Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, 30056-30060 [2014-12039]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30056-30060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12039]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2014-OSERS-0028; CFDA Number: 84.133B-1.]


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 document proposes a priority for a RRTC on 
Vocational Rehabilitation Practices for Youth and Young Adults. We take 
this action to focus research attention on an area of national need. We 
intend for this priority to contribute to improved outcomes of youth 
and young adults with disabilities in the State Vocational 
Rehabilitation Services program.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 26, 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

[[Page 30057]]

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, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza 
(PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-6211 or by 
email: 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 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 in a number of 
areas. 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 families in formats 
that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
    This document proposes one priority that NIDRR intends to use for 
one or more competitions in fiscal year (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 proposed priority. 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 document. 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/programs/rrtc/.

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

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority

    This document contains one proposed priority.
    Vocational Rehabilitation Practices for Youth and Young Adults.

Background

    Individuals with disabilities are less likely to be employed, or to 
participate in the labor force, than individuals without disabilities 
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Similarly, youth and young 
adults with disabilities (age 16-24) are less likely than their peers 
without disabilities to be employed (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013). 
Compared to their peers without disabilities, youth and young adults 
with disabilities are also more likely to drop out of school (Chapman 
et al., 2011), less likely to participate in postsecondary education, 
(Newman et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2011; Wagner et al., 2005), and 
less likely to be employed after completing school (Wagner et al., 
2005). Some groups of youth and young adults with disabilities are at 
increased risk for poor post-school employment outcomes, including 
those with mental illness or intellectual disabilities, and those from 
underserved

[[Page 30058]]

populations (Davies et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 2005).
    From a policy perspective, improving the employment outcomes of 
youth and young adults with disabilities could decrease reliance on 
long-term public benefits. Research indicates that young adults with 
disabilities, especially those who receive Social Security Income (SSI) 
benefits before the age of 18, are at high risk of poor employment 
outcomes, low incomes, and continued reliance on public benefits 
(Davies et al., 2009; Fraker, 2011). The public cost of these benefits 
is high; in 2009, the combined cost of SSI benefits for youth age 13-25 
was $7.5 billion; the cost of Social Security Disability Insurance 
(SSDI) benefits to individuals under the age of 25 was greater than $1 
billion (Fraker, 2011).
    The State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VR) program 
administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 
provides grants to States to support a wide range of services to assist 
individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful 
employment consistent with their strengths, resources, priorities, 
concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice. 
State reported data from RSA's Case Services Report (RSA-911) from FY 
2012 show that youth and young adults age 14-24 accounted for 35 
percent (about 113,850) of the total number of individuals whose 
service records were closed after receiving services from the VR 
program. However, RSA-911 data also show that 46 percent of these youth 
and young adults had not achieved an employment outcome at the time 
their service records were closed. The three most frequent reported 
reasons for their service record closure were: (1) Unable to contact or 
locate the client (36 percent), (2) refused services or further 
services (22 percent), and (3) failure to cooperate (22 percent). 
However, a recent study by Mathematica (Honeycutt et al., 2013) found 
wide variation in service patterns and outcomes among State VR 
agencies.
    State VR agencies can play a critical role in helping youth and 
young adults attain their vocational goals, including collaborating 
with State and local education agencies to plan and provide services 
for students with disabilities. However, knowledge about best practices 
for VR agencies serving youth and young adults is insufficient given 
the persistent poor employment outcomes of youth and young adults with 
disabilities (Honeycutt et al., 2013). There are emerging practices 
that VR agencies may employ to assist youth and young adults to achieve 
postsecondary goals. For example, some evidence-based secondary 
transition practices used in schools may be useful in VR settings (Test 
& Cease-Cook, 2012). In addition, a description of selected emerging 
transition practices, services, and models in State VR agencies is 
provided on RSA's ``Emerging Practices'' Web site (https://rsa.ed.gov/emerging-practices.cfm). The transition practices which are 
particularly appropriate to this age group, include interagency 
collaboration, career development activities, work experience, 
mentoring programs, shadowing programs, postsecondary education 
opportunities, and others. However, these activities vary in the degree 
to which their effectiveness in achieving successful outcomes for youth 
and young adults with disabilities is supported by research-based 
evidence (Cobb et al., 2013).
    There is, therefore, a need to identify best practices that could 
be used by VR programs to improve outcomes for youth, especially those 
at high risk for poor outcomes. In addition, given the high proportion 
of youth and young adults who discontinue participation in the VR 
program, there is a need to understand the factors that may cause youth 
and young adults with disabilities to exit the VR program without an 
employment outcome and whether interventions can be implemented by the 
VR program to improve their outcomes.

