority, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific topic that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this proposed priority in Room 

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 Engineering Research 

Centers (RERCs) Program 

The purpose of NIDRR’s RERCs 

program, which is funded through the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program, is to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act. 

It does so by conducting advanced 

engineering research, developing and 

evaluating innovative technologies, 

facilitating service delivery system 

changes, stimulating the production and 

distribution of new technologies and 

equipment in the private sector, and 

providing training opportunities. RERCs 

seek to solve rehabilitation problems 

and remove environmental barriers to 

improvements in employment, 

community living and participation, 

and health and function outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities. 

The general requirements for RERCs 

are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part 

350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers Does the Secretary 

Assist?). 

Additional information on the RERCs 

program can be found at: www.ed.gov/ 

rschstat/research/pubs/index.html. 

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

764(b)(3). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

Proposed Priority 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

Improving the Accessibility, Usability, 

and Performance of Technology for 

Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of 

Hearing. 

Background 

The World Health Organization 

(WHO) defines hearing loss as the 

inability to hear sounds of 25 decibels 

(dB) or less. According to this 

definition, one in five Americans over 

the age of 12 has hearing loss in at least 

one ear (Lin, et al., 2011). This figure 

translates to roughly 48 million 

Americans, and the number is expected 

to rise as the population ages (Lin, et al., 

2011). Hearing loss can affect people’s 

lives in a number of areas, including 

education, transition from school to 

work, employment, participation in the 

community, and general social and 

emotional well-being (Kochkin, 2010b). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21420 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

However, successful auditory 

enhancement technologies have been 

shown to improve the quality of life for 

people with hearing loss (Fellinger, et 

al., 2012; Kochkin, 2010b). 

Research and development of 

technologies that address hearing loss 

has produced advances in areas such as 

digital and wireless hearing aids, 

assistive technologies, cochlear and 

middle ear implants, and aural 

rehabilitation; however, research and 

development needs remain. For 

example, research has indicated that 

while 95 percent of people with hearing 

loss can benefit from hearing aids, only 

an estimated 20 to 25 percent actually 

use them (Fischer, et al., 2011). 

Commonly cited technology limitations 

that negatively affect overall consumer 

satisfaction ratings with hearing aids 

include difficulty with volume control, 

reduced benefit in noisy environments, 

and insufficient transferability across 

settings (Kochkin, 2010a). 

Research and development is needed 

in other areas as well. Assistive 

listening devices (e.g., FM systems, 

infrared systems, and audio induction 

loop systems) have significant 

limitations in their portability, usability, 

and performance, particularly during 

group discussions (Harkins & Tucker, 

2007). More research and development 

is needed on cochlear and middle ear 

implants to optimize performance and 

benefits in a variety of settings 

(Peterson, et al., 2010). 

In addition to technologies that 

address the physiological challenges of 

hearing loss, other technologies exist 

that focus on improving access to 

auditory information through alternate 

methods. For example, captioning 

technology provides access to the 

auditory content of multimedia for 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing through a simultaneous display 

of text and sound or pictures (Wald, 

2010). This kind of technology can be 

used in multiple formats (e.g., prerecorded or real-time) and in a variety 

of entertainment, educational, 

workplace, community, and recreational 

settings; however, there are cost and 

time considerations for manual 

captioning. Research indicates that 

automatic speech recognition 

technology may address some of these 

considerations, but concerns remain 

regarding accuracy of this software 

(Wald, 2010). For all the reasons cited 

above, NIDRR seeks to fund an RERC to 

develop, refine, and evaluate 

technologies for individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing. 

References 

Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., & Pollard, R. 

(2012). Mental health of deaf people. The 

Lancet, 379, 1037–1044. 

Fischer, M., Cruickshanks, K.J., Wiley, T., 

Klein, B.E.K., Klein, R., & Tweed, T.S. (2011). 

Determinants of hearing aid acquisition in 

older adults. American Journal of Public 

Health, 101(8), 1449–1455. 

Harkins, J., & Tucker, P. (2007). An internet 

survey of individuals with hearing loss 

regarding assistive listening devices. Trends 

in Amplification, 11(2), 91–100. 

Kochkin, S. (2010a). MarkeTrak VIII: 

Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is 

slowly increasing. Hearing Journal, 63(1), 19– 

24. 

Kochkin, S. (2010b). MarkeTrak VIII: The 

efficacy of hearing aids in achieving 

compensation equity in the workplace. 

Hearing Journal, 63(10), 19–26. 

Lin, F.R., Niparko, J.K., & Ferrucci, L. 

(2011). Hearing loss prevalence in the United 

States. Archives of Internal Medicine, 

171(20), 1851–1853. 

Peterson, N.R., Pisoni, D.B., & Miyamoto, 

R.T. (2010). Cochlear implants and spoken 

language processing abilities: Review and 

assessment of the literature. Medicine, 

Clinical Neurology and Exercise & 

Occupational Therapy, 28(2), 237–250. 

Wald, M. (2010). Synote: Accessible and 

Assistive Technology Enhancing Learning for 

All Students. ICCHP 2010, Part II, LNCS 

6180, 177–184. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes the following priority for the 

establishment of a Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center (RERC) on 

Improving the Accessibility, Usability, 

and Performance of Technology for 

Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of 

Hearing. The RERC must focus on 

innovative technological solutions, new 

knowledge, and concepts that will 

improve the lives of individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing. 

Under this priority, the RERC must 

research, develop, and evaluate 

technologies, methods, and systems that 

will improve the accessibility, usability, 

and performance of technologies that 

benefit individuals who are deaf or hard 

of hearing. This includes: 

(a) Improving technological and 

design features (e.g., device fit and 

comfort, ease of control) in order to 

maximize adoption and use of auditory 

enhancement devices; 

(b) Improving the compatibility of 

auditory enhancement technologies 

with other technologies such as mobile 

devices, telephones, televisions and 

other media devices); 

(c) Improving the performance of 

auditory enhancement devices and 

other access-promoting technology (e.g., 

voice to sign computer, smart phone 

applications, or portable real-time 

captioning applications) in social 

environments (e.g., school, work, 

recreation, and entertainment); and 

(d) Enhancing aural rehabilitation and 

consumer involvement strategies (e.g., 

online access to peer and expert input 

on auditory technologies and 

communication strategies, consumer 

focus groups and surveys, and consumer 

beta testing and review of products) to 

maximize access to auditory 

information in a variety of settings (e.g, 

educational, recreational, community, 

and workplace). The RERC must involve 

key stakeholders in the design and 

implementation of RERC activities. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21421 

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 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 proposed 

priority is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

proposed priority have been completed 

successfully. Establishing new RERCs 

based on the proposed priority would 

generate new knowledge through 

research and development and improve 

the lives of individuals with disabilities. 

The RERC that would be established 

under this proposed priority would 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that would 

improve the options for individuals 

with disabilities to fully participate in 

their communities. 

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: April 10, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08559 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0366; FRL–9909–48– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Particulate Matter Limitations for 

Coating Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The particulate 

matter (PM) rules that were submitted 

consist of emission control requirements 

for coating operations along with 

exemptions from certain coating 

operations that produce minimal PM 

emissions. EPA is also proposing to take 

no action on one section submitted by 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1