[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48028-48033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2015-OSERS-0048; CFDA Number: 84.263B.]
Final Priority--Technical Assistance Center for Vocational
Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Experimental and
Innovative Training program. The Assistant Secretary may use this
priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We
take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified
national need. We intend the priority to support a Technical Assistance
Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and
Quality Assurance (PEQA).
DATES: This priority is effective September 10, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Bunuan, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5046, Potomac Center Plaza
(PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6616 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: This program is designed to (a) develop new
types of training programs for rehabilitation personnel and to
demonstrate the effectiveness of these new types of training programs
for rehabilitation personnel in providing rehabilitation services to
individuals with disabilities; and (b) develop new and improved methods
of training rehabilitation personnel, so that there may be a more
effective delivery of rehabilitation services by State and other
rehabilitation agencies.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(a)(1).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 385 and 387.
We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in
the Federal Register on May 28, 2015 (80 FR 30399). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priority. There are differences between the proposed
priority and the final priority, and we explain those differences in
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority, four parties submitted comments.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments that raise concerns not directly
related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of the 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 observed that the priority should provide
for continuing personnel development for those who have completed the
Basic Certification Program and approach the intermediate level of
competency. The commenter recommended allowing those who have completed
the Basic Certification Training to qualify as intermediate-level
program evaluators in order to access the Special Topical Trainings. In
addition, two commenters
[[Page 48029]]
recommended adding a technical assistance (TA) component that addresses
quality improvement in the work of all vocational rehabilitation (VR)
personnel, not just the VR agency's program evaluators. The commenters
noted that quality improvement is an issue relevant to work at all
levels of a VR agency; therefore, other VR staff need to understand the
principles of program evaluation, quality assurance, and continuous
improvement.
Discussion: We agree that a wide array of State VR agency personnel
could benefit from a greater understanding of program evaluation and
quality assurance principles. However, the focus of this priority is to
advance the knowledge and skills of VR program evaluation personnel
through specialized professional education and training. The priority
is not intended as a vehicle for providing technical assistance to a
broader range of VR personnel on general program evaluation and quality
assurance principles.
Thus, the Basic Certification Program described in this priority is
designed as an intensive, structured training program to increase the
numbers and qualifications of VR program evaluators. The Special
Topical Trainings are targeted to more advanced program evaluators, and
we want to ensure that those individuals have first priority in
attending those sessions. However, if additional space in a Special
Topical Training is available, we believe it would be an appropriate
and efficient use of resources to open enrollment to individuals who
have completed the Basic Certification Program, and then, if seats
still remain, to other State VR agency personnel whose current work
responsibilities are closely aligned with the specific topic area of
the training.
Changes: We have inserted a new paragraph (b) in the Special
Topical Training section of the priority that would allow the PEQA,
after ensuring that intermediate-level program evaluators have been
given priority to register for a specific training session, to open
registration to individuals who have completed the Basic Certification
Program, and then to other VR personnel whose current work
responsibilities are closely aligned with the specific topic area of
the training, if additional space in such training is available.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the center support,
strengthen, and augment existing communities of practice that focus on
program evaluation, rather than establish new communities of practice
to perform these functions.
Discussion: We agree that creating new communities of practice is
not always necessary. Coordinating with, and enhancing the efforts of,
existing communities of practice focused on program evaluation could
also be beneficial in sharing information, exchanging ideas, and
accomplishing the activities in paragraph (a) of the Coordination
Activities section of the priority.
Changes: The communities of practice requirement in paragraph (a)
of Coordination Activities under the Project Activities section has
been revised to also permit the PEQA to support, strengthen, and
augment existing communities of practice, and to establish new
communities of practice, as needed, to act as vehicles for
communication, exchange of information among program evaluation
professionals, and a forum for sharing the results of capstone projects
that are in progress or have been completed.
Comment: Two commenters mentioned a preference for substituting the
term ``continuous improvement'' for ``quality assurance'' throughout
the priority. Commenters cited the extensive use of ``continuous
improvement'' in the proposed regulations implementing the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) that were published in the
Federal Register on April 16, 2015 (80 FR 21059).
Discussion: We recognize the significance of the term ``continuous
improvement'' and its use throughout WIOA. However, we believe that
``quality assurance'' and ``program evaluation,'' as described in this
priority, represent key elements of the overall process of ``continuous
improvement.''
Changes: We have revised the initial paragraph of the priority to
emphasize that continuous improvement is the overall goal of program
evaluation and quality assurance. However, we have retained the
priority's focus on skill development in the area of program evaluation
and quality assurance. We have also added footnotes referencing the
terms ``program evaluation'' and ``quality assurance'' as these terms
are used in the field in order to clarify the use of those terms.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the process by which
information and resources are disseminated from the TA Center in a
timely manner for use by State VR agencies.
Discussion: Consistent with the provisions in the ``Coordination
Activities'' section of the priority, we agree that timely
dissemination of information and resources for use by State VR agencies
is important, and mechanisms to ensure the timely dissemination of such
materials will be included in the cooperative agreement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the new center provide TA to
tribal VR programs funded through the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA), observing that this would be particularly
beneficial since tribal VR programs have many of the same requirements
to demonstrate continuous improvement as State VR agencies.
Discussion: This priority is intended to assist State VR agencies
to build their capacity to meet the performance accountability demands
of core programs under WIOA's workforce system. Specifically, this
priority is designed to assist State VR agencies to implement high-
quality program evaluation and quality assurance programs through the
education and training of VR evaluation personnel. Other programs of
the Department address these and other needs of tribal VR agencies.
Amendments made by WIOA to section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act
require RSA to reserve funds from the set-aside for the American Indian
Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) program under section 110(c)
to provide training and TA to assist governing bodies of Indian tribes
in developing, conducting, administering, and evaluating their AIVRS
projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that grant funds under this
priority be used to provide logistical and technical support for an
existing annual conference focused on program evaluation. Both
commenters indicated that an opportunity for in-person interaction and
networking would benefit the field as well as support the efforts of
objectives of the priority.
Discussion: Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant from
proposing to provide logistical and technical support for an existing
annual conference focused on program evaluation and quality assurance,
as long as such a proposal is consistent with paragraph (a) of the
Coordination Activities section of the proposed Center.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that funding be provided for
travel for the cohorts of participants in the Basic Certification
Program.
Discussion: Nothing in the priority would preclude an applicant
from proposing to use grant funds to support participant travel for the
in-person
[[Page 48030]]
component of the Basic Certification Program, consistent with 34 CFR
387.41.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the trainings detailed under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Special Topical Training section describe
the same or different trainings.
Discussion: Paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to the same trainings.
Paragraph (a) of the Special Topical Training section requires the
Center to develop topical trainings, and paragraph (b) requires that
those same trainings be conducted no fewer than four times a year.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the Basic Certification
Program is an academic or a professional certificate program.
Discussion: The project is required to develop a basic
certification program. Nothing in the priority precludes an applicant
from proposing a program that also provides academic credit to
participants. However, we note that the priority requires that the
Basic Certification Program be offered at no cost to participants. As
such, we believe it is unlikely that a project will offer academic
credit to all participants, though applicants, with support from an
institution of higher education, are welcome to propose such
arrangements.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for
a training and technical assistance center that will assist State
vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to improve performance
management by building their capacity to carry out high-quality program
evaluations \1\ and quality assurance \2\ practices that promote
continuous program improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Program evaluation'' is ``the appropriate, timely, and
systematic collection, analysis, and reporting of data to facilitate
stakeholder judgement concerning program worth in regards to its
design, demands, size and type of effect, match between effect and
need, cost effectiveness, strength of casual connections and
utility.'' Leahy, M.J., Thielsen, V.A., Millington, M.J., Austin,
B., & Fleming, A. (2009). Quality assurance and program evaluation:
Terms, models, and applications. Journal of Rehabilitation
Administration, 33(2), 69-82.
\2\ ``Quality assurance'' is ``a systematic process designed to
identify, analyze, and eliminate variations in processes or
outcomes.'' Leahy, M.J., Thielsen, V.A., Millington, M.J., Austin,
B., & Fleming, A. (2009). Quality assurance and program evaluation:
Terms, models, and applications. Journal of Rehabilitation
Administration, 33(2), 69-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Technical Assistance Center for Program Evaluation and Quality
Assurance (PEQA) will assist State VR agencies in building capacity
through professional education and training of VR evaluators. To this
end, PEQA will:
(a) Provide educational opportunities for State VR staff from
recognized experts in program evaluation and quality assurance;
(b) Develop interagency collaboration networks and work teams
committed to the improvement of quality assurance systems and tools;
and
(c) Deliver technical, professional, and continuing educational
support to State VR program evaluators.
Project Activities
To meet the requirements of this priority, the PEQA must, at a
minimum, conduct the following activities:
Basic Certification Program
(a) Develop a one-year certificate program in VR program evaluation
that will result in increasing the numbers and qualifications of
program evaluators in State VR agencies. At a minimum, this certificate
program must:
(1) Be designed to develop key competencies necessary for
successful implementation of program evaluation and quality assurance
activities, including, but not limited to:
(i) Knowledge of the State-Federal VR program;
(ii) Data collection methodologies;
(iii) Data analysis and interpretation;
(iv) Making evaluative judgments and recommendations;
(v) Effective communication of results (including presentations,
drafting reports, and building partnerships); and
(vi) Ethical practice.
(2) Be responsive to the prior knowledge and skills of
participants;
(3) Incorporate adult learning principles and opportunities for
practice into training;
(4) Be delivered through multiple modalities and in an accessible
format;
(5) Assess, at regular intervals, the progress of training
participants toward attainment of the key competencies; and
(6) Require the completion of a capstone project in order to
successfully complete the program. The capstone project must:
(i) Be completed within one year of the completion of formal
coursework for the certificate program;
(ii) Be conducted on a topic responsive to the needs of the State
VR agency and agreed to by the PEQA, the participant, and the State VR
agency; and
(iii) Be completed as part of the normal work duties of the
participant in the State VR agency.
(7) Be provided at no cost to participants, excluding travel and
per diem costs, which may be provided by the sponsoring agency.
(b) Provide training through the certificate program to a cohort of
eight to ten working professionals in each year of the project.
(c) Select participants for the certificate program based, in part,
on the considered recommendation of their employing State VR agencies.
Special Topical Training
(a) Develop a series of special training opportunities for
intermediate-level program evaluators. These training opportunities
must, at a minimum:
(1) Be designed to develop higher-level knowledge, skills, and
abilities of program participants;
(2) Be focused on a range of topics determined by the PEQA with
input from State VR agencies and other relevant groups or
organizations;
(3) Provide opportunities for hands-on application of the
competencies discussed in the trainings;
(4) Be of sufficient duration and intensity to ensure that
participants obtain the competencies discussed in the trainings; and
(5) Assess the progress of program participants in attaining the
competencies discussed in the trainings.
(b) If, after ensuring that intermediate-level program evaluators
have priority in registering for Special Topical Training provided
under paragraph (a), the PEQA determines that additional space is
available, the Center may open registration to individuals who have
completed the Basic Certification Program described in this priority.
In addition, if additional space in such training opportunities is
still available after intermediate-level program evaluators and
individuals who have completed the Basic Certification Program have
been allowed to register, the Center may open registration to State VR
agency personnel whose current work responsibilities are closely
aligned with the specific topic area of the particular training
opportunity.
Note: For purposes of this priority, an ``intermediate-level
program evaluator'' is a program evaluator working for a State VR
agency with the knowledge, skills, and abilities typically expected of
a professional who has been in such a position for at least five years.
(c) Conduct no fewer than four special training opportunities each
year of the project.
Coordination Activities
(a) Support, strengthen, and augment existing communities of
practice, and establish new communities of practice, as needed, to act
as vehicles for communication, exchange of information among program
evaluation
[[Page 48031]]
professionals, and a forum for sharing the results of capstone projects
that are in progress or have been completed. These communities of
practice must be focused on challenges facing program evaluation
professionals and the development of key competencies to address such
challenges;
(b) Maintain a Web site that, at a minimum:
(1) Provides a central location for later reference and use of
capstone projects, resources from special training opportunities, and
other relevant materials; and
(2) Ensures peer-to-peer access between State VR project evaluation
professionals;
(c) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other
relevant Department-funded projects and those supported by the
Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services; and
(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and
other RSA staff as required.
Application Requirements.
To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements in this priority. RSA
encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address State VR agencies' capacity to conduct high quality
program evaluation and data analysis activities. To address this
requirement, the applicant must:
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in program
evaluation and quality assurance;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current State VR and other efforts
designed to improve evaluation and performance management practices.
(2) Increase the number of program evaluators working in State VR
agencies who have obtained a certificate in their field of work and the
number and quality of program evaluation activities performed by State
VR agencies.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;
(ii) A plan for how the proposed project will achieve its intended
outcomes; and
(iii) A plan for communicating and coordinating with relevant
training programs and communities of practice, State VR agencies, and
other RSA partners.
(2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and
activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed
relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical
support for this framework.
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based
practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe:
(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and
implementation science will inform the proposed training; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its
products and services.
(4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) Its proposed curriculum for a certificate program for VR
evaluation professionals;
(ii) Its proposed plan for recruiting and selecting trainees for
the certification program;
(iii) Its proposed plan for collecting information on the impact of
capstone projects;
(iv) Its proposed plan for identifying, selecting and addressing
the special topical program evaluation and quality assurance related
training needs of State VR agency staff;
(v) Its proposed plan for annual follow-up with participants in
special training opportunities;
(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the
project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes; and
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Evaluation Plan,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Measure and track the effectiveness of the training provided.
To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed
approach to--
(i) Collecting data on the effectiveness of training activities;
(ii) Analyzing and reporting data on the effectiveness of training,
including any proposed standards or targets for determining
effectiveness;
(2) Collect and analyze data on specific and measurable goals,
objectives, and intended outcomes of the project, including measuring
and tracking the effectiveness of the training provided. To address
this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Its proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments,
data collection methods, and analyses;
(ii) Its proposed standards or targets for determining
effectiveness;
(iii) How it will use the evaluation results to examine the
effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward achieving
the intended outcomes; and
(iv) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and
qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project and individual
training activities achieved their intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to achieve the
project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated to the project and how these
[[Page 48032]]
allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's
intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have
adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders
and RSA;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, technical
assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in
its development and operation.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (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 Rehabilitation Training program have been well
established over the years through the successful completion of similar
projects funded for the purpose of improving the skills of State VR
agency staff. The priority would specifically improve the skills of
State VR agency evaluators. A project of this type will be particularly
beneficial to State VR agencies in this era of increased emphasis on
accountability and program results.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
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
[[Page 48033]]
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: August 5, 2015.
Michael K. Yudin,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2015-19617 Filed 8-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P