18490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0025] 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

[CFDA Number: 84.133E–5.] 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority for the 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research and 

Centers (RERC) Program administered 

by the National Institute on Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 

Specifically, this notice proposes a 

priority for an RERC on Technologies to 

Enhance Independence in Daily Living 

for Adults with Cognitive Impairments. 

We take this action to focus research 

attention on an area of national need. 

We intend the priority to contribute to 

improved outcomes related to 

independence in daily activities in the 

home, community, or workplace setting 

for adults with cognitive impairments. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

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

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Patricia 

Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202) 245– 

6211 or by email: patricia.barrett@

ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of proposed priority is in concert 

with NIDRR’s currently approved 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. 

Through the implementation of the 

Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the 

quality and utility of disability and 

rehabilitation research; (2) foster an 

exchange of research findings, expertise, 

and other information to advance 

knowledge and understanding of the 

needs of individuals with disabilities 

and their family members, including 

those from among traditionally 

underserved populations; (3) determine 

effective practices, programs, and 

policies to improve community living 

and participation, employment, and 

health and function outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities of all ages; 

(4) identify research gaps and areas for 

promising research investments; (5) 

identify and promote effective 

mechanisms for integrating research and 

practice; and (6) disseminate research 

findings to all major stakeholder groups, 

including individuals with disabilities 

and their families in formats that are 

appropriate and meaningful to them. 

This notice proposes one priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for one or more 

competitions in FY 2014 and possibly in 

later years. NIDRR is under no 

obligation to make an award under this 

priority. The decision to make an award 

will be based on the quality of 

applications received and available 

funding. NIDRR may publish additional 

priorities, as needed. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

proposed priority. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the 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. The 

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 

The purpose of the RERCs, 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 with guidance from its 

Rehabilitation Research Advisory 

Council. These activities are designed to 

benefit rehabilitation service providers, 

individuals with disabilities, family 

members, policymakers, and other 

research stakeholders. Additional 

information on the RERC program can 

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

programs/rerc/index.html#types. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18491 

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. 

RERC on Technologies To Enhance 

Independence in Daily Living for 

Adults With Cognitive Impairments 

Background 

Estimates from the most recent U.S. 

Census data indicate that in 2011 over 

12 million Americans of all ages with 

functional impairments relied on 

personal assistance and other long-term 

services and supports (LTSS) in their 

home and community or in an 

institution, to perform daily activities to 

maintain their quality of living and, 

when possible, their independence 

(Brault, 2012; Kay, Harrington, and 

LaPlante, 2010). The need for LTSS is 

projected to increase dramatically in the 

coming decades to a high of 27 million 

in 2050 (Kay, Harrington, and LaPlante, 

2010). This increase will be driven 

primarily by the aging of the population 

and the higher prevalence of disability 

among older individuals, but also by the 

increased longevity experienced by 

individuals with early onset disabilities 

(Field & Jette, 2007). 

Associated with the increasing 

prevalence of disability generally is an 

increasing prevalence of cognitive 

impairments. Cognitive impairments 

refer to significant difficulties in 

remembering, concentrating, or making 

decisions resulting from physical, 

mental, or emotional conditions (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2012). The 2011 ACS 

estimated that there were about 14.0 

million individuals with cognitive 

impairments in the U.S. population. The 

prevalence of cognitive impairments 

among individuals who are 65 years and 

older is about 2.3 times the prevalence 

among individuals under 65 years; so, 

like disability in general, the prevalence 

of cognitive impairments is expected to 

increase substantially in future decades. 

The increasing number of Americans 

with cognitive impairments will present 

a number of pressing challenges. Chief 

among these will be the need to promote 

and sustain independence in daily 

living and to find less intrusive and 

more cost-effective ways of delivering 

the services and supports people need 

to remain as independent as possible. 

Today, about 10–11 million 

Americans, predominately adults, with 

physical, sensory, psychiatric, and 

cognitive impairments rely on personal 

assistance and other LTSS to perform 

daily activities in their home, 

community, and workplace (Kaye, 

Harrington & LaPlante, 2010). LTSS 

refers to a range of person-to-person 

assistance received by people with 

disabilities that allows them to carry out 

their tasks of daily living and live as 

independently as possible. In 2011, 

expenditures from Federal and State 

Medicaid for LTSS to assist individuals 

with disabilities were estimated at $211 

billion (O’Shaughnessy, 2013). 

Given the projected growth in the 

number of Americans with disabilities, 

the Nation has a substantial financial, as 

well as social interest, in developing 

technologies that enhance 

independence in daily living and can 

reduce the reliance on costly traditional 

LTSS (Commission on LTC, 2013). 

Particularly, in the area of support for 

adults with cognitive impairments, 

there is substantial potential for 

technologies to provide assistance that 

otherwise would need to be provided by 

human support providers (IOM, 2013; 

LeadingAge CAST, 2011; NCD, 2011). 

Technology-based alternatives to 

direct services and supports for daily 

living include assistive and smart 

technologies, such as cueing, and 

prompting or coaching devices, home 

and community monitoring systems, 

community wayfinding applications for 

hand-held devices, socially assistive 

robotics, smart environments, 

workplace supports, computer and Webbased teaching programs, tele-supports, 

technology-based care, service 

coordination systems, and many other 

applications of existing technologies 

(IOM, 2013; LeadingAge CAST, 2011; 

NCD, 2011). 

The need for assistance for 

individuals with cognitive impairments 

to sustain independence in daily 

activities in the home, community, and 

workplace will expand greatly in 

coming decades due to the aging of the 

population. At the same time, fewer 

family caregivers will be able to care for 

family members with disabilities for a 

number of reasons, such as limitations 

due to their own aging and national 

declines in savings rates, retirement 

asset accumulation, and private 

insurance purchase. The decline in 

assistance from family caregivers will 

result in increased pressure on 

Medicaid programs. 

Advances in science and engineering 

and the increased availability of new 

and emerging technologies, applications 

of existing technologies to new 

circumstances, and ever-improving 

information technology infrastructures 

offer promise in responding to the 

challenges of assisting the increasing 

number of people with cognitive 

impairments to maintain independence 

in daily living (IOM, 2013). Technologybased alternatives represent substantial 

opportunities to support independence 

and quality of life for adults with 

cognitive impairments in ways that are 

both liberating and cost-effective and 

that advance the widely endorsed goal 

of maintaining community living for 

individuals with disabilities and older 

adults (U.S. DHHS Community Living 

Initiative, 2010). 

References 

Brault, Matthew W., ‘‘Americans With 

Disabilities: 2010,’’ Current Population 

Reports, Pg. 70–131, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2012. 

Commission on Long-Term Care: Report to 

Congress. (September 30, 2013). Final 

Report http://www.chhs.ca.gov/

OLMDOC/Agenda%20Item%206- 

%20Commission%20on%20LongTerm%20Care- 

%20Final%20Report%209-26-13.pdf. 

Field, M., & Jette, A. (Eds.) (2007). The future 

of disability in America. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. 

Kaye, H.S., Harrington, C., LaPlante. M.P. 

(2010). Long-Term Care: Who Gets It, 

Who Provides It, Who Pays, And How 

Much? doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0535 

HEALTH AFFAIRS 29, NO. 1: 11–21. 

IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2013). Fostering 

Independence, participation, and healthy 

aging through technology: workshop 

summary. Washington, DC. The National 

Academies (Free access available at: 

http://books.nap.edu/

openbook.php?record_id=18332). 

LeadingAge CAST. (2011). Preparing for the 

future: Developing technology-enabled 

long-term services and supports for a 

new population of older adults. 

Washington, DC: LeadingAge 

(www.leadingage.org/uploadedFiles/

Content/About/CAST/Resources/

Preparing_for_the_Future_Case_

Studies.pdf). 

NCD (National Council on Disability). (2011). 

The power of digital inclusion: 

Technology’s impact on employment 

and opportunities for people with 

disabilities (www.ncd.gov/publications/

2011/Oct042011). 

O’Shaughnessy, C. (2013). National spending 

for Long-term Services and supports 

(LTSS), 2011. Washington, DC: The 

George Washington University, National 

Health Policy Forum (www.nhpf.org/

uploads/announcements/Basics_LTSS_

02-01-13.pdf). 

U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Disability 

characteristics: 2010–2012 American 

Community Survey 3-year estimates. 

Washington, DC: Author (http:// 

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_3YR_

S1810&proType=table). 

U.S Census Bureau (2012). DisabilityAmerican Community Survey. 

Washington, DC: Author 

(www.census.gov/people/disability/

methodology/acs.html). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
18492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS). Community Living 

Initiative. (May 20, 2010). Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid (http://

downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archiveddownloads/SMDL/downloads/

SMD10008.pdf). 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes the following priority for a 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Center (RERC) on Technologies to 

Enhance Independence in Daily Living 

for Adults with Cognitive Impairment. 

This RERC must focus on innovative 

technological solutions, new 

knowledge, and implementation 

strategies that enhance the 

independence and self-management of 

adults with cognitive impairment. 

Under this priority, the RERC must 

research, develop, and evaluate new 

technologies, or adapt and evaluate 

existing technologies, to enhance the 

ability of adults with cognitive 

impairment to perform daily activities 

of their choice in the home, community, 

or workplace. Technologies developed 

or adapted must be designed for 

commercialization as consumer 

products or for integration into 

rehabilitation practice or relevant 

service delivery systems. Research and 

development topics under this priority 

may include, but are not limited to: 

Monitoring and prompting technologies 

or other information or communication 

aids; assistive technologies, including 

socially assistive robotics; mobile and 

wearable technologies; virtual reality; 

and care coordination or tele-health, 

tele-rehabilitation and other telesupport systems to facilitate improved 

activities of daily living. 

In responding to this priority, 

applicants must specify the target 

populations or subgroups of adults with 

cognitive impairments that they intend 

to focus on and identify the setting or 

settings for which they intend to 

develop technologies: Home, 

community, or workplace. Applicants 

must also limit the number of research 

and development projects to a 

maximum of eight, and restrict the range 

of different types of technologies to 

what is manageable with available 

resources. 

Under this priority, the RERC must be 

designed to contribute to the following 

outcomes: 

(a) Increased technical and scientific 

knowledge relevant to technologies for 

increasing independence in daily living 

for adults with cognitive impairments. 

The RERC must contribute to this 

outcome by establishing a rigorous 

research and development plan that is 

balanced between technology 

development or adaption and 

technology evaluation and incorporates 

needs assessment, usability testing, and 

intervention development or efficacy 

studies, as appropriate. The research 

and development plan must be designed 

to build a base of evidence for assessing 

the usability, accessibility, acceptance, 

utility, and cost-benefit of technologies 

intended to improve independence in 

daily activities for adults with cognitive 

impairment in the home, community, or 

workplace settings. The RERC must 

contribute to this outcome by: 

(i) Building a transdisciplinary team 

of collaborators from relevant 

disciplines, such as: Rehabilitation and 

bio-engineering, computer science, 

human factors specialists, cognitive and 

behavioral scientists, clinicians and 

other relevant providers; 

(ii) Conducting research and research 

syntheses or secondary analysis of 

existing data to evaluate user needs and 

specify the accessibility, acceptance, 

and human factors design features that 

will need to be built into the technology 

solutions developed and evaluated by 

the RERC to accommodate the cognitive 

impairments and preferences of the 

target population; 

(iii) Conducting rigorous usability 

testing in the settings in which the 

technology will be used; 

(iv) Developing and prioritizing a list 

of evaluation topics that, when 

addressed, will lead to research-based 

information on the utility or efficacy of 

technology solutions developed by the 

RERC; and 

(v) Involving key stakeholders in the 

research and research planning 

activities to maximize the relevance and 

usefulness of the research products 

being developed. Stakeholders can 

include, but are not limited to, 

individuals with disabilities and their 

families; national, State, or local-level 

policymakers, administrators, or service 

providers; and industry representatives. 

(b) Improved usability and 

effectiveness of technologies, products, 

devices, systems, performance 

guidelines, and assessment tools 

through systematic development or 

adaptation, testing, and evaluation of 

innovations. In developing the 

technologies under this priority the 

RERC must: 

(i) Incorporate user-centered designed 

strategies and consider the context in 

which the technology product, device, 

or system will be used; 

(ii) Emphasize the principles of 

universal design and, as appropriate, 

conform to human factors standards, 

such as reliability, safety, and 

simplicity; accessibility and 

acceptability to users; protective of 

users’ privacy preferences; intuitive user 

interfaces; feedback in meaningful 

sensory modalities; and appropriateness 

to diverse populations; 

(iii) Incorporate ongoing training 

opportunities or user supports into the 

design of the technology or into the 

practice settings or delivery systems in 

which the technology will be integrated; 

and 

(iv) Ensure that the technologies are 

interoperable within existing 

rehabilitation systems or home or 

mobile technologies and that they 

communicate with existing information 

technology systems, as appropriate. 

(c) Improved research capacity areas 

that will contribute to enhancing the 

ability of adults with cognitive 

impairment to perform daily activities. 

The RERC must contribute to this 

outcome by collaborating with the 

relevant institutions of higher 

education, professional associations, 

clinicians and service providers, and 

other researchers or educators, as 

appropriate. 

(d) Improved awareness and 

understanding of cutting-edge 

developments and promising 

technology solutions that will 

contribute to enhancing the ability of 

adults with cognitive impairment to 

perform daily activities. The RERC must 

contribute to this outcome by 

identifying and communicating with 

relevant stakeholders, including NIDRR, 

individuals with disabilities and their 

representatives, disability organizations, 

service providers, professional journals, 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties regarding trends and evolving 

product concepts related to its 

designated priority research area. 

(e) Increased impact of research and 

development activities carried out 

under this priority area. The RERC must 

contribute to this outcome by: 

(i) Providing technical assistance to 

relevant public and private 

organizations, individuals with 

disabilities and their families, LTSS 

providers, and employers on policies, 

guidelines, and standards; and 

(ii) Establishing or contributing to an 

existing program or service that 

provides objective information and 

technical and consumer reviews about 

technologies of promise to support 

independence in daily living for adults 

with cognitive impairments. 

(f) Increased transfer of RERCdeveloped technologies to the 

marketplace for widespread testing and 

use by developing and implementing a 

plan to ensure that technologies 

developed by the RERC are made 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18493 

available to the public or to service 

delivery systems that serve the public. 

This technology transfer plan must be 

developed in the first year of the project 

period in consultation with the NIDRRfunded Center on Knowledge 

Translation for Technology Transfer. 

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 

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 Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Centers Program 

have been well established over the 

years. Projects similar to the RERCs 

have been completed successfully, and 

the proposed priority will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RERCs will generate, disseminate, and 

promote the use of new information that 

would improve outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities in the areas 

of community living and participation, 

employment, and health and function. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the 

FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
18494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 27, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07295 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9908–18– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF50 

Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw 

federal water quality standards 

applicable to waters of the state of 

Florida now that Florida has adopted 

and EPA has approved relevant state 

standards. On December 6, 2010, EPA 

published a rule finalizing numeric 

nutrient standards for Florida’s lakes, 

springs, and flowing waters outside of 

the South Florida Nutrient Watershed 

Region. EPA established these water 

quality standards to protect Florida’s 

Class I and III freshwaters from nitrogen 

and phosphorus pollution. On 

November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013, and 

September 26, 2013, EPA approved 

numeric nutrient standards adopted by 

the state of Florida for certain waters in 

the state. 

Some of the water body types and 

provisions covered by state-adopted 

water quality standards were also 

included in EPA’s final inland waters 

rule (criteria for Florida’s lakes and 

springs, approaches to protect 

downstream lakes, and a provision for 

developing Site-Specific Alternative 

Criteria). EPA is now proposing to 

withdraw the overlapping federallypromulgated water quality standards to 

allow Florida to implement their stateadopted, EPA-approved water quality 

standards to address nutrient pollution 

in Florida’s waters. Additionally, EPA is 

not finalizing three 2012 federal 

proposed rules related to nutrient 

pollution in Florida. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. 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 

whose disclosure 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 EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you submit an electronic 

comment, 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 EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

a docket facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

(202) 566–2426, and the Docket address 

is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica Fleisig, U.S. EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–1057; email address: fleisig.erica@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Which water bodies are affected by this 

action? 

B. What entities may be affected by this 

action? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. Background on EPA’s Inland Rule, 

Amended Determinations, and Approval 

of State Criteria 

B. 2014 District Court Ruling and 

Modification of Consent Decree 

C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Criteria 

for Lakes, Springs, and DPVs 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act of 1995 

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1