Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29701 

Subtitle A (sections 1471 through 1474) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

DATES: The public hearing originally 

scheduled for June 24, 2014 at 10 a.m. 

is cancelled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Oluwafunmilayo Taylor of the 

Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration) at (202) 317–6901 (not 

a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking by crossreference to temporary regulations and a 

notice of public hearing that appeared 

in the Federal Register on Thursday, 

March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12868) announced 

that a public hearing was scheduled for 

June 24, 2014, at 10 a.m. in the IRS 

Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 

1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The subject of the 

public hearing is under sections 1471 

through 1474 of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

The public comment period for these 

regulations expired on May 5, 2014. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

notice of public hearing instructed those 

interested in testifying at the public 

hearing to submit a request to speak and 

an outline of the topics to be addressed. 

As of May 14, 2014, no one has 

requested to speak. Therefore, the 

public hearing scheduled for June 24, 

2014 at 10 a.m. is cancelled. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2014–11921 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–136984–12] 

RIN 1545–BL21 

Section 752 and Related Party Rules 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2013– 

29420, appearing on pages 76092 

through 76096 in the issue of Monday, 

December 16, 2013, make the following 

correction: 

On page 76094, in the second column, 

on the tenth line, insert the following: 

D. Special Rule Where Entity Structured 

To Avoid Related Person Status 

Section 1.752–4(b)(2)(iv) provides 

special rules for when an entity is 

structured to avoid related person 

status. The proposed regulations do not 

propose any changes to these rules. 

However, as a result of other changes 

made to simplify the organization of 

§ 1.752–4, the rules in § 1.752– 

4(b)(2)(iv) are now in § 1.752–4(b)(4) of 

the proposed regulations. In addition, 

the example in § 1.752–4(b)(2)(iv)(C) is 

now Example 5 under § 1.752–4(b)(5) of 

the proposed regulations. 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–29420 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1, 31, and 301 

[REG–134361–12] 

RIN 1545–BL17 

Withholding of Tax on Certain U.S. 

Source Income Paid to Foreign 

Persons and Revision of Information 

Reporting and Backup Withholding 

Regulations; Hearing Cancellation 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Cancellation of a notice of 

public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document cancels a 

public hearing on proposed regulations 

relating to the withholding of tax on 

certain U.S. source income paid to 

foreign persons, information reporting 

and backup withholding with respect to 

payments made to certain U.S. persons, 

portfolio interest treatment for 

nonresident alien individuals and 

foreign corporations, and requirements 

for certain claims for refund or credit of 

income tax made by foreign persons. 

DATES: The public hearing originally 

scheduled for June 24, 2014 at 10 a.m. 

is cancelled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Oluwafunmilayo Taylor of the 

Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration) at (202) 317–6901 (not 

a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking by crossreference to temporary regulations and a 

notice of public hearing that appeared 

in the Federal Register on Thursday, 

March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12880) announced 

that a public hearing was scheduled for 

June 24, 2014, at 10 a.m. in the IRS 

Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 

1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The subject of the 

public hearing is under sections 871, 

1441, 1461, 6041, 6042, 6045, and 6049 

of the Internal Revenue Code. 

The public comment period for these 

regulations expired on May 5, 2014. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking by crossreference to temporary regulations and 

notice of public hearing instructed those 

interested in testifying at the public 

hearing to submit a request to speak and 

an outline of the topics to be addressed. 

As of May 14, 2014, no one has 

requested to speak. Therefore, the 

public hearing scheduled for June 24, 

2014 at 10 a.m. is cancelled. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2014–11920 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0023; CFDA 

Number: 84.133A–10] 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Improving Methods of 

Evaluating Return on Investment for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program 

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 under the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this 

notice proposes a priority for a 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Project (DRRP) on Improving Methods 

of Evaluating Return on Investment for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

Services Program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on areas of 

national need. We intend this priority to 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before June 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7532 or by email: marlene.spencer@

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 Long-Range Plan (Plan). 

The Plan, which was published in the 

Federal Register on April 4, 2013 (78 FR 

20299), can be accessed on the Internet 

at the following site: www.ed.gov/about/ 

offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html. 

Through the implementation of the 

currently approved Plan, NIDRR seeks 

to: Identify a need for research and 

training in a number of areas. To 

address this need, NIDRR seeks to: 

(1) Improve the quality and utility of 

disability and rehabilitation research; 

(2) foster an exchange of research 

findings, expertise, and other 

information to advance knowledge and 

understanding of the needs of 

individuals with disabilities and their 

family members, including those from 

among traditionally underserved 

populations; (3) determine effective 

practices, programs, and policies to 

improve community living and 

participation, employment, and health 

and function outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities of all ages; (4) identify 

research gaps and areas for promising 

research investments; (5) identify and 

promote effective mechanisms for 

integrating research and practice; and 

(6) disseminate research findings to all 

major stakeholder groups, including 

individuals with disabilities and their 

families in formats that are appropriate 

and meaningful to them. 

This notice proposes a priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP 

competition in FY 2014 and possibly 

later years. However, nothing precludes 

NIDRR from publishing additional 

priorities, if needed. Furthermore, 

NIDRR is under no obligation to make 

an award using this priority. The 

decision to make an award will be based 

on the quality of applications received 

and available funding. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

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 notice 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 significant disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects 

The purpose of NIDRR’s DRRPs, 

which are funded through the Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research Projects 

and Centers Program, is to improve the 

effectiveness of services authorized 

under the Rehabilitation Act by 

developing methods, procedures, and 

rehabilitation technologies that advance 

a wide range of independent living and 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities, especially individuals 

with the most significant disabilities. 

DRRPs carry out one or more of the 

following types of activities, as specified 

and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 

350.19: Research, training, 

demonstration, development, 

utilization, dissemination, and technical 

assistance. 

An applicant for assistance under this 

program must demonstrate in its 

application how it will address, in 

whole or in part, the needs of 

individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds (34 CFR 

350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant 

may take to meet this requirement are 

found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional 

information on the DRRP program can 

be found at:www.ed.gov/rschstat/

research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP. 

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

and 764(a). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

PROPOSED PRIORITY: 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

Improving Methods of Evaluating 

Return on Investment for the State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Program (VR Program) 

Background 

Under title I of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act), States receive Federal grants for 

78.7 percent of the cost to operate a 

comprehensive VR program. This Stateoperated program is designed to assess, 

plan, develop, and provide VR services 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29703 

to eligible individuals with disabilities, 

consistent with their strengths, 

resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, 

capabilities, interests, and informed 

choice. State VR agencies provide a 

wide range of services designed to 

enable individuals with disabilities to 

prepare for, obtain, and retain, gainful 

employment. Individuals with a 

physical or mental impairment that 

results in a substantial barrier to 

employment and who can benefit from 

and require VR services to prepare for, 

secure, retain, or regain employment are 

eligible to receive VR services. However, 

State VR agencies must give priority to 

individuals with the most significant 

disabilities if they cannot provide 

services to all eligible individuals. 

Program services are tailored to the 

specific needs of the individual through 

an individualized plan for employment 

(IPE) in order to achieve his or her 

employment outcome. The VR Program 

may provide a variety of services, 

including, but not limited to, 

counseling, assessment, career 

development that includes job readiness 

training, vocational training, job 

coaching, on-the-job training and 

supports, assistive technology, 

transportation, and job placement. 

In FY 2013, $3.029 billion in Federal 

funds were allocated to State VR 

agencies to administer the VR Program. 

Nationally, there are about 1 million 

individuals in various phases of the VR 

process within the VR system and about 

580,000 individuals exit the program 

annually. Of the approximately 323,300 

who exited the program after receiving 

services under an IPE in FY 2012, 

180,216 exited with an employment 

outcome, 91 percent of whom were 

individuals with significant disabilities. 

The extent to which programs and 

services lead to effective results is 

important both in terms of improving 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities and justifying current 

and future investments. 

Return-on-investment (ROI) is a 

performance measure used to evaluate 

the efficiency of an investment program, 

and it is calculated by dividing the 

benefits by the costs of the investment. 

Models investigating Federal and State 

investments and results are important 

given current and future budget 

conditions. Over the years, ROI studies 

have examined outcomes of the VR 

Program in relation to expended Federal 

and State funds. However, there are 

limitations in the use of findings from 

previous studies on VR Program 

effectiveness because they did not take 

into account all of the factors that may 

have an impact on ROI results. For 

example, previous studies did not 

account for specific services and 

disability subpopulations, potential 

selection bias (e.g., limiting the analysis 

to individuals who received services 

rather than all who enter the VR 

system), long-term outcomes and 

employment retention, recurring 

episodes of VR participation, and 

relevant demographic, service, and 

benefit program factors. In addition, the 

full range of costs, including Federal 

administrative costs, have not been 

taken into account in most VR ROI 

models. Changing economic conditions 

and their relative impacts on VR 

Program effectiveness are also not 

reflected in current ROI research. 

While recent methodological research 

has included some of the important 

elements missing from earlier studies 

(Dean, 2013a and 2013b), there is a need 

to build on these advances to improve 

ROI measurement of the VR Program 

and to create a standard approach for 

applying the ROI tool in VR settings. 

Expanding what is known about the 

effectiveness of the VR Program will 

provide policymakers, administrators, 

counselors, and consumers with 

information necessary to better allocate 

resources for individuals within specific 

disability subpopulations. The proposed 

priority aims at addressing this need. 

References 

Dean, D., Schmidt, R., Pepper, J., and Stern, 

S. (2013a). The effects of Vocational 

Rehabilitation on people with mental 

illness. Retrieved from: http://

people.virginia.edu/∼sns5r/resint/

vocrehstf/vocrehmi.pdf. 

Dean, D., Schmidt, R., Pepper, J., and Stern, 

S. (2013b). The effects of Vocational 

Rehabilitation on people with cognitive 

disabilities. Retrieved from: http://

people.virginia.edu/∼sns5r/resint/

vocrehstf/vocrehci.pdf. 

Hollenbeck, Kevin and Wei-Jang Huang 

(2006). Net Impact and Benefit Cost 

Estimates of the Workforce Development 

System in Washington State. MI: W.E. 

Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 

Retrieved from http://research.upjohn.org/ 

cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023 

&context=up_technicalreports. 

Kisker, E., G. Strech, J. Vetter, and C. Foote 

(2008). Evaluating Rehabilitation Services 

in Oklahoma: An Analysis of Program 

Impacts and of Benefits/Costs. Oklahoma 

Department of Rehabilitative Services. 

Wilhelm, S. and J. Robinson (2010). Utah 

State Office of Rehabilitation Economic 

Impact Study. The University of Utah 

Center for Public Policy and 

Administration. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority under NIDRR’s 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects (DRRPs) program on Improving 

Methods of Evaluating Return on 

Investment for the State VR Services 

Program. 

The DRRP must contribute to 

improving the ROI methodologies 

available to assess the impact of the VR 

Program on employment outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities by: 

(a) Developing or expanding valid, 

innovative, and replicable ROI model(s) 

for assessing the VR Program and the 

services it provides. These model(s) 

must include variables such as costs 

associated with individuals who enter 

the agency but leave without receiving 

services, costs related to specific 

services so VR agencies can better 

consider ROI when determining services 

that lead to better outcomes, estimates 

of State and Federal expenditures 

incurred as part of the VR Program 

administration and service delivery 

system, characteristics of disability 

subpopulations, long-term outcomes 

extending years after exit from the VR 

Program, and information on general 

economic conditions. These models 

must use rigorous methods, including 

the use of a comparison group to 

determine the effect of the VR program. 

(b) Testing the model(s) in at least 

eight State VR agencies with varying 

characteristics (e.g., urban/rural, with/

without waitlists) to determine its 

replicability, including determining 

what data are necessary to make the 

model(s) successful and evaluating the 

data quality and data availability in 

selected sites. The final number of sites 

must be approved by NIDRR. In carrying 

out this requirement, we want the 

successful applicant to clarify a process 

for ensuring access to Social Security 

data and earnings data as required to 

assess long-term impact of the VR 

program. 

(c) Developing and disseminating 

recommended standards for conducting 

ROI studies of the VR Program. 

(d) Producing and disseminating 

training materials to support the VR 

Program in using the model(s). 

(e) Making the underlying data 

available so others can learn from and 

replicate the findings, without 

compromising personally identifiable 

information. Data availability will 

conform to all security requirements of 

identified sources. 

(f) Working with an advisory board 

made up of ROI, VR, and research 

methodology experts to ensure the 

findings are relevant, replicable, and 

sound. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years. Projects 

similar to the new DRRP have been 

completed successfully, and the new 

DRRP, established consistently with the 

proposed priority, is expected to 

improve the lives of individuals with 

disabilities and generate through 

research and development, disseminate, 

and promote the use of new information 

that would improve our understanding 

of how VR services improve the 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities. 

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 a 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29705 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: May 20, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12041 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0823; FRL–9911–04- 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan Revisions; State of California; 

South Coast VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstrations 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of California to 

meet the vehicle miles traveled 

emissions offset requirement under the 

Clean Air Act for the 1-hour ozone and 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. The 

EPA is proposing to approve this 

revision because it demonstrates that 

California has put in place specific 

enforceable transportation control 

strategies and transportation control 

measures to offset the growth in 

emissions from the growth in vehicle 

miles traveled and vehicle trips in the 

South Coast, and thereby meets the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. The EPA is taking comments on 

this proposal and plans to follow with 

a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must be 

submitted by June 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0823, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

• Mail or Deliver: John Ungvarsky, 

Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and the 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send email directly to the EPA, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

public comment. If the EPA cannot read 

your comments due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site and 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Regulatory Background 

A. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

B. South Coast Ozone Designations and 

Classifications 

C. Previous South Coast VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

II. Submittal of Revised South Coast VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

A. 2012 South Coast AQMP and CARB’s 

Technical Supplement 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Submittals of SIPs and SIP Revisions 

III. Evaluation of Revised South Coast VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

A. Section 182(d)(1)(A) and the EPA’s 

August 2012 VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstration Guidance 

B. Revised South Coast VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Regulatory Background 

A. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Ground-level ozone is formed when 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) react in the 

presence of sunlight. These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of 

pollution sources, including on- and offroad motor vehicles and engines, power 

plants and industrial facilities, and 

smaller area sources such as lawn and 

garden equipment and paints. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse public health effects occur 

following exposure to ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone 

exposure also has been associated with 

increased susceptibility to respiratory 

infections, medication use, doctor visits, 

and emergency department visits and 

hospital admissions for individuals with 

lung disease. Ozone exposure also 

increases the risk of premature death 

from heart or lung disease. Children are 

at increased risk from exposure to ozone 

because their lungs are still developing 

and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their 

exposure. 

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the EPA 

established primary and secondary 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS, standards, or standard) for 

ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over a 1-hour period (referred 

to herein as the ‘‘1-hour ozone 

standard’’ or ‘‘1-hour ozone NAAQS’’). 

See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone 

NAAQS to set the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, 

averaged over an 8-hour period (referred 

to herein as the ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’ or ‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS’’). See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 

1997). The EPA set the 8-hour ozone 

standard based on scientific evidence 

demonstrating that ozone causes 

adverse health effects at lower 

concentrations and over longer periods 

of time than was understood when the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard was set. 

The EPA determined that the 8-hour 

ozone standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

children and adults who are active 

outdoors, and individuals with a preVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 May 22, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM 23MYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS