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
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38783 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on March 24, 2014 (79 

FR 15928). 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. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, 16 parties submitted 

comments. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that NIDRR modify the priority to 

require the RRTC to address how 

families of people with disabilities can 

better support the adoption and use of 

new technologies by their family 

members who have disabilities. 

Discussion: Nothing in the priority 

precludes an applicant from proposing 

to focus on ways that families of people 

with disabilities can better support the 

adoption and use of new technologies 

by individuals with disabilities. 

However, NIDRR does not wish to 

further specify the research 

requirements in the way suggested by 

the commenter and thereby limit the 

number and breadth of applications 

submitted under this priority. The peer 

review process will determine the 

merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

about the intended duration of research 

under this RRTC, and when the 

products of the research will be 

available for use by family caregivers. 

Discussion: NIDRR plans to fund this 

RRTC for a total of five years. NIDRR 

allows applicants to propose their 

timeline of activities within the fiveyear period, and so the timeline for the 

availability of research-based tools has 

not yet been established. However, 

typically RRTCs disseminate their 

research-based tools and products in 

their fourth and fifth years. NIDRR will 

work with the RRTC to ensure that 

research-based tools and informational 

products are disseminated in a timely 

fashion. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether the RRTC would be conducting 

case studies, and whether case studies 

would include middle-class families as 

well as families in underserved 

communities. 

Discussion: This priority does not 

specify the research methods to be used 

by the RRTC and does not require case 

studies. Applicants have the latitude to 

specify the research methods that they 

plan to employ. The priority also does 

not specify the socioeconomic 

background of research participants. 

The peer review process will determine 

the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether unspecified regional centers 

will be a mechanism for disseminating 

the products of the RRTC under 

paragraph (f). Four other commenters 

recommended that NIDRR expand its 

list of technical assistance network 

members in paragraph (f) to include a 

number of specific organizations, 

including University Centers for 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities, Area Agencies on Aging, 

State Agencies on Aging, Lifespan 

Respite Grantees, the Long-Term 

Quality Alliance, Eldercare Workforce 

Alliance, and the National Coalition on 

Care Coordination. 

Discussion: Paragraph (f) of the 

priority specifies a number of 

organizations that the RRTC should 

include in its network of technical 

assistance providers and advocacy 

entities. However, NIDRR has clearly 

stated that the RRTC’s network is not 

limited to the organizations highlighted 

in paragraph (f). Nothing in the priority 

precludes applicants from proposing to 

include other organizations in its 

network. The peer review process will 

determine the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether NIDRR intends the work of this 

RRTC to influence laws and policies 

related to family caregiving, including 

the Family and Medical Leave Act. 

Discussion: As stated in the opening 

paragraph of the priority, NIDRR does 

intend the RRTC’s work to inform the 

design, implementation, and 

improvement of Federal and State 

policies and programs related to 

assisting families in support, assistance, 

and nurturing of family members with 

disabilities. The RRTC’s work may be 

relevant to the Family and Medical 

Leave Act, but the priority for the RRTC 

does not require a focus on this specific 

law. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed support for the priority’s 

research and data analysis aims, but 

asked for clarification about how the 

RRTC will translate the research 

findings into services and support for 

families, and for how long. 

Discussion: As stated in the opening 

paragraph of the priority, the RRTC will 

serve families of individuals with 

disabilities by providing them with 

information to guide their informed 

choice of community- and family-based 

services. NIDDR also believes that these 

families will benefit from the work of 

the RRTC that is used to inform and 

improve policies and programs that 

provide assistance to individuals with 

disabilities and their families. The 

RRTC will translate its research findings 

into these services and supports for 

families by fulfilling the information 

dissemination, technical assistance, and 

training requirements found in 

paragraphs (e), (f), and (g). Applicants 

have the latitude to specify the 

dissemination, technical assistance, and 

training methods that they plan to 

employ. While NIDRR plans to support 

this RRTC for five years, we anticipate 

that the RRTC’s products will continue 

to inform policy and practice beyond 

the five-year life of the grant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the well-being of caregivers directly 

contributes to the outcomes of the 

individuals with disabilities to whom 

they provide support. This commenter 

suggested that NIDRR modify the 

priority to require research to identify 

best practices in interventions for 

caregivers. The commenter also noted 

that research focused on aging 

populations has led to specific 

interventions for caregivers, and that 

this priority could be modified to 

require the RRTC to transfer knowledge 

of these interventions to family 

caregivers of younger individuals with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenter that the RRTC should 

conduct research to identify and 

evaluate existing practices for serving 

and supporting the well-being of family 

caregivers of individuals with 

disabilities, as reflected in the proposed 

and final priority. For example, 

paragraph (c) of the priority requires the 

RRTC to identify and evaluate welldesigned, effective State or local family 

support programs. NIDRR agrees that 

the RRTC could look to previous 

research conducted on aging 

populations to identify promising 

support services for families of younger 

individuals with disabilities. However, 

we do not want to preclude applicants 

from proposing other options for 

identifying promising practices by 

requiring all applicants to use this 

particular strategy. The peer review 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

process will determine the merits of 

each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the priority be revised to require the 

RRTC to engage people with disabilities 

and their families, national caregiving 

advocacy organizations, and home-and 

community-based service providers. 

The commenter makes this 

recommendation to maximize the 

relevance of the RRTC’s research. 

Discussion: Proposed and final 

paragraph (d) provides a list of 

stakeholder groups that must be 

included in the RRTC’s activities to 

maximize the relevance and usefulness 

of the RRTC’s products, including 

individuals with disabilities and their 

families and service providers. 

Although paragraph (d) does not 

explicitly include national caregiving 

advocacy organizations, NIDRR has 

clearly stated in this paragraph that the 

RRTC’s network of stakeholders is not 

limited to the organizations listed in 

paragraph (d). Each applicant may 

propose and justify the composition of 

its stakeholder network. The peer 

review process will determine the 

merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that NIDRR specify 

whether it intends for the RRTC to have 

a diversity of disability types in its 

target population, or whether there is a 

particular disability population that the 

RRTC should focus on. This commenter 

stated a preference for having the RRTC 

conduct its activities across disability 

categories and age groups. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenter that the RRTC’s target 

population should be across disability 

categories. Family support is important 

to all people with disabilities, and we 

want the work of the RRTC to be widely 

applicable across disability categories. 

Changes: NIDRR has revised the 

opening paragraph of the priority to 

require that the RRTC’s work be across 

disability categories, including physical, 

sensory, intellectual and developmental, 

and psychiatric disabilities. 

Comment: Three commenters noted 

that the field of family caregiving 

research has historically been divided, 

with researchers in the field of aging 

being unfamiliar with the work of 

researchers in the disability field, and 

vice versa. These commenters noted that 

the RRTC priority is an opportunity to 

bridge this divide and to establish a 

unified framework and research agenda 

on family support. These commenters 

recommended that NIDRR modify the 

priority to make it explicitly inclusive of 

individuals with disabilities of all ages, 

and to require the RRTC to conduct 

research and related activities ‘‘across 

the lifespan.’’ 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenter that the RRTC should be 

inclusive of individuals with disabilities 

of all ages. This will help to establish a 

unified framework and research agenda 

on family support and ensure that the 

RRTC’s work is widely applicable to 

individuals with disabilities of all ages. 

Changes: NIDRR has revised the 

introductory paragraph of the priority to 

require the RRTC’s work to be inclusive 

of individuals with disabilities of all 

ages. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the priority require inclusion of 

families of veterans and military 

members with disabilities, including 

aging and older veterans with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: NIDRR encourages the 

inclusion of veterans with disabilities, 

as well as their family members who 

may have disabilities. Nothing in the 

priority precludes applicants from 

including particular subpopulations of 

individuals with disabilities, including 

veterans. However, we do not want to 

limit the target populations that can be 

proposed by applicants by requiring all 

applicants to do so. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters noted 

that the experiences and perspectives of 

racial and ethnic minorities are 

typically not included in research on 

family support. These commenters 

recommended that NIDRR modify the 

priority to require the RRTC to include 

a focus on underserved racial and ethnic 

families in all of its activities. 

Discussion: The regulations that 

govern NIDRR’s administration of the 

RRTC program require applicants to 

demonstrate how they will address, in 

whole or in part, the needs of 

individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds. NIDRR describes 

this requirement in the notice inviting 

applications that accompanies this final 

priority. To emphasize the importance 

of this requirement, we have also 

revised the opening paragraph of the 

priority to include a focus on racial and 

ethnic minority families with 

disabilities. 

Changes: NIDRR has modified the 

opening paragraph of the priority to 

require that applicants include a focus 

on racial and ethnic minority families 

with disabilities. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

paragraph (c)(ii) of the proposed priority 

stated that the RRTC may use National 

Core Indicators as a means of 

monitoring, tracking, and evaluating 

States’ approaches to supporting family 

caregivers. This commenter asked 

whether this data is readily available 

and whether there is a cost associated 

with its use. 

Discussion: The National Association 

of State Directors of Developmental 

Disabilities Services (NASDDS) 

maintains the National Core Indicators 

database and makes the data available to 

researchers upon request, following 

submission of a research protocol. There 

is a fee of $250 for processing such data 

requests. The NASDDS provides 

information about, and reports 

generated from, the National Core 

Indicators on the following Web site: 

www.nationalcoreindicators.org/. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the proposed priority does not require 

the RRTC to conduct research on the 

outcomes of family support for 

individuals with disabilities and their 

families. This commenter and one other 

recommended that NIDRR modify the 

priority to require research on the longterm outcomes associated with receiving 

family support services. 

Discussion: The priority requires the 

RRTC to identify and evaluate 

promising practices under paragraph (c). 

These activities could involve the RRTC 

conducting this outcomes research. The 

end of paragraph (c)(ii) states that the 

RRTC may identify and assess methods 

for evaluating the outcomes for 

individuals and families receiving 

family support services. Nothing in the 

priority precludes the RRTC from 

conducting outcomes research to carry 

out these activities. However, we do not 

want to preclude applicants from 

proposing other means to fulfill this 

requirement, by requiring all applicants 

to conduct outcomes research. The peer 

review process will determine the 

merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that NIDRR broaden the definition of 

‘‘family caregiver’’ provided in the 

background section of the NPP to 

include all family caregiving 

populations, regardless of family 

relationship. This commenter also 

requested that NIDRR expand the list of 

family members that are provided as 

examples in proposed paragraph (d) to 

include spouses, partners, other 

relatives, and friends who have 

significant relationships with, and who 

provide a broad range of assistance for, 

a person with a disability. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the 

concept of family member should be 

broadened to allow for research on any 

caregivers who have a family 

relationship with the individual with 

disability. We believe that a definition 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38785 

that is more inclusive of individuals 

who function as family members would 

help clarify the meaning of family. 

Within this broad and flexible 

framework, applicants are free to define 

and justify their target population of 

family caregivers. 

Changes: We have added a definition 

of family member at the beginning of the 

priority paragraph that a clarifies that a 

family member may be any individual 

related by blood or affinity whose close 

association with an individual is the 

equivalent of a family relationship and 

can be considered a family caregiver. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended expanding the list of 

topics in proposed paragraph (e) to 

include the development and testing of 

family caregiver assessment tools, 

development of training for health care 

professionals on the needs of family 

caregivers, and research on interactions 

between healthcare professionals and 

family caregivers. 

Discussion: NIDRR does not intend 

the list of topics in paragraph (e) to be 

comprehensive. The priority specifically 

states that the topics are not limited to 

those listed in paragraph (e). Nothing in 

the priority precludes applicants from 

proposing to address the topics 

described by the commenters. However, 

NIDRR does not want to preclude 

applicants from proposing and 

justifying other topics to be addressed 

under this paragraph by creating a large 

number of required topics. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that respite care is an important family 

support service and suggested that 

NIDRR revise the priority to require 

research and training related to this 

topic. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenters about the importance of 

respite care as a family support service. 

Paragraph (b) requires research on the 

extent to which family caregivers 

receive assistance, including respite 

care. Applicants are free to plan and 

conduct research on respite care under 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 

priority and to provide training to 

respite care providers under paragraph 

(g) of this priority. However, NIDRR 

does not want to preclude applicants 

from proposing and justifying other 

topics to be addressed by requiring all 

applicants to focus on respite care. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the proposed activities of the RRTC 

could complement the Administration 

For Community Living’s (ACL) 

Community of Practice (CoP) on Life 

Span Supports for Self-Advocates and 

their Families, and encouraged NIDRR 

to ensure that the RRTC will work with 

the CoP. This commenter also suggested 

that the RRTC could emphasize the 

importance of future planning for 

individuals with disabilities, who often 

outlive their parental caregivers. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the 

RRTC could work with ACL’s CoP on 

Life Span Supports. NIDRR will work 

closely with ACL in administering this 

RRTC and ensuring that the two efforts 

are complementary. In regard to the 

commenter’s second suggestion, nothing 

in the priority precludes applicants 

from focusing their research, training, 

technical assistance, or related activities 

on future planning for individuals with 

disabilities and their families. However, 

NIDRR does not wish to further specify 

the requirements in the way suggested 

by the commenter and thereby limit the 

breadth of applications submitted under 

this priority. The peer review process 

will determine the merits of each 

proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

emphasized the importance of 

relationships between individuals with 

disabilities and their siblings. One 

commenter requested that NIDRR 

modify the priority to emphasize the 

importance of including siblings of 

individuals with disabilities in the 

RRTC’s work. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the 

relationship between individuals with 

disabilities and their siblings is 

important. Consistent with the proposed 

priority, paragraph (d) of the final 

priority lists siblings in the list of key 

stakeholders who must be included in 

the research and research planning 

activities of the RRTC. Nothing in the 

priority precludes applicants from 

including a focus on siblings in other 

RRTC activities as well. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

Family Support 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for an RRTC on 

Family Support. For purposes of this 

priority, family member is defined as 

any individual related by blood or 

affinity whose close association with an 

individual is the equivalent of a family 

relationship. The RRTC’s work is 

intended to inform the design, 

implementation, and continuous 

improvement of Federal and State 

policies and programs related to 

assisting families in support, assistance, 

and nurturing of family members with 

disabilities. The RRTC will also identify 

and develop information for individuals 

with disabilities and their family 

members to guide their informed choice 

of community and family-based service 

and support options that best meet their 

needs. The RRTC’s work must be 

conducted in a manner that takes the 

needs and experiences of multiple 

disability groups and their families into 

consideration. These broad disability 

groups, as described in NIDRR’s LongRange Plan, include physical 

disabilities, sensory disabilities, 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities, and psychiatric disabilities. 

The RRTC’s work must also be inclusive 

of individuals with disabilities of all 

ages, and the RRTC’s research and 

related activities must be conducted in 

a manner that addresses the needs and 

experiences of people with disabilities 

and their families across the lifespan. 

The RRTC’s work must include a focus 

on the family support needs and 

experiences of racial and ethnic 

minority families who support family 

members with disabilities. 

The RRTC must be designed to 

contribute to better understanding of the 

phenomenon of family support; to 

improved community living and 

participation, health and function, and 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities supported by family 

members; and to effective support of 

family caregivers by— 

(a) Developing and implementing a 

project research plan to identify the key 

elements of family support and family 

support programs and policy. This plan, 

once implemented by the grantee, must 

contribute to identification or 

development of relevant and highquality data and information that will 

serve as an empirical foundation for 

improving assistance to families in 

support roles and to family support 

policies and programs. This task 

includes: 

(i) Developing a conceptual 

framework for research on family 

support that includes both individual 

and societal level characteristics that 

influence provision of family support, 

considering existing knowledge about 

family support barriers in other 

populations. 

(ii) Developing and prioritizing a list 

of research questions and evaluation 

topics that, when addressed, will lead to 

research-based information that can be 

used to improve family support policies, 

practices, programs, communications, 

and outcomes. 

(iii) Working with NIDRR and 

Administration For Community Living 

(ACL) to identify relevant data sets and 

informational resources that can be 

analyzed to address the questions and 

topics in the research plan; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
38786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) Working with NIDRR and ACL to 

identify gaps in data and information 

resources that are available to address 

the questions and topics in the research 

plan and to identify strategies to fill 

those gaps. 

