Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16707 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 100.T07–0097 to 

read as follows: 

§ 100.T07–0097 Special Local Regulations; 

Dragging on the Waccamaw, Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC. 

This section establishes a special local 

regulation on certain waters of the 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in 

Bucksport, South Carolina. The special 

local regulation will consist of a 

regulated area which will be enforced 

daily from 10:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m., on 

June 21, 2014 and June 22, 2014. The 

special local regulation would consist of 

a regulated area around vessels 

participating in the event. 

(a) Regulated Area. All waters of the 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

encompassed within the following 

points; starting at point 1 in position 

33°39′11.46′′ N 079°05′36.78′′ W; thence 

west to point 2 in position 33°39′12.18′′ 

N 079°05′47.76′′ W; thence south to 

point 3 in position 33°38′39.48′′ N 

079°05′37.44′′ W; thence east to point 4 

in position 33°38′42.3′′ N 079°05′30.6′′ 

W; thence north back to origin. All 

coordinates are North American Datum 

1983. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels, except those participating in the 

Dragging on the Waccamaw, or serving 

as safety vessels, are prohibited from 

entering, transiting through, anchoring 

in, or remaining within the regulated 

area. Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at (843) 740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area is granted by 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins, Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement Date. This section 

will be enforced daily from 10:30 a.m. 

until 8:30 p.m. on June 21, 2014 and 

June 22, 2014. 

Dated: March 4, 2014. 

R. R. Rodriguez, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06441 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0022] 

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. 

[CFDA Number: 84.133B–5.] 

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 Improving 

Employment Outcomes for Individuals 

with Psychiatric Disabilities. We take 

this action to focus research attention on 

an area of national need. We intend this 

priority to contribute to improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with psychiatric. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 25, 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 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 regarding employment of 

individuals 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 family members in formats 

that are appropriate and meaningful to 

them. 

This notice proposes one priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for one or more 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposed priority. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the 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 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 selfsufficiency 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 Improving Employment 

Outcomes for Individuals With 

Psychiatric Disabilities 

Background 

According to the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services 

Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) 2011 

National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health (SAMHSA, 2011a), an estimated 

19.6 percent of all adults age 18 and 

older had a mental illness. An estimated 

5 percent had a serious mental illness 

(i.e., ‘‘a diagnosable mental, behavioral, 

or emotional disorder (excluding 

developmental and substance use 

disorders) of sufficient duration to meet 

diagnostic criteria specified within the 

4th edition of the Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 

(DSM–IV) (American Psychological 

Association, 1994) and that has resulted 

in serious functional impairment that 

substantially interferes with or limits 

one or more major life activities’’), 

including employment. 

Mental illness has a pronounced 

negative effect on employment. Both 

internal and external factors, e.g., 

stigma, discrimination, co-occurring 

conditions such as substance abuse, and 

medications used in treating mental 

health conditions contribute to poor 

employment outcomes. 

According to a recent report, only 17 

percent of individuals who received 

publicly funded mental health services 

were employed (SAMHSA, 2011b). 

Individuals with mental illness 

represent the largest disability group 

receiving public income support and 

they are least likely to achieve 

successful employment outcomes after 

vocational rehabilitation (Cook, 2006). 

Between 1996 and 2009, the number of 

Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) beneficiaries with a primary 

diagnosis of ‘‘Other Mental Disorders’’ 

increased 38 percent (Frey et al., 2011). 

In 2012, SSDI beneficiaries with a 

primary diagnosis of ‘‘Mood Disorders,’’ 

‘‘Schizophrenic and Other Psychotic 

disorders,’’ or ‘‘Other Mental Disorders’’ 

accounted for 23 percent of SSDI 

beneficiaries (Social Security 

Administration, 2012). For those 

individuals with mental illness who are 

employed, mental illness is associated 

with decreased productivity and job 

retention (Cook, 2006; Lerner et al., 

2012). 

Supported employment has been 

demonstrated to be an effective 

intervention and has improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with mental illness (Campbell et al., 

2009; Cook et al., 2005; Drake et al., 

2012; Frey et al., 2011). However, 

supported employment frequently 

results in only part-time employment, 

and earnings are typically insufficient to 

maintain self-sufficiency (Cook et al., 

2008). Supported employment requires 

collaboration across agencies (e.g., 

mental health services, and vocational 

rehabilitation services) that are difficult 

and costly to implement (Cook, 2006; 

Frey, 2011). NIDRR’s collaborator on 

this priority, SAMHSA, plans to award 

its own grants in 2014 to behavioral 

health State agencies to enhance State 

and community capacity to provide 

evidence-based, supported employment 

programs that will target adults with 

serious mental illnesses, including 

persons with co-occurring mental 

illness and substance abuse disorders. 

The evidence base for other 

interventions that may improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities is limited. 

Recent research has focused on 

additional or alternative interventions, 

including but not limited to, cognitive 

remediation (McGurk et al., 2009), 

consumer-provided services (Doughty & 

Tse, 2005), and interdisciplinary workfocused care (Lerner et al., 2012). 

Further research is needed in order to 

improve employment outcomes of 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities 

(also referred to as mental illness) and 

to address the barriers they face in 

obtaining, retaining, and advancing in 

meaningful competitive employment. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16709 

References 

Campbell, K., Bond, G. R., & Drake, R. E. 

(2011). Who benefits from supported 

employment: a meta-analytic study. 

Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(2), 370–380. 

Retrieved from http:// 

schizophreniabulletin.oxford

journals.org/content/37/2/370.full.pdf. 

Cook, J. (2006). Employment barriers for 

persons with psychiatric disabilities: 

update of a report for the President’s 

Commission. Psychiatric Services, 

57(10), 1391–1405. Retrieved from 

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/data/

Journals/PSS/3777/06ps1391.pdf. 

Cook, J. A., Blyler, C. R., Leff, H. S., 

McFarlane, W. R., Goldberg, R. W., Gold, 

P. B., Mueser, K. T., Shafer, M. S., 

Onken, S. J., Donegan, K., Carey, M. A., 

Kaufmann, C., & Razzano, L. A. (2008). 

The Employment Intervention 

Demonstration Program: Major findings 

and policy implications. Psychiatric 

Rehabilitation Journal, 4, 291–295. 

Cook, J. A., Leff, H. S., Blyler, C. R., Gold, 

P. B., Goldberg, R. W., Mueser, K. T., 

Toprac, M. G., McFarlane, M.W. R., 

Shafer, M. S., Blankertz, L. E., Dudek, K., 

Razzano, L. A., Grey, D. D., & BurkeMiller, J. (2005). Results of a multisite 

randomized trial of supported 

employment interventions for 

individuals with severe mental illness. 

Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(5), 

505. Retrieved from https:// 

archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/

article.aspx?articleid=208591&result

Click=1. 

Doughty, C., & Tse, S. (2005). The 

effectiveness of service user-run or 

service-user led mental health services 

for people with mental illness. A 

systematic literature review. Wellington, 

New Zealand: Mental Health 

Commission. Retrieved from 

www.mhc.govt.nz/media/199629/

the%20effectiveness%20of%20service%

20user-run%20or%20service%20userled%20mental%20health%20services%

202005.pdf. 

Drake, R. E., Bond, G. R., & Becker, D. R. 

(2012). Individual Placement and 

Support: An evidence-based approach to 

supported employment. Oxford 

University Press. 

Frey, W. D., Drake, R. E., Bond, G. R, Miller, 

A. L., Goldman, H. H., Salkever, D. S. & 

Holsenbeck, S. (2011). Mental Health 

Treatment Study: Final Report. Westat, 

sponsored by the Social Security 

Administration. Retrieved from 

www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/

documents/MHTS_Final_Report_

508.pdf. 

Lerner, D., Adler, D., Hermann, R. C., Chang, 

H., Ludman, E. J., Greenhill, A., Perch, 

K., McPeck, W. C., & Rogers, W. H. 

(2012). Impact of a work-focused 

intervention on the productivity and 

symptoms of employees with depression. 

Journal of Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine, 54(2), 128. 

McGurk, S. R., Mueser, K. T., DeRosa, T. J., 

& Wolfe, R. (2009). Work, recovery, and 

comorbidity in schizophrenia: a 

randomized controlled trial of cognitive 

remediation. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 

35(2), 319–335. Retrieved from 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC2659315/. 

Social Security Administration (2012). 

Annual statistical report on the Social 

Security Disability Insurance Program, 

2012. Retrieved from: http:// 

www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_

asr/2012/sect01b.html#table6. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (2011a). Results from the 

2011 National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health: Mental Health Findings. 

Retrieved from www.samhsa.gov/data/

NSDUH/2k11MH_

FindingsandDetTables/2K11MHFR/

NSDUHmhfr2011.htm (retrieved 

November 22, 2013). 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. (2011b). 2011 Mental 

Health National Outcome Measures 

(NOMS): CMHS Uniform Reporting 

System. Retrieved from 

www.samhsa.gov/dataoutcomes/urs. 

Definitions 

The research that is proposed under 

this priority must be focused on one or 

more stages of research. If the RRTC is 

to conduct research that can be 

categorized under more than one 

research stage, or research that 

progresses from one stage to another, 

those research stages must be clearly 

specified. 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). 

(a) 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. 

(b) 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 

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 interventions study. 

Results from this stage of research may 

be used to inform the design of a study 

to test the efficacy of an intervention. 

(c) 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. 

(d) 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. It 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 well-designed 

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 

Improving Employment Outcomes for 

Individuals with Psychiatric 

Disabilities. This priority will be jointly 

funded by NIDRR and the Substance 

Abuse Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA). For the 

purposes of this priority, ‘‘employment 

outcomes’’ may refer to, but are not 

limited to, obtaining employment, job 

retention, job advancement, or 

compensation. The RRTC must 

contribute to improving the 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities by: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Conducting well-designed research 

activities, with an emphasis on 

promising practices with currently 

limited evidence bases, in one or more 

of the following priority areas, focusing 

on individuals with psychiatric 

disabilities as a group or on individuals 

with a specific disability or on 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities: 

(1) Technology to improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities. 

(2) Individual, work environment, or 

employer factors associated with 

improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities. 

(3) Interventions that contribute to 

improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities. 

Interventions include any strategy, 

practice, program, policy, or tool that, 

when implemented as intended, 

contributes to improvements in 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities, and may 

include interventions focused on 

individuals, families, employers, or 

service providers. 

(4) Effects of current or modified 

government practices, policies, and 

programs on employment outcomes for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities; 

(b) Focusing its research on one or 

more specific stages of research. 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. 

Note: Those stages and their definitions are 

provided in the Definitions section in this 

notice; and 

(c) Serving as a national resource center 

related to employment for individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities, their families, and 

other stakeholders by conducting knowledge 

translation activities that include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Providing information and technical 

assistance to employment service providers, 

mental health service providers, employers, 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities and 

their representatives, and other key 

stakeholders. These activities will include 

providing technical assistance on evidencebased, supported employment to SAMHSA 

grantees that are awarded funds in FY 2014 

to enhance State and community capacity to 

provide supported employment programs 

targeting adults with serious mental illnesses, 

including persons with co-occurring mental 

illness and substance abuse disorders. 

(2) Providing training, including graduate, 

pre-service, and in-service training, to 

vocational rehabilitation and other 

employment service providers, to facilitate 

more effective delivery of employment 

services to individuals with psychiatric 

disabilities. This training may be provided 

through conferences, workshops, public 

education programs, in-service training 

programs, and similar activities. 

(3) Disseminating research-based 

information and materials related to 

increasing employment levels for individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities. 

(4) Involving key stakeholder groups in the 

activities conducted under paragraph (a) of 

this priority to promote the new knowledge 

generated by the RRTC. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16711 

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 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 21, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06731 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0715, FRL–9908–68– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 

18, 1997 and October 17, 2006, and for 

ozone on March 12, 2008. The EPA is 

also proposing to find that the Idaho SIP 

meets the interstate transport 

requirements of the CAA related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0715, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

0715. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS