15928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

PART 301–PROCEDURE AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

■ Par. 3. The authority citation for part 

301 continues to read in part as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * 

§ 301.6724–1 [Amended] 

■ Par. 4. Section 301.6724–1 is 

amended by: 

■ a. Removing the language ‘‘or a 

qualified Payment Card Agent (QPCA) 

as defined in § 31.3406(g)–1(f)(2)(v) of 

this chapter,’’ from the introductory text 

of paragraph (c)(6). 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(H) 

and (f)(5)(vii). 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06209 Filed 3–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Rehabilitation Research 

and Training Centers 

CFDA Number: 84.133B–8. 

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 Family Support. 

We take this action to focus research 

attention on an area of national need. 

We intend the priority to contribute to 

improved outcomes in this area for 

individuals with disabilities and family 

members who provide assistance to 

them. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 23, 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 Marlene 

Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133, 

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. 

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 the needs of families with 

members with disabilities. 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 one priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for one or more 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and possibly 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 within 

the 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 proposed priority by 

following the instructions found under 

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

of the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Any comments 

sent to NIDRR via postal mail, 

commercial deliver, or hand delivery 

can be viewed in Room 5133, 550 12th 

Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities, to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfWREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15929 

sufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Centers 

The purpose of the RRTCs, which are 

funded through the Disability and 

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/

programs/rrtc/index.html#types 

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 Family Support. 

Background: 

For the purpose of this notice, ‘‘family 

support’’ is defined as a range of formal 

and informal support, assistance or 

nurturing provided to a family member 

with a disability by one or more other 

family members in response to 

disability-related needs, including 

needs for self-determination, 

integration, and inclusion in community 

life. Family support may include any 

disability-related support, assistance, or 

nurturing provided to a child by a 

parent, to a parent by a child, by a 

spouse to a husband or wife, by a sibling 

to another sibling, or within some other 

family relationship. ‘‘Family caregiver’’ 

refers to an individual who provides 

support, assistance, or nurturing to a 

family member with a disability. 

‘‘Family support services’’ refers to 

services and cash payments provided to 

a family caregiver who is providing 

support, assistance, or nurturing to a 

family member with disability. 

Family support is the predominant 

source of long-term services and 

supports for persons with disabilities in 

the United States (Thompson, 2004). 

Without the contributions of family 

members, the public costs and demand 

for paid personal assistance would 

increase dramatically and become 

unsustainable. Estimates of the annual 

cost of services provided by family 

members to individuals with disabilities 

range from about $335 billion (Feinberg, 

Reinhart, Houser & Choula, 2011), to 

$450 billion (White-Means & Dong, 

2012), or roughly three times the total 

State and Federal Medicaid 

expenditures for compensated long-term 

services and supports (Eiken, et al., 

2013). 

In addition to the value of the 

uncompensated hours of family direct 

support, families routinely incur 

substantial out-of-pocket expenses 

associated with a family member’s 

disability (Lewis & Johnson, 2005; Mitra 

et al., 2009). Furthermore, families that 

include at least one individual with a 

disability often experience substantial 

economic and career losses (Anderson, 

Larson, Lakin & Kwak, 2002; Parish, 

Seltzer, Greenberg & Floyd 2004; Stabile 

& Allin, 2012). Family caregivers 

experience stresses other than 

economic, including psychological 

(Traute & Heibert-Murphy, 2002), social 

(Baxter, Cummins & Yiolitis (2000), and 

health (Gallagher & Whitely, 2012) 

stresses. 

Family support is essential to the 

viability of the U.S. system of long-term 

services and supports for persons with 

disabilities. Family support services 

may include information services, 

person and family-centered planning, 

counseling, assistive devices, home 

modifications, respite care, training, 

personal care attendant and homemaker 

recruitment and training, meal services, 

cash assistance, and other supports as 

needed. 

In March 2013, the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

launched a new Community Living 

Council in support of the ‘‘Secretary’s 

Strategic Initiative to Promote 

Community Living for Older Adults and 

People with Disabilities’’ (Initiative) 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2013). The Initiative engages 

multiple HHS agencies and partners 

from other Departments to assist States 

in making their systems of Long-Term 

Services and Supports (LTSS) more 

community-based, consumer-directed, 

and outcome-focused. The Initiative 

includes major efforts to provide factual, 

accessible, and easily understood 

information to individuals with 

disabilities and their families. The 

intent of the Initiative corresponds 

directly with NIDRR’s mission to 

generate new knowledge and promote 

its effective use to improve the abilities 

of individuals with disabilities to 

perform activities of their choice in the 

community. 

To further the central goals of the 

Initiative, NIDRR is partnering with the 

Administration for Community Living 

(ACL) in HHS to create a national RRTC 

on Family Support. ACL will support 

the engagement of its 356 Aging and 

Disability Resource Centers to serve as 

a conduit for information generated by 

the RRTC. The purpose of this RRTC 

will be to engage in research, data 

analysis, knowledge translation, and 

development and dissemination of 

informational products to improve 

supports and services for individuals 

who provide assistance to their family 

members with disabilities. 

References: 

Anderson, L., Larson, S., Lakin, K.C., & 

Kwak, N. (2002). Children with 

disabilities: Social roles and family 

impacts in the NHIS–D. DD Data Brief, 

4(1). 

Baxter, C., Cummins, R., & Yiolitis, L. (2000). 

Parental stress attribute to family 

members with and without disability. 

Journal of Intellectual and 

Developmental Disability, 25(2), 105– 

118. 

Feinberg, L., Reinhart, S., Houser, A., & 

Choula, R. (2011). Valuing the 

invaluable: 2011 update, the growing 

contributions and costs of family 

caregiving. Washington, DC: AARP 

Policy Institute. 

Gallagher, S., & Whiteley, J. (2012). Social 

support is associated with blood 

pressure responses in parents caring for 

children with developmental disabilities. 

Research in Developmental Disabilities, 

33(6), 2099–2105. 

Houtenville, A., Ruiz, T., Brucker, D., Gould, 

P., Guntz, N., Gianino, M., Goodrich, J., 

& Laurer, E. (2012). 2012 Annual 

disability statistics compendium. 

Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire, Research and Training 

Center on Disability Statistics. 

Lewis, D., & Johnson, D. (2005). Costs of 

family care for individuals with 

disabilities. In R. Stancliffe & K. Lakin 

(Eds.), Costs and outcomes of community 

services for people with intellectual 

disabilities (pp. 63–89). Baltimore: Paul 

H. Brookes. 

Mitra, S., Findley, P., & Sambamoorthi, U. 

(2009). Health care expenses of living 

with a disability: Total expenditures, 

out-of-pocket expenses, and burden. 

Archives of Physical Medicine and 

Rehabilitation, 90, 1532–1540. 

Parish, S., Seltzer, M., Greenberg, J., & Floyd, 

F. (2004). Economic implications of 

caregiving at midlife: Comparing parents 

with and without children with 

developmental disabilities. Mental 

Retardation, 42(6), 413–426. 

Stabile, M., & Allin, S. (2012). The economic 

costs of childhood disability. The Future 

of Children, 22(1), 66–96. 

Thompson, L. (2004). Long-term care: 

Support for family caregivers. 

Georgetown University, Health Policy 

Institute. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

15930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Traute, B., & Hiebert-Murphy, D. (2002). 

Family adjustment to childhood 

developmental disability. Journal of 

Pediatric Psychology, 27(3), 271–280. 

White-Means, S., & Dong, Z. (2012). Valuing 

the costs of family caregiving: Time and 

motion survey estimates. Consumer 

Interests Annual, 58(1), 1–6. 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for an RRTC on 

Family Support. The RRTC’s work is 

intended to inform the design, 

implementation, and continuous 

improvement of Federal and State 

policies and programs related to 

assisting families in support, assistance, 

and nurturing of family members with 

disabilities. The RRTC would also 

identify and develop information for 

individuals with disabilities and their 

family members to guide their informed 

choice of community and family-based 

service and support options that best 

meet their needs. 

The RRTC must be designed to 

contribute to better understanding of the 

phenomenon of family support; to 

improved community living and 

participation, health and function, and 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities supported by family 

members; and to effective support of 

family caregivers by— 

(a) Developing and implementing a 

project research plan to identify the key 

elements of family support and family 

support programs and policy. This plan, 

once implemented by the grantee, must 

contribute to identification or 

development of relevant and high 

quality data and information that will 

serve as an empirical foundation for 

improving assistance to families in 

support roles and to family support 

policies and programs. This task 

includes: 

(i) Developing a conceptual 

framework for research on family 

support that includes both individual 

and societal level characteristics that 

influence provision of family support, 

considering existing knowledge about 

family support barriers in other 

populations. 

(ii) Developing and prioritizing a list 

of research questions and evaluation 

topics that, when addressed, would lead 

to research-based information that can 

be used to improve family support 

policies, practices, programs, 

communications, and outcomes. 

(iii) Working with NIDRR and ACL to 

identify relevant data sets and 

informational resources that can be 

analyzed to address the questions and 

topics in the research plan; and 

(iv) Working with NIDRR and ACL to 

identify gaps in data and information 

resources that are available to address 

the questions and topics in the research 

plan and to identify strategies to fill 

those gaps; 

(b) Conducting research and research 

syntheses to describe the nature and 

extent of support that is being provided 

to individuals with disabilities by 

family members, and the extent to 

which the family caregivers themselves 

receive assistance in the form of 

education/training, counseling/

psychosocial support, personal care, 

homemaker services, respite care and 

other relevant supports, as well as the 

amounts of assistance received and the 

private and public sources of payment 

for such assistance; 

(c) Conducting research and research 

syntheses to identify and evaluate 

promising practices that States have 

used and could be adopted in other 

States to improve long-term services and 

supports for families of individuals with 

disabilities. This task includes— 

(i) Identifying components of welldesigned, effective State or local family 

support programs; and 

(ii) Identifying and assessing methods 

for monitoring, tracking and evaluating 

States’ approaches to supporting 

families, which may include, but are not 

limited to, methods for monitoring the 

experiences of individuals and costs for 

recipients of family support services 

within broader existing LTSS evaluation 

programs, such as the National Core 

Indicators or Participant Experience 

Survey; methods for understanding, 

monitoring and responding to the 

unique needs of individual families, 

including the family members with and 

without disabilities; and methods for 

evaluating the outcomes for individuals 

and families receiving family support 

services; 

(d) Identifying and involving key 

stakeholders in the research and 

research planning activities conducted 

under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to 

maximize the relevance and usefulness 

of the research products being 

developed. Stakeholders must include, 

but are not limited to, individuals with 

disabilities and their families (including 

parents, siblings, and sons/daughters); 

national, State and local-level 

policymakers; service providers; and 

relevant researchers in the field of 

disability and rehabilitation research; 

(e) Identifying, evaluating, and 

disseminating accessible information at 

the national, State, service provider, and 

individual levels on topics of 

importance to sustaining and 

developing appropriate and effective 

family support services, practices, 

policies, and programs. These topics 

include, but are not limited to: 

usefulness and effectiveness of current 

family support resources for families of 

differing circumstances; the roles of, 

and impact upon, families in the 

transitions from fee-for-service to 

integrated/managed long-term service 

and support systems; the roles and 

responsibilities of individuals with 

disabilities and their family members in 

the transition from agency-directed to 

consumer-directed services; best 

practices in supporting families both 

within and outside of disability 

services; accessing and coordinating 

community supports; the role of familyto-family and peer-to-peer support 

systems and other social networks; and 

other topics to be determined in 

collaboration with key stakeholders, 

NIDRR, and ACL representatives; 

(f) Establishing a network of technical 

assistance providers and advocacy 

entities to assist in synthesizing and 

disseminating information related to 

implementing high quality family 

support policies, programs and practices 

for individuals with disabilities. 

Network members should include, but 

are not limited to: the Aging and 

Disability Resource Centers, the State 

Councils on Developmental Disabilities; 

Parent Training and Information 

Centers; Protection and Advocacy Client 

Assistance Programs; Centers for 

Independent Living, and private sector 

organizations that are recognized as 

national leaders in promoting family 

support policies, programs and research; 

and 

(g) Serving as a national resource 

center related to family support by— 

(i) Providing information and 

technical assistance to individuals with 

disabilities, family members, service 

providers, policymakers and other key 

stakeholders; 

(ii) Providing training to facilitate 

understanding of the effective use of 

private and public options for the 

provision of supports to families, 

including training at the graduate, preservice, and in-service levels, and to 

individuals with disabilities, families, 

and rehabilitation and other service 

providers. This training may be 

provided through conferences, 

workshops, public education programs, 

in-service training programs, and 

similar activities; and 

(iii) Collaborating as appropriate with 

NIDRR’s RRTC on Community Living 

Policy. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15931 

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. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits would justify its costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that would maximize 

net benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this proposed priority is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years. Projects 

similar to one envisioned by the 

proposed priority have been completed 

successfully, and the proposed priority 

would generate new knowledge through 

research. The new RRTC would 

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 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

15932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 18, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06232 Filed 3–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 120710231–2473–01] 

RIN 0648–BC33 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS withdraws a proposed 

rule considering an emergency action 

that would have partially exempted the 

scallop fishery from fishing year 2012- 

related Georges Bank yellowtail 

flounder accountability measures. 

Because annual catch limit thresholds 

were not exceeded, there are no 

accountability measures from which to 

exempt the scallop fishery. As a result, 

the proposed rule is no longer 

necessary. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

October 1, 2012 (77 FR 59883) is 

withdrawn as of March 24, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Whitmore, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, phone (978) 281–9182, fax 

(978) 281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 1, 2012, NMFS published a 

proposed rule considering emergency 

action to partially exempt the scallop 

fishery from fishing year 2012 Georges 

Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder 

accountability measures (77 FR 59883). 

Under the proposed rule, an 

accountability measure would have 

been triggered if either: (1) The scallop 

fishery exceeded its GB yellowtail 

flounder sub-annual catch limit (ACL) 

by more than 50 percent; or (2) the 

initial scallop GB yellowtail flounder 

sub-ACL was exceeded and the total GB 

yellowtail flounder fishery ACL was 

exceeded. 

NMFS previously revised both the 

groundfish and scallop GB yellowtail 

flounder sub-ACLs for the 2012 fishing 

year (77 FR 41704; July 16, 2012). The 

revisions were based on updated 

projections of GB yellowtail flounder 

catch by the scallop fleet. As a result, 

the scallop fishery GB yellowtail 

flounder sub-ACL was substantially 

reduced from 307.5 mt to 156.9 mt, 

while the groundfish fishery’s sub-ACL 

was increased from 217.7 mt to 368.3 

mt. 

As a result of this mid-year change, 

accountability measures for the scallop 

fleet could have been triggered at a 

much lower level of catch than 

originally anticipated at the start of the 

2012 scallop fishing year. Recognizing 

this, the New England Fishery 

Management Council requested that 

NMFS utilize emergency rulemaking 

authority to exempt the scallop fishery 

from any accountability measure for 

catch below the initial scallop sub-ACL 

of 307.5 mt. The rationale for the 

proposed rule was that uncertainties 

remained about the projected yellowtail 

flounder catch, there was concern that 

the scallop fishery should not be 

subjected to accountability measures 

based on a significant decrease of the 

sub-ACL midway through the fishing 

year, and a backstop accountability 

measure would still take effect, should 

the entire ACL be exceeded. 

Neither of the thresholds that would 

have resulted in the need to exempt the 

scallop fishery from accountability 

measures were met. In fishing year 

2012, the scallop fishery harvested 164 

mt of its 156.9 mt GB yellowtail 

flounder sub-ACL (or 104 percent of its 

allocation), but it did not exceed its 

initial GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL 

of 307.5 mt by more than 50 percent as 

was the trigger. Further, only 70.3 

percent of the entire GB yellowtail 

flounder ACL was harvested. Because 

neither of the accountability measure 

triggers were met, there is no need to 

partially exempt the scallop fishery 

from fishing year 2012 accountability 

measures, and we are withdrawing the 

proposed rule. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C . 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 18, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06421 Filed 3–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS