[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11742-11746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04641]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[ CFDA Number: 84.133B-3.]


Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the Rehabilitation 
Research and Training Center (RRTC) Program administered by the 
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 
Specifically, this notice proposes a priority for an RRTC on Employment 
for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. We 
take this action to focus research attention on an area of national 
need. We intend for this priority to contribute to improved employment 
outcomes of individuals with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 
20202-2700.

    Privacy Note:  The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202) 
245-6211 or by email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priority is in 
concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-

[[Page 11743]]

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 Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve 
the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) 
foster an exchange of research findings, expertise and other 
information to advance knowledge and understanding of the needs of 
individuals with disabilities and their family members, including those 
from among traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine 
effective practices, programs and policies to improve community living 
and participation, employment and health and function outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities of all ages; (4) identify research gaps 
and areas for promising research investments; (5) identify and promote 
effective mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) 
disseminate research findings to all major stakeholder groups, 
including individuals with disabilities and their families in formats 
that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
    This notice proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for one 
or more competitions in FY 2014 and possibly in later years. NIDRR is 
under no obligation to make an award under this priority. The decision 
to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received 
and available funding. NIDRR may publish additional priorities, as 
needed.
    Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this proposed priority in Room 5142, 550 12th Street 
SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and 
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related 
activities, including international activities, to develop methods, 
procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full 
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, 
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals 
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe 
disabilities. This program is also intended 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 well-designed 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/rschstat/research/pubs/resprogram.html#RRTC.

    Program Authority:  29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2).

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
    Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.
    RRTC on Employment for Individuals with Intellectual and 
Developmental Disabilities.
    Background:
    Intellectual and developmental disabilities are defined by 
limitations in adaptive functioning associated with substantial 
intellectual or physical impairments first evident in childhood 
(Schalock et al., 2010; Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill 
of Rights Act of 2000). It has been estimated that about 1 percent of 
working-age adults in the United States, or 1.96 million individuals, 
have intellectual and developmental disabilities (Houtenville, 2013; 
Larson et al., 2001). Persons with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities want to work (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions, 2011). Although there are no national estimates of 
rates of employment specifically for persons with intellectual and 
developmental disabilities, data from the 2008-2010 American Community 
Survey (ACS)(U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) show an employment rate of only 
23 percent among working age adults with cognitive disabilities, which 
includes individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 
In the ACS data, an individual with a cognitive disability is a person 
with a physical, mental, or emotional condition that results in serious 
difficulty with concentration, memory, or decision-making.
    For the population of individuals with intellectual and 
developmental disabilities who are employed in integrated community 
employment settings, other research has shown that they work an average 
of only 15 to 20 hours per week, typically at or only slightly above 
minimum wage (Human Services Research Institute, 2011). According to 
data gathered from a national survey of State intellectual and 
developmental disabilities agencies, significantly higher numbers of 
persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities participate in 
facility based work and non-work settings than in integrated 
competitive employment.\1\ Data reported by these agencies show that of 
the total 566,188 individuals with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities in integrated employment, sheltered employment, and non-
work settings in 2010, only 19 percent were in integrated, competitive 
employment (Butterworth et al., 2012). The reported number of 
individuals in integrated, competitive employment is virtually 
unchanged over the past few decades

[[Page 11744]]

(Migliore et al., 2007; Butterworth et al., 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to 34 CFR 361.5(b)(11) competitive employment must 
be performed in an integrated setting, and must result in a wage 
``that is not less than the customary wage and level of benefits 
paid by the employer for the same or similar work performed by 
individuals who are not disabled.'' Integrated setting as it refers 
to employment is defined in 34 CFR 361(b)(33) as being a setting 
where applicants or eligible individuals interact with non-disabled 
individuals . . . to the same extent that non-disabled individuals 
in comparable positions interact with other persons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Researchers, advocates, policy makers, and providers of vocational 
rehabilitation and other employment services are seeking ways to 
improve employment outcomes and earned income for persons with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research has identified a 
number of practices associated with successful employment outcomes for 
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including 
customized, person-centered job development and training; on-job 
coaching by professionals and co-workers; and computer technologies 
that guide, monitor, and provide quality control for specific work 
activities (Claes et al., 2010; McInnes et al., 2008; Van Laarhoven et 
al., 2009).
    Research and development programs have developed and validated a 
number of effective job development, placement, and support practices 
for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Through 
these practices individuals with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities can and do make valuable contributions to their employers 
and to their communities (Olson et al., 2001; Storey, 2003; Wehman, 
2007; Hendricks, 2010).
    However, as the low employment statistics, the high reliance on 
non-integrated work, and the low numbers of hours worked demonstrate, 
significant challenges remain. Among those challenges are: Increasing 
knowledge about effective ways to prepare persons with intellectual and 
developmental disabilities in their homes, schools, and communities for 
competitive integrated work; effectively bundling individual practices 
and experiences associated with desirable employment outcomes into more 
effective programs of employment supports; and scaling-up effective 
practices and programs to provide substantially increased opportunities 
for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to 
experience well-designed, effective employment support. In addition, 
more effective methods for engaging employers in providing 
opportunities for individuals with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities to demonstrate their abilities as employees are also 
needed.
    NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that will generate new knowledge about 
and expand access to practices that will improve employment outcomes 
and opportunities for individuals with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities and that will serve as a national resource center on 
employment for these individuals, their families, vocational 
rehabilitation and other employment service providers, employers, and 
policymakers.

References

Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C., Migliore, A., Winsor, 
J., Domin, D., & Timmons, J. C. (2012). State data: The national 
report on employment services and outcomes. Retrieved from http://statedata.info/statedatabook/img/statedata2011_Fweb.pdf.
Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, 
R.L. (2010). Person-Centered Planning: Analysis of Research and 
Effectiveness. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(6), 
pp. 432-453.
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 
(Pub. L. 106-402).
Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S. (2013). Disability 
Statistics from the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, 
NY: Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute (EDI). 
Retrieved from www.disabilitystatistics.org.
Hendricks, D. (2010). Employment and adults with autism spectrum 
disorders: Challenges and strategies for success. Journal of 
Vocational Rehabilitation, 32(2), 125-134.
Houtenville, A. (2013). Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics. 
Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability. 
Retrieved from: http://www.disabilitycompendium.org/compendium-statistics/population-and-prevelance/1-10-civilians-ages-18-64-years-living-in-the-community-for-the-u-s-cognitive-disability
Human Services Research Institute (2011). National Core Indicators: 
Adult Consumer Survey 2010-2011. Cambridge, MA.
Larson, S.A., Lakin, K.C., Anderson, L., Lee, N.K., Lee, J.K., & 
Anderson, D. (2001). Prevalence of mental retardation and 
developmental disabilities: Estimates from the 1994/1995 National 
Health Interview Survey Disability Supplements. American Journal on 
Mental Retardation, 106(3), 231-252.
McInnes, M.M., Ozturk, O.D., McDermott, S., & Mann, H. (2008). Does 
Job Coaching Work?: Evidence from South Carolina. SSRN eLibrary. 
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113170.
Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossi, T., & Rogan, P. (2007). Integrated 
employment or sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with 
intellectual disabilities, their families, and staff. Journal of 
Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 5-19.
Olson, D., Cioffi, A., Yovanoff, P., & Mank, D. (2001). Employers' 
perceptions of employees with mental retardation. Journal of 
Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(2), 125-133.
Storey, K. (2003). A review of research on natural support 
interventions in the workplace for people with disabilities. 
International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 26(2), 79-84.
Van Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J.W., Van Laarhoven-Myers, T., Grider, 
K.L., & Grider, K.M. (2009). The effectiveness of using a video iPod 
as a prompting device in employment settings. Journal of Behavioral 
Education, 18(2), pp. 119-141.
Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A., Bradley, V.J., Buntinx, 
W.H.E., Coulter, D.L., Craig, E.M., Gomez, S.C., Lachapelle, Y., 
Luckasson, R., Reeve, A., Shogren, K.A., Snell, M.E., Spreat, S., 
Tasse, M.J., Thompson, J.R., Verdugo-Alonso, M.A., Wehmeyer, M.L., & 
Yeager, M.H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, 
classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: 
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2011). 2008-2010 Disability Employment 
Tabulation. American Community Survey. U.S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington, DC. (http://www.census.gov/people/disabilityemptab/data)
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
(2011). Full committee hearing-improving employment opportunities 
for persons with intellectual disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=536891af-5056-9502-5d9c-9a3e588e3214.
Wehman, P. (2007). Real work for real pay: Inclusive employment for 
people with disabilities. Paul H Brookes Pub Co.

Definitions

    Stages of Research: For purposes of this priority, the stages of 
research are from the notice of final priorities and definitions 
published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34261).
    (i) Exploration and Discovery means the stage of research that 
generates hypotheses or theories by conducting new and refined analyses 
of data, producing observational findings, and creating other sources 
of research-based information. This research stage may include 
identifying or describing the barriers to and facilitators of improved 
outcomes of individuals with disabilities, as well as identifying or 
describing existing practices, programs, or policies that are 
associated with important aspects of the lives of individuals with 
disabilities. Results achieved under this stage of research may inform 
the development of interventions or lead to evaluations of 
interventions or policies. The results of the exploration and discovery 
stage of research may also be used to inform decisions or priorities.
    (ii) Intervention Development means the stage of research that 
focuses on generating and testing interventions that have the potential 
to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Intervention 
development involves

[[Page 11745]]

determining the active components of possible interventions, developing 
measures that would be required to illustrate outcomes, specifying 
target populations, conducting field tests, and assessing the 
feasibility of conducting a well-designed intervention study. Results 
from this stage of research may be used to inform the design of a study 
to test the efficacy of an intervention.
    (iii) Intervention Efficacy means the stage of research during 
which a project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is 
feasible, practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes 
for individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the 
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and 
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the 
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research 
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to 
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts. 
This stage of research can include assessing the training needed for 
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to 
evaluation of the intervention in real world applications.
    (iv) Scale-Up Evaluation means the stage of research during which a 
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing 
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in 
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests 
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings. 
The project examines the challenges to successful replication of the 
intervention, and the circumstances and activities that contribute to 
successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings. This 
stage of research may also include well-designed studies of an 
intervention that has been widely adopted in practice, but that lacks a 
sufficient evidence-base to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for an RRTC on Employment for Individuals 
with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
    The RRTC must contribute to improving the employment outcomes of 
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities by:
    (a) Conducting well-designed research activities in one or more of 
the following priority areas, focusing on individuals with intellectual 
and developmental disabilities as a group or on individuals in specific 
disability or demographic subpopulations of individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities:
    (i) Technology to improve employment outcomes for individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
    (ii) Individual, work environment, or employer factors associated 
with improved employment opportunities or outcomes for individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
    (iii) Interventions that contribute to improved employment outcomes 
for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 
Interventions include any one or combination of the following: 
strategies, practices, programs, policies, or tools that, when 
implemented as intended, contribute to improvements in opportunities or 
outcomes for individuals with disabilities, and may include 
interventions focused on individuals, families, employers, or service 
providers.
    (iv) Effects of current or modified government practices, policies, 
and programs on employment outcomes for individuals with intellectual 
and developmental disabilities.
    (v) Practices and policies that contribute to improved employment 
outcomes for transition-aged youth with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities.
    (b) Identifying and focusing its research on one or more specific 
stages of research, including specifically at least one significant 
evaluation project focused on scaling up existing validated employment 
interventions or programs to multiple employment settings. If the RRTC 
is to conduct research that can be categorized under more than one of 
the research stages, or research that progresses from one stage to 
another, those stages should be clearly specified. (These stages and 
their definitions are provided in the Definitions section of this 
notice.)
    (c) Serving as a national resource center related to employment for 
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, their 
families, and other stakeholders by conducting knowledge translation 
activities that include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Providing information and technical assistance on job 
development and placement, job training and support, customized 
employment, and other aspects of supported employment to school-based 
transition programs, employment service providers, employers, 
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their 
representatives, and other key stakeholders.
    (ii) Providing training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to vocational rehabilitation, school-based transition 
programs, and other employment service providers, to achieve 
integrated, competitive employment outcomes for individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities. This training may be 
provided through conferences, workshops, public education programs, in-
service training programs, and similar activities.
    (iii) Disseminating, in accessible formats, research-based 
information and materials related to employment for individuals with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
    (iv) Involving key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted 
under paragraph (a) in order to maximize the relevance and usability of 
the new knowledge generated by the RRTC. Such stakeholder groups may 
vary depending on the specific activity proposed, but could include 
representatives of agencies such as the State Developmental 
Disabilities program/service agencies, State Developmental Disability 
Planning Councils, State Protection and Advocacy Agencies, State 
Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, State Employment First coalitions, 
as well as consumer advocacy agencies such as The Arc, UCP, TASH, and 
People First.

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

[[Page 11746]]

preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority

    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, 
the Department believes that these proposed priorities are consistent 
with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects 
and Centers Program have been well established over the years. Projects 
similar to the RRTCs have been completed successfully, and the proposed 
priorities will generate new knowledge through research. The new RRTCs 
will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that 
would improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities in the areas 
of community living and participation, employment, and health and 
function.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts 
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. 
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in 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: February 26, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-04641 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P