[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38782-38787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16085]


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

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: [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: 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 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/programs/rrtc/index.html#types.

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


[[Page 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 five-year 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 well-designed, 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

[[Page 38784]]

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 long-term 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

[[Page 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 Long-Range 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 high-quality 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

[[Page 38786]]

    (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 well-designed, 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 
family-to-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, pre-service, 
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

[[Page 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