(b) Conducting research and research 

syntheses to describe the nature and 

extent of support that is being provided 

to individuals with disabilities by 

family members, and the extent to 

which the family caregivers themselves 

receive assistance in the form of 

education/training, counseling/ 

psychosocial support, personal care, 

homemaker services, respite care, and 

other relevant supports, as well as the 

amounts of assistance received and the 

private and public sources of payment 

for such assistance; 

(c) Conducting research and research 

syntheses to identify and evaluate 

promising practices that States have 

used and could be adopted in other 

States to improve long-term services and 

supports for families of individuals with 

disabilities. This task includes— 

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

support programs; and 

(ii) Identifying and assessing methods 

for monitoring, tracking, and evaluating 

States’ approaches to supporting 

families, which may include, but are not 

limited to, methods for monitoring the 

experiences of individuals and costs for 

recipients of family support services 

within broader existing long-term 

services and supports evaluation 

programs, such as the National Core 

Indicators or Participant Experience 

Survey; methods for understanding, 

monitoring, and responding to the 

unique needs of individual families, 

including the family members with and 

without disabilities; and methods for 

evaluating the outcomes for individuals 

and families receiving family support 

services. 

(d) Identifying and involving key 

stakeholders in the research and 

research planning activities conducted 

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

maximize the relevance and usefulness 

of the research products being 

developed. Stakeholders must include, 

but are not limited to, individuals with 

disabilities and their families 

(including, but not limited to, parents, 

siblings, and sons/daughters); national, 

State, and local-level policymakers; 

service providers; and relevant 

researchers in the field of disability and 

rehabilitation research; 

(e) Identifying, evaluating, and 

disseminating accessible information at 

the national, State, service provider, and 

individual levels on topics of 

importance to sustaining and 

developing appropriate and effective 

family support services, practices, 

policies, and programs. These topics 

include, but are not limited to: 

Usefulness and effectiveness of current 

family support resources for families of 

differing circumstances; the roles of, 

and impact upon, families in the 

transitions from fee-for-service to 

integrated/managed long-term service 

and support systems; the roles and 

responsibilities of individuals with 

disabilities and their family members in 

the transition from agency-directed to 

consumer-directed services; best 

practices in supporting families both 

within and outside of disability 

services; accessing and coordinating 

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

systems and other social networks; and 

other topics to be determined in 

collaboration with key stakeholders, 

NIDRR, and ACL representatives; 

(f) Establishing a network of technical 

assistance providers and advocacy 

entities to assist in synthesizing and 

disseminating information related to 

implementing high-quality family 

support policies, programs, and 

practices for individuals with 

disabilities. Network members should 

include, but are not limited to: The 

Aging and Disability Resource Centers, 

the State Councils on Developmental 

Disabilities; Parent Training and 

Information Centers; Protection and 

Advocacy Client Assistance Programs; 

Centers for Independent Living; and 

private sector organizations that are 

recognized as national leaders in 

promoting family support policies, 

programs, and research; and 

(g) Serving as a national resource 

center related to family support by— 

(i) Providing information and 

technical assistance to individuals with 

disabilities, family members, service 

providers, policymakers, and other key 

stakeholders; 

(ii) Providing training to facilitate 

understanding of the effective use of 

private and public options for the 

provision of supports to families, 

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

individuals with disabilities, families, 

and rehabilitation and other service 

providers. This training may be 

provided through conferences, 

workshops, public education programs, 

in-service training programs, and 

similar activities; and 

(iii) Collaborating as appropriate with 

NIDRR’s RRTC on Community Living 

Policy. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38787 

(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 

(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 RRTC will 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that will 

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. 2014–16085 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0310; FRL–9913–30– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland. 

This revision pertains to Maryland’s 

incorporation by reference of the most 

recent amendments to California’s Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV) program. The 

Clean Air Act (CAA) contains authority 

by which other states may adopt new 

motor vehicle emissions standards that 

are identical to California’s standards. 

Maryland has adopted by reference 

California’s light and medium-duty 

vehicle emissions and fuel standards, 

and consistent with California, submits 

amendments to these standards as 

revisions to the State’s SIP. In this SIP 

revision, Maryland is updating its Low 

Emissions Vehicle Program regulation to 

adopt by reference California’s 

Advanced Clean Car Program. This 

action is being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 8, 2014 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by August 8, 2014. If 

EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0310 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0310, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES