Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38779 

C, entry into, transit through or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port of San Diego or his 

designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(3) Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Captain of the Port designated 

representative. 

(4) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

(5) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard or designated patrol personnel by 

siren, radio, flashing light or other 

means, the operator of a vessel shall 

proceed as directed. 

(6) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement agencies in the patrol and 

notification of the regulation. 

Dated: June 24, 2014. 

J.A. Janszen, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16073 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0018; CFDA 

Number: 84.133E–4] 

Final Priority; National Institute on 

Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority under the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, we 

announce a priority for a Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center (RERC) on 

Improving the Accessibility, Usability, 

and Performance of Technology for 

Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of 

Hearing. 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 an area of national need. 

We intend the priority to contribute to 

improving the accessibility, usability, 

and performance of technology for 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective August 8, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6211 or by email: 

patricia.barrett@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 self-sufficiency 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 NIDRR’s RERCs 

program, which is funded through the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program, is to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act. 

It does so by conducting advanced 

engineering research, developing and 

evaluating innovative technologies, 

facilitating service delivery system 

changes, stimulating the production and 

distribution of new technologies and 

equipment in the private sector, and 

providing training opportunities. RERCs 

seek to solve rehabilitation problems 

and remove environmental barriers to 

improvements in employment, 

community living and participation, 

and health and function outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities. 

The general requirements for RERCs 

are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part 

350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers Does the Secretary 

Assist?). 

Additional information on the RERCs 

program can be found at: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/rerc/ 

index.html#types. 

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

764(b)(3). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this program in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 

21418). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priority. 

There are differences between the 

proposed priority and this final priority 

as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section of this 

notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, four parties submitted 

comments on the proposed priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the NPP follows. 

Comment: One commenter observed 

that NIDRR RERC priorities have 

typically included a requirement that 

RERCs develop and implement a plan to 

ensure that technologies developed by 

the RERC are made available to the 

public. This commenter suggested that 

this requirement should be included in 

the priority. 

Discussion: We agree that this 

requirement would help ensure that 

technologies resulting from research and 

development conducted by the RERC 

would be made available to the public. 

Changes: New paragraph (e) has been 

added to the priority requiring the RERC 

to develop and implement a plan for 

transferring technologies developed by 

the RERC to the public. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended specific changes to 

paragraph (a) of the priority, which 

focuses on improving technological and 

design features to maximize the 

adoption and use of auditory devices. 

This commenter suggested that the 

RERC should focus its research and 

development activities on open fit 

hearing aids, as well as other 

technological and design features that 

improve individuals’ ability to hear in 

noisy environments. 

Discussion: We agree that research on 

open fit hearing aids and design features 

that improve individuals’ ability to hear 

in noisy environments are important 

areas to consider for research and 

development. Nothing in the priority 

prohibits an applicant from proposing to 

focus on one or both of these topics. We 

do not, however, want to limit 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

applicants’ ability to focus on other 

approaches by requiring a focus on 

these specific topics. The peer review 

process will determine the merits of 

each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that affordability is a critical factor in 

determining rates of adoption and use of 

auditory enhancement devices. The 

commenter recommended that NIDRR 

specifically require, in paragraph (a) of 

the priority, a focus on affordability 

when addressing factors that promote 

adoption and use. 

Discussion: We agree that affordability 

is important to consider when seeking 

to maximize the adoption and use of 

auditory enhancement devices. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(a) of the priority to include 

affordability in the list of examples. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the emphasis on improving the 

compatibility of auditory enhancement 

technologies with other technologies in 

paragraph (b) of the proposed priority. 

The commenter recommended that we 

require the RERC to, among other 

things, improve: (1) Listening systems 

for use in large meeting rooms such as 

theaters, movies, and places of worship; 

(2) technologies that improve signal-tonoise ratio; (3) technologies that use 

open source wireless connectivity; (4) 

wide-band audio technologies to 

increase the intelligibility of cell phone 

signals; (5) induction loop systems; (6) 

telecoil positioning; and (7) conference 

call technology. 

Discussion: We agree that these are 

important areas to consider for research 

and development. Nothing in the 

priority prohibits an applicant from 

proposing to focus on one or more of 

these topics. We do not, however, want 

to limit applicants’ ability to focus on 

other auditory enhancement 

technologies by requiring a focus on any 

specifically named technology. The peer 

review process will determine the 

merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise paragraph (b) to include 

research and development on 

interoperability, and not just 

compatibility, of auditory enhancement 

technologies. 

Discussion: We agree that 

interoperability is an important concept 

to consider for this requirement. 

However, we believe that the 

requirement that there be compatibility 

supports this concept. Nothing in the 

priority prohibits an applicant from 

addressing interoperability in its 

proposed approach. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported the emphasis on improving 

the performance of auditory 

enhancement devices and other accesspromoting technology in social 

environments in paragraph (c) of the 

proposed priority. One commenter 

recommended that the RERC focus its 

research and development activities on: 

(1) Universal platforms for connectivity 

to assistive listing devices; (2) smart 

phones/tablets/computers that work 

with hearing aids as assistive listening 

devices; (3) interactive variable message 

signs; and (4) speech-to-text 

methodologies. The other commenter 

suggested that the RERC focus on 

improving access through design of the 

architectural environment, for example, 

acoustics, lighting, and control of 

ambient noise and vibrations. 

Discussion: We agree that these are 

important areas to consider for research 

and development. Nothing in the 

priority prohibits an applicant from 

proposing to focus on one or more of 

these topics. We do not, however, want 

to limit applicants’ ability to focus on 

other potential solutions by requiring 

applicants to focus on a specific 

approach. The peer review process will 

determine the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the environments 

named in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the 

priority be expanded to include ‘‘health 

care environments,’’ because of the 

importance of the interaction between 

health care service providers and 

individuals who are deaf and hard-ofhearing. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

interaction between health care service 

providers and individuals who are deaf 

and hard-of-hearing is important to 

these individuals, and we believe that 

this addition would be helpful in 

addressing the broad needs of 

individuals who are the focus of the 

RERC. 

Changes: We have added health care 

environments to the examples of 

environments that are in paragraphs (c) 

and (d). 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported the emphasis on enhancing 

aural rehabilitation and consumer 

involvement strategies in paragraph (d) 

of the proposed priority, but suggested 

that the requirements in paragraph (d) 

focus more on training. Specifically, one 

of these commenters recommended that 

paragraph (d) require the RERC to focus 

on: (1) Hearing assistive technology 

trainings; (2) online training and 

webinars; (3) focus groups, surveys, and 

consumer beta testing and review of 

products; and (4) encouraging young 

people with hearing loss to pursue 

careers in engineering. 

Discussion: The suggested training 

approaches proposed by the 

commenters have merit, and we agree 

that consumer training is a key strategy 

in improving consumer knowledge and 

utilization of hearing enhancement 

technology. We do not, however, wish 

to limit applicants’ ability to propose 

potential training methods and 

audiences by requiring a specific focus 

or approach. The peer review process 

will determine the merits of each 

proposal. 

Changes: We are revising paragraph 

(d) of the priority to include general 

consumer training as one of the required 

methods of improving consumer 

knowledge and utilization of hearing 

enhancement technology. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

consumer input is not considered 

sufficiently and suggested that the 

priority require the involvement of 

consumer organizations. 

Discussion: We agree that consumer 

involvement should be more explicitly 

required in the priority. 

Changes: We have modified 

paragraph (d) of the priority to clarify 

that key stakeholders must include 

consumers, as well as consumer groups 

for individuals, who are deaf or hard of 

hearing. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that there is a need to find other kinds 

of technologies or new ways to enhance 

older technologies to benefit people 

with hearing loss. 

Discussion: We agree with this 

suggestion, but believe that the priority 

as written allows applicants to pursue 

these options. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter wrote in 

support of the priority, and suggested 

that the RERC focus its research and 

development activities on the following 

areas: (1) Video conferencing 

technologies; (2) remote communication 

services; (3) individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing and also have other 

disabilities; and (4) speech recognition 

and translation technologies. 

Discussion: We agree that these are 

important areas to consider for research 

and development. Nothing in the 

priority prohibits an applicant from 

proposing to focus on one or more of 

these topics. We do not, however, want 

to limit applicants’ ability to focus on 

other potential solutions by requiring 

research and development on specific 

technologies or topics. The peer review 

process will determine the merits of 

each proposal. 

Changes: None. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38781 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we frame the priority to support 

technological alternatives that allow 

improved access through both 

physiological enhancements via 

technology (e.g., cochlear implants) and 

modifications of the environment (e.g., 

relay telephone services or captioning 

services). The commenter also 

recommended that NIDRR revise the 

priority to recognize the diversity of 

consumers of hearing technology and to 

support the rights of the consumer to 

select physiological enhancements or 

environmental modifications. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the 

diversity of consumer needs and 

preferences should be recognized in the 

RERC’s research and development work. 

Nothing in the priority prohibits 

applicants from proposing research and 

development on physiological 

enhancements, environmental 

modifications and related technologies, 

or both. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the priority require the RERC to 

conduct research regarding psychosocial factors, such as stigma influence 

acceptability, that may affect the 

utilization of auditory enhancement 

devices. 

Discussion: While we agree that 

psycho-social factors may be an 

important consideration in designing 

auditory enhancement devices, nothing 

in the priority prohibits an applicant 

from including this consideration in its 

proposed approach. We have no 

evidence to support our making this an 

absolute requirement of the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

Improving the Accessibility, Usability, 

and Performance of Technology for 

Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of 

Hearing 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for a RERC on 

Improving the Accessibility, Usability, 

and Performance of Technology for 

Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of 

Hearing. The RERC must focus on 

innovative technological solutions, new 

knowledge, and concepts that will 

improve the lives of individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing. 

Under this priority, the RERC must 

research, develop, and evaluate 

technologies, methods, and systems that 

will improve the accessibility, usability, 

and performance of technologies that 

benefit individuals who are deaf or hard 

of hearing. This includes: 

(a) Improving technological and 

design features (e.g., device fit and 

comfort, ease of control, affordability) in 

order to maximize adoption and use of 

auditory enhancement devices; 

(b) Improving the compatibility of 

auditory enhancement technologies 

with other technologies such as mobile 

devices, telephones, televisions, and 

other media devices); 

(c) Improving the performance of 

auditory enhancement devices and 

other access-promoting technology (e.g., 

voice to sign computer, smart phone 

applications, or portable real-time 

captioning applications) in social 

environments (e.g., school, work, 

recreation, health care, and 

entertainment); and 

(d) Enhancing aural rehabilitation, 

consumer involvement strategies (e.g., 

online access to peer and expert input 

on auditory technologies and 

communication strategies, consumer 

focus groups and surveys, and consumer 

beta testing and review of products), 

and consumer training to maximize 

access to auditory information in a 

variety of settings (e.g., educational, 

recreational, community, health care, 

and workplace). The RERC must involve 

key stakeholders in the design and 

implementation of RERC activities. 

These stakeholders must include 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing and consumer groups who 

represent them. 

(e) Increasing the 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 

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)). 

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 final 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 final 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does 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, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

final priority have been completed 

successfully. The new RERC would 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that is intended 

to improve outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities in the areas of 

community living and participation, 

employment, and health and function. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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: July 3, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16089 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[ED–2014–OSERS–0047] 

Final 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: Final priority. 

[CFDA Number: 84.133B–8.] 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority for the 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Center (RRTC) Program administered by 

the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 

Specifically, we announce a priority for 

an RRTC on Family Support. 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 an area of 

national need. We intend the priority to 

contribute to improved outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities and family 

members who provide assistance to 

them. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective August 8, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6211 or by email: 

patricia.barrett@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 self-sufficiency of individuals 

with disabilities, especially individuals 

with the most severe disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Centers 

The purpose of the RRTCs, which are 

funded through the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program, is to achieve the goals 

of, and improve the effectiveness of, 

services authorized under the 

Rehabilitation Act through welldesigned research, training, technical 

assistance, and dissemination activities 

in important topical areas as specified 

by NIDRR. These activities are designed 

to benefit rehabilitation service 

providers, individuals with disabilities, 

family members, policymakers, and 

other research stakeholders. Additional 

information on the RRTC program can 

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

programs/rrtc/index.html#types. 

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

764(b)(2). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES