[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