Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, 11742-11746 [2014-04641]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11742
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this proposed priority
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits would justify its costs.
In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that
these proposed priorities are consistent
with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
The benefits of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program have been well
established over the years. Projects
similar to the RRTCs have been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
completed successfully, and the
proposed priorities will generate new
knowledge through research. The new
RRTCs will generate, disseminate, and
promote the use of new information that
would improve outcomes for
individuals with disabilities in the areas
of community living and participation,
employment, and health and function.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) by
contacting the Grants and Contracts
Services Team, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC
20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245–
7363. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the
FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: February 26, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2014–04644 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[ CFDA Number: 84.133B–3.]
Proposed Priority—National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research—Rehabilitation Research
and Training Centers
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
Proposed priority.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for the
Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center (RRTC) Program administered by
the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).
Specifically, this notice proposes a
priority for an RRTC on Employment for
Individuals with Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities. We take this
action to focus research attention on an
area of national need. We intend for this
priority to contribute to improved
employment outcomes of individuals
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before April 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments submitted by fax or by email
or those submitted after the comment
period. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your
comments only once. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
regulations, address them to Patricia
Barrett, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142,
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP),
Washington, DC 20202–2700.
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is
to make all comments received from
members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information
that they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202) 245–
6211 or by email: 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-
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was
published in the Federal Register on
April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20299), can be
accessed on the Internet at the following
site: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the
Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the
quality and utility of disability and
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an
exchange of research findings, expertise
and other information to advance
knowledge and understanding of the
needs of individuals with disabilities
and their family members, including
those from among traditionally
underserved populations; (3) determine
effective practices, programs and
policies to improve community living
and participation, employment and
health and function outcomes for
individuals with disabilities of all ages;
(4) identify research gaps and areas for
promising research investments; (5)
identify and promote effective
mechanisms for integrating research and
practice; and (6) disseminate research
findings to all major stakeholder groups,
including individuals with disabilities
and their families in formats that are
appropriate and meaningful to them.
This notice proposes one priority that
NIDRR intends to use for one or more
competitions in FY 2014 and possibly in
later years. NIDRR is under no
obligation to make an award under this
priority. The decision to make an award
will be based on the quality of
applications received and available
funding. NIDRR may publish additional
priorities, as needed.
Invitation To Comment: We invite
you to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priority, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific topic that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from this proposed priority.
Please let us know of any further ways
we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this proposed priority in Room
5142, 550 12th Street SW., PCP,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
DC time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 selfsufficiency of individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with
the most severe disabilities. This
program is also intended to improve the
effectiveness of services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (Rehabilitation Act).
Rehabilitation Research and Training
Centers
The purpose of the RRTCs, which are
funded through the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program, is to achieve the goals
of, and improve the effectiveness of,
services authorized under the
Rehabilitation Act through welldesigned 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/
rschstat/research/pubs/
resprogram.html#RRTC.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and
764(b)(2).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 350.
Proposed Priority: This notice
contains one proposed priority.
RRTC on Employment for Individuals
with Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities.
Background:
Intellectual and developmental
disabilities are defined by limitations in
adaptive functioning associated with
substantial intellectual or physical
impairments first evident in childhood
(Schalock et al., 2010; Developmental
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11743
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights
Act of 2000). It has been estimated that
about 1 percent of working-age adults in
the United States, or 1.96 million
individuals, have intellectual and
developmental disabilities (Houtenville,
2013; Larson et al., 2001). Persons with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities want to work (U.S. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions, 2011). Although there are
no national estimates of rates of
employment specifically for persons
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities, data from the 2008–2010
American Community Survey
(ACS)(U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) show
an employment rate of only 23 percent
among working age adults with
cognitive disabilities, which includes
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. In the ACS
data, an individual with a cognitive
disability is a person with a physical,
mental, or emotional condition that
results in serious difficulty with
concentration, memory, or decisionmaking.
For the population of individuals
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities who are employed in
integrated community employment
settings, other research has shown that
they work an average of only 15 to 20
hours per week, typically at or only
slightly above minimum wage (Human
Services Research Institute, 2011).
According to data gathered from a
national survey of State intellectual and
developmental disabilities agencies,
significantly higher numbers of persons
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities participate in facility based
work and non-work settings than in
integrated competitive employment.1
Data reported by these agencies show
that of the total 566,188 individuals
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in integrated employment,
sheltered employment, and non-work
settings in 2010, only 19 percent were
in integrated, competitive employment
(Butterworth et al., 2012). The reported
number of individuals in integrated,
competitive employment is virtually
unchanged over the past few decades
1 According to 34 CFR 361.5(b)(11) competitive
employment must be performed in an integrated
setting, and must result in a wage ‘‘that is not less
than the customary wage and level of benefits paid
by the employer for the same or similar work
performed by individuals who are not disabled.’’
Integrated setting as it refers to employment is
defined in 34 CFR 361(b)(33) as being a setting
where applicants or eligible individuals interact
with non-disabled individuals . . . to the same
extent that non-disabled individuals in comparable
positions interact with other persons.’’
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11744
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(Migliore et al., 2007; Butterworth et al.,
2012).
Researchers, advocates, policy
makers, and providers of vocational
rehabilitation and other employment
services are seeking ways to improve
employment outcomes and earned
income for persons with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. Research has
identified a number of practices
associated with successful employment
outcomes for individuals with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities, including customized,
person-centered job development and
training; on-job coaching by
professionals and co-workers; and
computer technologies that guide,
monitor, and provide quality control for
specific work activities (Claes et al.,
2010; McInnes et al., 2008; Van
Laarhoven et al., 2009).
Research and development programs
have developed and validated a number
of effective job development, placement,
and support practices for persons with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities. Through these practices
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities can and do
make valuable contributions to their
employers and to their communities
(Olson et al., 2001; Storey, 2003;
Wehman, 2007; Hendricks, 2010).
However, as the low employment
statistics, the high reliance on nonintegrated work, and the low numbers of
hours worked demonstrate, significant
challenges remain. Among those
challenges are: Increasing knowledge
about effective ways to prepare persons
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in their homes, schools, and
communities for competitive integrated
work; effectively bundling individual
practices and experiences associated
with desirable employment outcomes
into more effective programs of
employment supports; and scaling-up
effective practices and programs to
provide substantially increased
opportunities for individuals with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities to experience well-designed,
effective employment support. In
addition, more effective methods for
engaging employers in providing
opportunities for individuals with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities to demonstrate their abilities
as employees are also needed.
NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that
will generate new knowledge about and
expand access to practices that will
improve employment outcomes and
opportunities for individuals with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities and that will serve as a
national resource center on employment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
for these individuals, their families,
vocational rehabilitation and other
employment service providers,
employers, and policymakers.
References
Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C.,
Migliore, A., Winsor, J., Domin, D., &
Timmons, J. C. (2012). State data: The
national report on employment services
and outcomes. Retrieved from https://
statedata.info/statedatabook/img/
statedata2011_Fweb.pdf.
Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van
Loon, J., & Schalock, R.L. (2010). PersonCentered Planning: Analysis of Research
and Effectiveness. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 48(6), pp.
432–453.
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and
Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–
402).
Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S.
(2013). Disability Statistics from the 2011
American Community Survey (ACS).
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Employment and Disability Institute
(EDI). Retrieved from
www.disabilitystatistics.org.
Hendricks, D. (2010). Employment and adults
with autism spectrum disorders:
Challenges and strategies for success.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
32(2), 125–134.
Houtenville, A. (2013). Annual Compendium
of Disability Statistics. Durham, NH:
University of New Hampshire, Institute
on Disability. Retrieved from: https://
www.disabilitycompendium.org/
compendium-statistics/population-andprevelance/1-10-civilians-ages-18-64years-living-in-the-community-for-the-us-cognitive-disability
Human Services Research Institute (2011).
National Core Indicators: Adult
Consumer Survey 2010–2011.
Cambridge, MA.
Larson, S.A., Lakin, K.C., Anderson, L., Lee,
N.K., Lee, J.K., & Anderson, D. (2001).
Prevalence of mental retardation and
developmental disabilities: Estimates
from the 1994/1995 National Health
Interview Survey Disability
Supplements. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 106(3), 231–252.
McInnes, M.M., Ozturk, O.D., McDermott, S.,
& Mann, H. (2008). Does Job Coaching
Work?: Evidence from South Carolina.
SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from https://
ssrn.com/abstract=1113170.
Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossi, T., & Rogan,
P. (2007). Integrated employment or
sheltered workshops: Preferences of
adults with intellectual disabilities, their
families, and staff. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 26(1), 5–19.
Olson, D., Cioffi, A., Yovanoff, P., & Mank,
D. (2001). Employers’ perceptions of
employees with mental retardation.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
16(2), 125–133.
Storey, K. (2003). A review of research on
natural support interventions in the
workplace for people with disabilities.
International Journal of Rehabilitation
Research, 26(2), 79–84.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Van Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J.W., Van
Laarhoven-Myers, T., Grider, K.L., &
Grider, K.M. (2009). The effectiveness of
using a video iPod as a prompting device
in employment settings. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 18(2), pp. 119–
141.
Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A.,
Bradley, V.J., Buntinx, W.H.E., Coulter,
D.L., Craig, E.M., Gomez, S.C.,
Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R., Reeve, A.,
Shogren, K.A., Snell, M.E., Spreat, S.,
Tasse, M.J., Thompson, J.R., VerdugoAlonso, M.A., Wehmeyer, M.L., &
Yeager, M.H. (2010). Intellectual
disability: Definition, classification, and
systems of supports (11th ed.).
Washington, DC: American Association
on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2011). 2008–2010
Disability Employment Tabulation.
American Community Survey. U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. (https://
www.census.gov/people/
disabilityemptab/data)
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, (2011). Full
committee hearing–improving
employment opportunities for persons
with intellectual disabilities. Retrieved
from https://www.help.senate.gov/
hearings/hearing/?id=536891af-50569502-5d9c-9a3e588e3214.
Wehman, P. (2007). Real work for real pay:
Inclusive employment for people with
disabilities. Paul H Brookes Pub Co.
Definitions
Stages of Research: For purposes of
this priority, the stages of research are
from the notice of final priorities and
definitions published in the Federal
Register on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34261).
(i) Exploration and Discovery means
the stage of research that generates
hypotheses or theories by conducting
new and refined analyses of data,
producing observational findings, and
creating other sources of research-based
information. This research stage may
include identifying or describing the
barriers to and facilitators of improved
outcomes of individuals with
disabilities, as well as identifying or
describing existing practices, programs,
or policies that are associated with
important aspects of the lives of
individuals with disabilities. Results
achieved under this stage of research
may inform the development of
interventions or lead to evaluations of
interventions or policies. The results of
the exploration and discovery stage of
research may also be used to inform
decisions or priorities.
(ii) Intervention Development means
the stage of research that focuses on
generating and testing interventions that
have the potential to improve outcomes
for individuals with disabilities.
Intervention development involves
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
determining the active components of
possible interventions, developing
measures that would be required to
illustrate outcomes, specifying target
populations, conducting field tests, and
assessing the feasibility of conducting a
well-designed intervention study.
Results from this stage of research may
be used to inform the design of a study
to test the efficacy of an intervention.
(iii) Intervention Efficacy means the
stage of research during which a project
evaluates and tests whether an
intervention is feasible, practical, and
has the potential to yield positive
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities. Efficacy research may assess
the strength of the relationships
between an intervention and outcomes,
and may identify factors or individual
characteristics that affect the
relationship between the intervention
and outcomes. Efficacy research can
inform decisions about whether there is
sufficient evidence to support ‘‘scalingup’’ an intervention to other sites and
contexts. This stage of research can
include assessing the training needed
for wide-scale implementation of the
intervention, and approaches to
evaluation of the intervention in real
world applications.
(iv) Scale-Up Evaluation means the
stage of research during which a project
analyzes whether an intervention is
effective in producing improved
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities when implemented in a realworld setting. During this stage of
research, a project tests the outcomes of
an evidence-based intervention in
different settings. The project examines
the challenges to successful replication
of the intervention, and the
circumstances and activities that
contribute to successful adoption of the
intervention in real-world settings. This
stage of research may also include welldesigned studies of an intervention that
has been widely adopted in practice, but
that lacks a sufficient evidence-base to
demonstrate its effectiveness.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
proposes a priority for an RRTC on
Employment for Individuals with
Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities.
The RRTC must contribute to
improving the employment outcomes of
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities by:
(a) Conducting well-designed research
activities in one or more of the
following priority areas, focusing on
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities as a group or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
on individuals in specific disability or
demographic subpopulations of
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities:
(i) Technology to improve
employment outcomes for individuals
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
(ii) Individual, work environment, or
employer factors associated with
improved employment opportunities or
outcomes for individuals with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to
improved employment outcomes for
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.
Interventions include any one or
combination of the following: strategies,
practices, programs, policies, or tools
that, when implemented as intended,
contribute to improvements in
opportunities or outcomes for
individuals with disabilities, and may
include interventions focused on
individuals, families, employers, or
service providers.
(iv) Effects of current or modified
government practices, policies, and
programs on employment outcomes for
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.
(v) Practices and policies that
contribute to improved employment
outcomes for transition-aged youth with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
(b) Identifying and focusing its
research on one or more specific stages
of research, including specifically at
least one significant evaluation project
focused on scaling up existing validated
employment interventions or programs
to multiple employment settings. If the
RRTC is to conduct research that can be
categorized under more than one of the
research stages, or research that
progresses from one stage to another,
those stages should be clearly specified.
(These stages and their definitions are
provided in the Definitions section of
this notice.)
(c) Serving as a national resource
center related to employment for
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, their
families, and other stakeholders by
conducting knowledge translation
activities that include, but are not
limited to:
(i) Providing information and
technical assistance on job development
and placement, job training and
support, customized employment, and
other aspects of supported employment
to school-based transition programs,
employment service providers,
employers, individuals with intellectual
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11745
and developmental disabilities and their
representatives, and other key
stakeholders.
(ii) Providing training, including
graduate, pre-service, and in-service
training, to vocational rehabilitation,
school-based transition programs, and
other employment service providers, to
achieve integrated, competitive
employment outcomes for individuals
with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. This training may be
provided through conferences,
workshops, public education programs,
in-service training programs, and
similar activities.
(iii) Disseminating, in accessible
formats, research-based information and
materials related to employment for
individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.
(iv) Involving key stakeholder groups
in the activities conducted under
paragraph (a) in order to maximize the
relevance and usability of the new
knowledge generated by the RRTC. Such
stakeholder groups may vary depending
on the specific activity proposed, but
could include representatives of
agencies such as the State
Developmental Disabilities program/
service agencies, State Developmental
Disability Planning Councils, State
Protection and Advocacy Agencies,
State Vocational Rehabilitation
agencies, State Employment First
coalitions, as well as consumer
advocacy agencies such as The Arc,
UCP, TASH, and People First.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
11746
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Feb 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this proposed priority
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits would justify its costs.
In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that
these proposed priorities are consistent
with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
Orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
The benefits of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program have been well
established over the years. Projects
similar to the RRTCs have been
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
completed successfully, and the
proposed priorities will generate new
knowledge through research. The new
RRTCs will generate, disseminate, and
promote the use of new information that
would improve outcomes for
individuals with disabilities in the areas
of community living and participation,
employment, and health and function.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) by
contacting the Grants and Contracts
Services Team, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC
20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245–
7363. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the
FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: February 26, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2014–04641 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11742-11746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04641]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[ CFDA Number: 84.133B-3.]
Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for the Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center (RRTC) Program administered by the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).
Specifically, this notice proposes a priority for an RRTC on Employment
for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. We
take this action to focus research attention on an area of national
need. We intend for this priority to contribute to improved employment
outcomes of individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Are you new to the site?''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address
them to Patricia Barrett, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC
20202-2700.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Barrett. Telephone: (202)
245-6211 or by email: 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-
[[Page 11743]]
Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was published in the Federal
Register on April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20299), can be accessed on the
Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve
the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2)
foster an exchange of research findings, expertise and other
information to advance knowledge and understanding of the needs of
individuals with disabilities and their family members, including those
from among traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine
effective practices, programs and policies to improve community living
and participation, employment and health and function outcomes for
individuals with disabilities of all ages; (4) identify research gaps
and areas for promising research investments; (5) identify and promote
effective mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6)
disseminate research findings to all major stakeholder groups,
including individuals with disabilities and their families in formats
that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
This notice proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for one
or more competitions in FY 2014 and possibly in later years. NIDRR is
under no obligation to make an award under this priority. The decision
to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received
and available funding. NIDRR may publish additional priorities, as
needed.
Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this proposed priority in Room 5142, 550 12th Street
SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related
activities, including international activities, to develop methods,
procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living,
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe
disabilities. This program is also intended to improve the
effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
The purpose of the RRTCs, which are funded through the Disability
and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to achieve
the goals of, and improve the effectiveness of, services authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act through well-designed research, training,
technical assistance, and dissemination activities in important topical
areas as specified by NIDRR. These activities are designed to benefit
rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, family
members, policymakers and other research stakeholders. Additional
information on the RRTC program can be found at: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/resprogram.html#RRTC.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.
RRTC on Employment for Individuals with Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities.
Background:
Intellectual and developmental disabilities are defined by
limitations in adaptive functioning associated with substantial
intellectual or physical impairments first evident in childhood
(Schalock et al., 2010; Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill
of Rights Act of 2000). It has been estimated that about 1 percent of
working-age adults in the United States, or 1.96 million individuals,
have intellectual and developmental disabilities (Houtenville, 2013;
Larson et al., 2001). Persons with intellectual and developmental
disabilities want to work (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, 2011). Although there are no national estimates of
rates of employment specifically for persons with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, data from the 2008-2010 American Community
Survey (ACS)(U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) show an employment rate of only
23 percent among working age adults with cognitive disabilities, which
includes individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
In the ACS data, an individual with a cognitive disability is a person
with a physical, mental, or emotional condition that results in serious
difficulty with concentration, memory, or decision-making.
For the population of individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities who are employed in integrated community
employment settings, other research has shown that they work an average
of only 15 to 20 hours per week, typically at or only slightly above
minimum wage (Human Services Research Institute, 2011). According to
data gathered from a national survey of State intellectual and
developmental disabilities agencies, significantly higher numbers of
persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities participate in
facility based work and non-work settings than in integrated
competitive employment.\1\ Data reported by these agencies show that of
the total 566,188 individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in integrated employment, sheltered employment, and non-
work settings in 2010, only 19 percent were in integrated, competitive
employment (Butterworth et al., 2012). The reported number of
individuals in integrated, competitive employment is virtually
unchanged over the past few decades
[[Page 11744]]
(Migliore et al., 2007; Butterworth et al., 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to 34 CFR 361.5(b)(11) competitive employment must
be performed in an integrated setting, and must result in a wage
``that is not less than the customary wage and level of benefits
paid by the employer for the same or similar work performed by
individuals who are not disabled.'' Integrated setting as it refers
to employment is defined in 34 CFR 361(b)(33) as being a setting
where applicants or eligible individuals interact with non-disabled
individuals . . . to the same extent that non-disabled individuals
in comparable positions interact with other persons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers, advocates, policy makers, and providers of vocational
rehabilitation and other employment services are seeking ways to
improve employment outcomes and earned income for persons with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research has identified a
number of practices associated with successful employment outcomes for
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including
customized, person-centered job development and training; on-job
coaching by professionals and co-workers; and computer technologies
that guide, monitor, and provide quality control for specific work
activities (Claes et al., 2010; McInnes et al., 2008; Van Laarhoven et
al., 2009).
Research and development programs have developed and validated a
number of effective job development, placement, and support practices
for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Through
these practices individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities can and do make valuable contributions to their employers
and to their communities (Olson et al., 2001; Storey, 2003; Wehman,
2007; Hendricks, 2010).
However, as the low employment statistics, the high reliance on
non-integrated work, and the low numbers of hours worked demonstrate,
significant challenges remain. Among those challenges are: Increasing
knowledge about effective ways to prepare persons with intellectual and
developmental disabilities in their homes, schools, and communities for
competitive integrated work; effectively bundling individual practices
and experiences associated with desirable employment outcomes into more
effective programs of employment supports; and scaling-up effective
practices and programs to provide substantially increased opportunities
for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to
experience well-designed, effective employment support. In addition,
more effective methods for engaging employers in providing
opportunities for individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities to demonstrate their abilities as employees are also
needed.
NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that will generate new knowledge about
and expand access to practices that will improve employment outcomes
and opportunities for individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities and that will serve as a national resource center on
employment for these individuals, their families, vocational
rehabilitation and other employment service providers, employers, and
policymakers.
References
Butterworth, J., Smith, F. A., Hall, A. C., Migliore, A., Winsor,
J., Domin, D., & Timmons, J. C. (2012). State data: The national
report on employment services and outcomes. Retrieved from https://statedata.info/statedatabook/img/statedata2011_Fweb.pdf.
Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock,
R.L. (2010). Person-Centered Planning: Analysis of Research and
Effectiveness. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(6),
pp. 432-453.
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000
(Pub. L. 106-402).
Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S. (2013). Disability
Statistics from the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute (EDI).
Retrieved from www.disabilitystatistics.org.
Hendricks, D. (2010). Employment and adults with autism spectrum
disorders: Challenges and strategies for success. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 32(2), 125-134.
Houtenville, A. (2013). Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics.
Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.
Retrieved from: https://www.disabilitycompendium.org/compendium-statistics/population-and-prevelance/1-10-civilians-ages-18-64-years-living-in-the-community-for-the-u-s-cognitive-disability
Human Services Research Institute (2011). National Core Indicators:
Adult Consumer Survey 2010-2011. Cambridge, MA.
Larson, S.A., Lakin, K.C., Anderson, L., Lee, N.K., Lee, J.K., &
Anderson, D. (2001). Prevalence of mental retardation and
developmental disabilities: Estimates from the 1994/1995 National
Health Interview Survey Disability Supplements. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 106(3), 231-252.
McInnes, M.M., Ozturk, O.D., McDermott, S., & Mann, H. (2008). Does
Job Coaching Work?: Evidence from South Carolina. SSRN eLibrary.
Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1113170.
Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossi, T., & Rogan, P. (2007). Integrated
employment or sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with
intellectual disabilities, their families, and staff. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 5-19.
Olson, D., Cioffi, A., Yovanoff, P., & Mank, D. (2001). Employers'
perceptions of employees with mental retardation. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(2), 125-133.
Storey, K. (2003). A review of research on natural support
interventions in the workplace for people with disabilities.
International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 26(2), 79-84.
Van Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J.W., Van Laarhoven-Myers, T., Grider,
K.L., & Grider, K.M. (2009). The effectiveness of using a video iPod
as a prompting device in employment settings. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 18(2), pp. 119-141.
Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A., Bradley, V.J., Buntinx,
W.H.E., Coulter, D.L., Craig, E.M., Gomez, S.C., Lachapelle, Y.,
Luckasson, R., Reeve, A., Shogren, K.A., Snell, M.E., Spreat, S.,
Tasse, M.J., Thompson, J.R., Verdugo-Alonso, M.A., Wehmeyer, M.L., &
Yeager, M.H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition,
classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC:
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2011). 2008-2010 Disability Employment
Tabulation. American Community Survey. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC. (https://www.census.gov/people/disabilityemptab/data)
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions,
(2011). Full committee hearing-improving employment opportunities
for persons with intellectual disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=536891af-5056-9502-5d9c-9a3e588e3214.
Wehman, P. (2007). Real work for real pay: Inclusive employment for
people with disabilities. Paul H Brookes Pub Co.
Definitions
Stages of Research: For purposes of this priority, the stages of
research are from the notice of final priorities and definitions
published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34261).
(i) Exploration and Discovery means the stage of research that
generates hypotheses or theories by conducting new and refined analyses
of data, producing observational findings, and creating other sources
of research-based information. This research stage may include
identifying or describing the barriers to and facilitators of improved
outcomes of individuals with disabilities, as well as identifying or
describing existing practices, programs, or policies that are
associated with important aspects of the lives of individuals with
disabilities. Results achieved under this stage of research may inform
the development of interventions or lead to evaluations of
interventions or policies. The results of the exploration and discovery
stage of research may also be used to inform decisions or priorities.
(ii) Intervention Development means the stage of research that
focuses on generating and testing interventions that have the potential
to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Intervention
development involves
[[Page 11745]]
determining the active components of possible interventions, developing
measures that would be required to illustrate outcomes, specifying
target populations, conducting field tests, and assessing the
feasibility of conducting a well-designed intervention study. Results
from this stage of research may be used to inform the design of a study
to test the efficacy of an intervention.
(iii) Intervention Efficacy means the stage of research during
which a project evaluates and tests whether an intervention is
feasible, practical, and has the potential to yield positive outcomes
for individuals with disabilities. Efficacy research may assess the
strength of the relationships between an intervention and outcomes, and
may identify factors or individual characteristics that affect the
relationship between the intervention and outcomes. Efficacy research
can inform decisions about whether there is sufficient evidence to
support ``scaling-up'' an intervention to other sites and contexts.
This stage of research can include assessing the training needed for
wide-scale implementation of the intervention, and approaches to
evaluation of the intervention in real world applications.
(iv) Scale-Up Evaluation means the stage of research during which a
project analyzes whether an intervention is effective in producing
improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities when implemented in
a real-world setting. During this stage of research, a project tests
the outcomes of an evidence-based intervention in different settings.
The project examines the challenges to successful replication of the
intervention, and the circumstances and activities that contribute to
successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings. This
stage of research may also include well-designed studies of an
intervention that has been widely adopted in practice, but that lacks a
sufficient evidence-base to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Proposed Priority
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes a priority for an RRTC on Employment for Individuals
with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
The RRTC must contribute to improving the employment outcomes of
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities by:
(a) Conducting well-designed research activities in one or more of
the following priority areas, focusing on individuals with intellectual
and developmental disabilities as a group or on individuals in specific
disability or demographic subpopulations of individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities:
(i) Technology to improve employment outcomes for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
(ii) Individual, work environment, or employer factors associated
with improved employment opportunities or outcomes for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
(iii) Interventions that contribute to improved employment outcomes
for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Interventions include any one or combination of the following:
strategies, practices, programs, policies, or tools that, when
implemented as intended, contribute to improvements in opportunities or
outcomes for individuals with disabilities, and may include
interventions focused on individuals, families, employers, or service
providers.
(iv) Effects of current or modified government practices, policies,
and programs on employment outcomes for individuals with intellectual
and developmental disabilities.
(v) Practices and policies that contribute to improved employment
outcomes for transition-aged youth with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
(b) Identifying and focusing its research on one or more specific
stages of research, including specifically at least one significant
evaluation project focused on scaling up existing validated employment
interventions or programs to multiple employment settings. If the RRTC
is to conduct research that can be categorized under more than one of
the research stages, or research that progresses from one stage to
another, those stages should be clearly specified. (These stages and
their definitions are provided in the Definitions section of this
notice.)
(c) Serving as a national resource center related to employment for
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, their
families, and other stakeholders by conducting knowledge translation
activities that include, but are not limited to:
(i) Providing information and technical assistance on job
development and placement, job training and support, customized
employment, and other aspects of supported employment to school-based
transition programs, employment service providers, employers,
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their
representatives, and other key stakeholders.
(ii) Providing training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to vocational rehabilitation, school-based transition
programs, and other employment service providers, to achieve
integrated, competitive employment outcomes for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. This training may be
provided through conferences, workshops, public education programs, in-
service training programs, and similar activities.
(iii) Disseminating, in accessible formats, research-based
information and materials related to employment for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
(iv) Involving key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted
under paragraph (a) in order to maximize the relevance and usability of
the new knowledge generated by the RRTC. Such stakeholder groups may
vary depending on the specific activity proposed, but could include
representatives of agencies such as the State Developmental
Disabilities program/service agencies, State Developmental Disability
Planning Councils, State Protection and Advocacy Agencies, State
Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, State Employment First coalitions,
as well as consumer advocacy agencies such as The Arc, UCP, TASH, and
People First.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
[[Page 11746]]
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priority
We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows,
the Department believes that these proposed priorities are consistent
with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Program have been well established over the years. Projects
similar to the RRTCs have been completed successfully, and the proposed
priorities will generate new knowledge through research. The new RRTCs
will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that
would improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities in the areas
of community living and participation, employment, and health and
function.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363.
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: February 26, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-04641 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P