References

Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A. (2011). 
Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United 
States: 1972-2009 (NCES 2012-006). U.S. Department of Education. 
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 
April 22, 2014, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf.
Cobb, R. B., Lipscomb, S., Wolgemuth, J., Schulte, T., Veliquette, 
A., Alwell, M., Batchelder, K., Bernard, R., Hernandez, P., 
Holmquist-Johnson, H., Orsi, R., Sample McMeeking, L., Wang, J., and 
Weinberg, A. (2013). Improving Post-High School Outcomes for 
Transition-Age Students with Disabilities: An Evidence Review 
Executive Summary (NCEE 2013-4012). Washington, DC: National Center 
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of 
Education Sciences.
Davies, P. S., Rupp, K., & Wittenburg, D. (2009). A life-cycle 
perspective on the transition to adulthood among children receiving 
Supplemental Security Income payments. Journal of Vocational 
Rehabilitation, 30(3), 133-151. Available at: www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/disability/lifecycleperspective.pdf.
Fraker, T. (2011). The Youth Transition Demonstration: Interim 
Findings and Lessons for Program Implementation (No. 7151). 
Mathematica Policy Research. Available at: https://mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/disability/ytd_brief11-04.pdf.
Honeycutt, T., Thompkins, Al., Bardos, M., & Stern, S. (October, 
2013). State differences in the vocational rehabilitation 
experiences of transition-age youth with disabilities. Working 
paper. Available at: www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/disability/state_diff_vr_youth_wp.pdf.
Neubert, D. A., & Leconte, P. J. (2013). Age-appropriate transition 
assessment: The position of the Division on Career Development and 
Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional 
Individuals, 3i), 72-83.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., 
Shaver, D., Wei, X., with Cameto, R., Contreras, E., Ferguson, K., 
Greene, S., and Schwarting, M. (2011). The Post-High School Outcomes 
of Young Adults With Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School. A 
Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) 
(NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at: 
www.nlts2.org/reports/2011_09_02/. U.S. Department of 
Labor (2013). Youth employment rate. Available at: www.dol.gov/odep/categories/youth/youthemployment.htm.
Test, D. W., & Cease-Cook, J. (2012). Evidence-based secondary 
transition practices for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of 
Rehabilitation, 78(2), 30-38.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (December, 2013). Employment status 
of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not 
seasonally adjusted. Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). 
After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of 
youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal 
Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494935.pdf.

Definitions

    For purposes of this priority, the stages of research are from the 
notice of final priorities and definitions published in the Federal 
Register on May 7, 2013 (78 FR 26513).
    (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,

[[Page 30059]]

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 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 to conduct research on VR 
Practices for Youth and Young Adults. The RRTC must contribute to 
increased knowledge about effective VR practices that can improve 
employment outcomes of youth and young adults with disabilities by:
    (a) Generating new knowledge that builds the evidence base of 
vocational rehabilitation practices, services, or models that improve 
the employment outcomes for youth and young adults. The center will 
conduct research to better understand the factors that affect the 
likelihood that youth and young adults are fully engaged in the VR 
program and achieve their vocational goals, i.e., completion of 
postsecondary education and training programs, and attainment of 
competitive employment, including research that--
    (i) Identifies individual- and system-level factors that affect 
engagement and attainment of an employment outcome. Individual-level 
factors include, but are not limited to, demographic characteristics 
and impairment types and severity. System-level factors include, but 
are not limited to, financial disincentives to obtaining employment 
associated with other public programs and systems, characteristics and 
practices of VR State agencies, employer practices and perceptions, and 
macroeconomic conditions; and
    (ii) Identifies the reasons for which youth and young adults with a 
disability discontinue their participation in the VR program before 
achieving successful postsecondary goals (e.g., postsecondary education 
or training) or employment outcomes.
    (b) Conducting research to identify VR services and transition 
practices that increase the likelihood of youth and young adults with 
disabilities achieving successful employment outcomes. The research 
must also identify practices relevant to improving the outcomes of 
youth and young adults who are at particular risk for poor employment 
outcomes. Applicants must identify the specific at-risk group or groups 
of youth and young adults with disabilities they propose to include; 
provide evidence that the selected population or populations are, in 
fact, at risk for poor employment outcomes; and explain how the 
practices are expected to address the needs of the population or 
populations.
    (c) 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 research stages must be clearly 
specified. (These stages and their definitions are provided at end of 
the background statement section of this document.)
    (d) Serving as a national resource center for youth and young 
adults with disabilities, their families, and other stakeholders, 
including other relevant grantees funded by the Office of Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services. Specifically, this center must 
coordinate, as appropriate, with the OSEP-funded Parent Training and 
Information Centers, the OSEP-funded National Technical Assistance 
Center on Improving Transition and the RSA-funded Parent Information 
and Training Projects, and other relevant entities by conducting 
knowledge translation activities related to improving employment 
outcomes of youth and young adults that must, but are not limited to:
    (i) Providing information and technical assistance to VR State 
agencies and related service providers, educators, employers, youth and 
young adults with disabilities and their representatives, families, and 
other key stakeholders.
    (ii) Providing training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-
service training, to educators, VR professionals, direct service 
professionals and related service providers, to facilitate a seamless 
and effective transition service delivery system. Training may be 
offered through conferences, workshops, public education programs, in-
service training programs, and similar activities.
    (iii) Disseminating research-based information and materials 
related to VR practices and services that increase employment for youth 
and young adults with disabilities.
    (iv) Involving key stakeholder groups in the activities conducted 
under paragraphs (a) through (d) of this priority in order to maximize 
the relevance and usability of 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

[[Page 30060]]

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

    Note: This document 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 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 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: May 20, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-12039 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P