Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, 16707-16711 [2014-06731]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16707-16711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06731]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2014-OSERS-0022]


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

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

[CFDA Number: 84.133B-5.]

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

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 25, 2014.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priority is in 
concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The 
Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2013 (78 
FR 20299), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: 
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
    The Plan identifies a need for research and training regarding 
employment of individuals with disabilities. To address this need, 
NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and 
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of research findings, 
expertise, and other information to advance knowledge and understanding 
of the needs of individuals with disabilities and their family members, 
including those from among traditionally underserved populations; (3) 
determine effective practices, programs, and policies to improve 
community living and participation, employment, and health and function 
outcomes for individuals with disabilities of all ages; (4) identify 
research gaps and areas for promising research investments; (5) 
identify and promote effective mechanisms for integrating research and 
practice; and (6) disseminate research findings to all major 
stakeholder groups, including individuals with disabilities and their 
family members in formats that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
    This notice proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for one 
or more

[[Page 16708]]

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and possibly later years. NIDRR 
is under no obligation to make an award under this priority. The 
decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications 
received and available funding. NIDRR may publish additional 
priorities, as needed.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific topic within the priority that each comment 
addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this proposed priority in Room 5133, 550 12th Street 
SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and 
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related 
activities, including international activities, to develop methods, 
procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full 
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, 
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals 
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe 
disabilities, 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: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/rrtc/#types.

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

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority

    This notice contains one proposed priority.

RRTC on Improving Employment Outcomes for Individuals With Psychiatric 
Disabilities

Background

    According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration's (SAMHSA's) 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health 
(SAMHSA, 2011a), an estimated 19.6 percent of all adults age 18 and 
older had a mental illness. An estimated 5 percent had a serious mental 
illness (i.e., ``a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional 
disorder (excluding developmental and substance use disorders) of 
sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified within the 
4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders (DSM-IV) (American Psychological Association, 1994) and that 
has resulted in serious functional impairment that substantially 
interferes with or limits one or more major life activities''), 
including employment.
    Mental illness has a pronounced negative effect on employment. Both 
internal and external factors, e.g., stigma, discrimination, co-
occurring conditions such as substance abuse, and medications used in 
treating mental health conditions contribute to poor employment 
outcomes.
    According to a recent report, only 17 percent of individuals who 
received publicly funded mental health services were employed (SAMHSA, 
2011b). Individuals with mental illness represent the largest 
disability group receiving public income support and they are least 
likely to achieve successful employment outcomes after vocational 
rehabilitation (Cook, 2006). Between 1996 and 2009, the number of 
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries with a 
primary diagnosis of ``Other Mental Disorders'' increased 38 percent 
(Frey et al., 2011). In 2012, SSDI beneficiaries with a primary 
diagnosis of ``Mood Disorders,'' ``Schizophrenic and Other Psychotic 
disorders,'' or ``Other Mental Disorders'' accounted for 23 percent of 
SSDI beneficiaries (Social Security Administration, 2012). For those 
individuals with mental illness who are employed, mental illness is 
associated with decreased productivity and job retention (Cook, 2006; 
Lerner et al., 2012).
    Supported employment has been demonstrated to be an effective 
intervention and has improved employment outcomes for individuals with 
mental illness (Campbell et al., 2009; Cook et al., 2005; Drake et al., 
2012; Frey et al., 2011). However, supported employment frequently 
results in only part-time employment, and earnings are typically 
insufficient to maintain self-sufficiency (Cook et al., 2008). 
Supported employment requires collaboration across agencies (e.g., 
mental health services, and vocational rehabilitation services) that 
are difficult and costly to implement (Cook, 2006; Frey, 2011). NIDRR's 
collaborator on this priority, SAMHSA, plans to award its own grants in 
2014 to behavioral health State agencies to enhance State and community 
capacity to provide evidence-based, supported employment programs that 
will target adults with serious mental illnesses, including persons 
with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders.
    The evidence base for other interventions that may improve 
employment outcomes for individuals with psychiatric disabilities is 
limited. Recent research has focused on additional or alternative 
interventions, including but not limited to, cognitive remediation 
(McGurk et al., 2009), consumer-provided services (Doughty & Tse, 
2005), and interdisciplinary work-focused care (Lerner et al., 2012). 
Further research is needed in order to improve employment outcomes of 
individuals with psychiatric disabilities (also referred to as mental 
illness) and to address the barriers they face in obtaining, retaining, 
and advancing in meaningful competitive employment.

[[Page 16709]]

References

Campbell, K., Bond, G. R., & Drake, R. E. (2011). Who benefits from 
supported employment: a meta-analytic study. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 
37(2), 370-380. Retrieved from https://schizo 
phreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/2/370.full.pdf.
Cook, J. (2006). Employment barriers for persons with psychiatric 
disabilities: update of a report for the President's Commission. 
Psychiatric Services, 57(10), 1391-1405. Retrieved from https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/PSS/3777/06ps1391.pdf.
Cook, J. A., Blyler, C. R., Leff, H. S., McFarlane, W. R., Goldberg, 
R. W., Gold, P. B., Mueser, K. T., Shafer, M. S., Onken, S. J., 
Donegan, K., Carey, M. A., Kaufmann, C., & Razzano, L. A. (2008). 
The Employment Intervention Demonstration Program: Major findings 
and policy implications. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 4, 291-
295.
Cook, J. A., Leff, H. S., Blyler, C. R., Gold, P. B., Goldberg, R. 
W., Mueser, K. T., Toprac, M. G., McFarlane, M.W. R., Shafer, M. S., 
Blankertz, L. E., Dudek, K., Razzano, L. A., Grey, D. D., & Burke-
Miller, J. (2005). Results of a multisite randomized trial of 
supported employment interventions for individuals with severe 
mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(5), 505. 
Retrieved from https://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=208591&resultClick=1.
Doughty, C., & Tse, S. (2005). The effectiveness of service user-run 
or service-user led mental health services for people with mental 
illness. A systematic literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: 
Mental Health Commission. Retrieved from www.mhc.govt.nz/media/
199629/the%20effectiveness%20of%20service%20user-
run%20or%20service%20user-
led%20mental%20health%20services%202005.pdf.
Drake, R. E., Bond, G. R., & Becker, D. R. (2012). Individual 
Placement and Support: An evidence-based approach to supported 
employment. Oxford University Press.
Frey, W. D., Drake, R. E., Bond, G. R, Miller, A. L., Goldman, H. 
H., Salkever, D. S. & Holsenbeck, S. (2011). Mental Health Treatment 
Study: Final Report. Westat, sponsored by the Social Security 
Administration. Retrieved from www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/documents/MHTS_Final_Report_508.pdf.
Lerner, D., Adler, D., Hermann, R. C., Chang, H., Ludman, E. J., 
Greenhill, A., Perch, K., McPeck, W. C., & Rogers, W. H. (2012). 
Impact of a work-focused intervention on the productivity and 
symptoms of employees with depression. Journal of Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine, 54(2), 128.
McGurk, S. R., Mueser, K. T., DeRosa, T. J., & Wolfe, R. (2009). 
Work, recovery, and comorbidity in schizophrenia: a randomized 
controlled trial of cognitive remediation. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 
35(2), 319-335. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2659315/.
Social Security Administration (2012). Annual statistical report on 
the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2012. Retrieved 
from: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2012/sect01b.html#table6.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2011a). 
Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Mental 
Health Findings. Retrieved from www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11MH_FindingsandDetTables/2K11MHFR/NSDUHmhfr2011.htm (retrieved November 
22, 2013).
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011b). 
2011 Mental Health National Outcome Measures (NOMS): CMHS Uniform 
Reporting System. Retrieved from www.samhsa.gov/dataoutcomes/urs.

Definitions

    The research that is proposed under this priority must be focused 
on one or more stages of research. If the RRTC is to conduct research 
that can be categorized under more than one research stage, or research 
that progresses from one stage to another, those research stages must 
be clearly specified. For purposes of this priority, the stages of 
research are from the notice of final priorities and definitions 
published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34261).
    (a) Exploration and Discovery means the stage of research that 
generates hypotheses or theories by conducting new and refined analyses 
of data, producing observational findings, and creating other sources 
of research-based information. This research stage may include 
identifying or describing the barriers to and facilitators of improved 
outcomes of individuals with disabilities, as well as identifying or 
describing existing practices, programs, or policies that are 
associated with important aspects of the lives of individuals with 
disabilities. Results achieved under this stage of research may inform 
the development of interventions or lead to evaluations of 
interventions or policies. The results of the exploration and discovery 
stage of research may also be used to inform decisions or priorities.
    (b) Intervention Development means the stage of research that 
focuses on generating and testing interventions that have the potential 
to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Intervention 
development involves determining the active components of possible 
interventions, developing measures that would be required to illustrate 
outcomes, specifying target populations, conducting field tests, and 
assessing the feasibility of conducting a well-designed interventions 
study. Results from this stage of research may be used to inform the 
design of a study to test the efficacy of an intervention.
    (c) Intervention Efficacy means the stage of research during which 
a project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is feasible, 
practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the 
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and 
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the 
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research 
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to 
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts. 
This stage of research can include assessing the training needed for 
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to 
evaluation of the intervention in real world applications.
    (d) Scale-Up Evaluation means the stage of research during which a 
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing 
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in 
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests 
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings. 
It examines the challenges to successful replication of the 
intervention, and the circumstances and activities that contribute to 
successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings. This 
stage of research may also include well-designed studies of an 
intervention that has been widely adopted in practice, but that lacks a 
sufficient evidence-base to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for an RRTC on Improving Employment 
Outcomes for Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities. This priority 
will be jointly funded by NIDRR and the Substance Abuse Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA). For the purposes of this priority, 
``employment outcomes'' may refer to, but are not limited to, obtaining 
employment, job retention, job advancement, or compensation. The RRTC 
must contribute to improving the employment outcomes of individuals 
with psychiatric disabilities by:

[[Page 16710]]

    (a) Conducting well-designed research activities, with an emphasis 
on promising practices with currently limited evidence bases, in one or 
more of the following priority areas, focusing on individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities as a group or on individuals with a specific 
disability or on demographic subpopulations of individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities:
    (1) Technology to improve employment outcomes for individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities.
    (2) Individual, work environment, or employer factors associated 
with improved employment outcomes for individuals with psychiatric 
disabilities.
    (3) Interventions that contribute to improved employment outcomes 
for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Interventions include 
any strategy, practice, program, policy, or tool that, when implemented 
as intended, contributes to improvements in employment outcomes for 
individuals with psychiatric disabilities, and may include 
interventions focused on individuals, families, employers, or service 
providers.
    (4) Effects of current or modified government practices, policies, 
and programs on employment outcomes for individuals with psychiatric 
disabilities;
    (b) Focusing its research on one or more specific stages of 
research. If the RRTC is to conduct research that can be categorized 
under more than one of the research stages, or research that progresses 
from one stage to another, those stages should be clearly specified.

    Note: Those stages and their definitions are provided in the 
Definitions section in this notice; and
    (c) Serving as a national resource center related to employment 
for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, their families, and 
other stakeholders by conducting knowledge translation activities 
that include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Providing information and technical assistance to employment 
service providers, mental health service providers, employers, 
individuals with psychiatric disabilities and their representatives, 
and other key stakeholders. These activities will include providing 
technical assistance on evidence-based, supported employment to 
SAMHSA grantees that are awarded funds in FY 2014 to enhance State 
and community capacity to provide supported employment programs 
targeting adults with serious mental illnesses, including persons 
with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders.
    (2) Providing training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to vocational rehabilitation and other employment 
service providers, to facilitate more effective delivery of 
employment services to individuals with psychiatric disabilities. 
This training may be provided through conferences, workshops, public 
education programs, in-service training programs, and similar 
activities.
    (3) Disseminating research-based information and materials 
related to increasing employment levels for individuals with 
psychiatric disabilities.
    (4) Involving key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted 
under paragraph (a) of this priority to promote the new knowledge 
generated by the RRTC.

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)).

Final Priority

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

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of

[[Page 16711]]

Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, 
the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with 
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects 
and Centers Program have been well established over the years. Projects 
similar to one envisioned by the proposed priority have been completed 
successfully, and the proposed priority would generate new knowledge 
through research. The new RRTC would generate, disseminate, and promote 
the use of new information that would improve outcomes for individuals 
with disabilities in the areas of community living and participation, 
employment, and health and function.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts 
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. 
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: March 21, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-06731 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P