13600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 RRTC have been 

completed successfully, and the 

proposed priority will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RRTC 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 25, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04695 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Traumatic Brain Injury 

Model Systems Centers Collaborative 

Research Project 

[CFDA Number: 84.133A–7.] 

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 under the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this 

notice proposes a priority for a 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Project (DRRP) on Traumatic Brain 

Injury Model Systems Centers 

Collaborative Research Projects. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this priority 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 13601 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on areas of 

national need. We intend this priority to 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 5133, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must 

include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priority 

for Traumatic Brain Injury Model 

Systems Centers Collaborative Research 

Projects’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7532 or by email: 

marlene.spencer@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 Long-Range Plan (Plan). 

The Plan, which was published in the 

Federal Register on February 15, 2006 

(71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the 

Internet at the following site: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/

other/2006-1/021506d.pdf. 

Through the implementation of the 

currently approved Plan, NIDRR seeks 

to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of 

disability and rehabilitation research; 

(2) foster an exchange of expertise, 

information, and training methods to 

facilitate the advancement of knowledge 

and understanding of the unique needs 

of traditionally underserved 

populations; (3) determine best 

strategies and programs to improve 

rehabilitation outcomes for underserved 

populations; (4) identify research gaps; 

(5) identify mechanisms for integrating 

research and practice; and (6) 

disseminate findings. 

This notice proposes a priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP 

competition in FY 2013 and possibly 

later years. However, nothing precludes 

NIDRR from publishing additional 

priorities, if needed. Furthermore, 

NIDRR is under no obligation to make 

an award using this priority. The 

decision to make an award will be based 

on the quality of applications received 

and available funding. 

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 notice in room 5133, 550 12th 

Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities, to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology, that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects 

The purpose of NIDRR’s DRRPs, 

which are funded through the Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research Projects 

and Centers Program, is to improve the 

effectiveness of services authorized 

under the Rehabilitation Act by 

developing methods, procedures, and 

rehabilitation technologies that advance 

a wide range of independent living and 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities, especially individuals 

with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs 

carry out one or more of the following 

types of activities, as specified and 

defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 

350.19: research, training, 

demonstration, development, 

utilization, dissemination, and technical 

assistance. 

An applicant for assistance under this 

program must demonstrate in its 

application how it will address, in 

whole or in part, the needs of 

individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds (34 CFR 

350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant 

may take to meet this requirement are 

found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional 

information on the DRRP program can 

be found at: www.ed.gov/rschstat/ 

research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) 

and 764(a). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

Proposed Priority: This notice 

contains 1 proposed priority. 

Traumatic Brain Injury Model 

Systems Centers Collaborative Research 

Projects. 

Background: 

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention reports that approximately 

1.7 million traumatic brain injuries 

(TBIs) were recorded annually between 

2002 and 2006 (Faul et al., 2010). Of the 

persons incurring these TBIs, 

approximately 50,000 died, 275,000 

were hospitalized, and 1.37 million 

were treated and released from 

emergency departments. These 

estimates do not include those 

individuals who sustained a TBI and 

failed to seek medical care, those treated 

in primary care settings, and those 

treated in military and Veterans Affairs 

hospitals. The Department of Defense 

reports that 235,046 service members 

were diagnosed with TBIs between 2000 

and the end of 2011 (Defense and 

Veterans Brain Injury Center, 2012). The 

three leading causes of TBI for civilians 

are falls, motor vehicle accidents, and 

struck by/against events (i.e., events in 

which an individual collides with a 

moving or stationary object). The 

leading cause of TBI for military 

personnel is explosions/blasts (Sayer et 

al., 2008). 

Persons who sustain moderate to 

severe TBIs often require intensive 

medical treatment. Forty percent of 

those hospitalized with nonfatal TBIs 

experience impairments that result in 

long-term disability (Corrigan, Selassie, 

& Orman, 2010). Common disabilities 

resulting from TBIs include problems 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13602 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

with cognition, sensory processing, 

communication, and behavioral or 

mental health (National Institute of 

Neurological Disorders and Stroke 

(NINDS), 2002). Some TBI survivors 

develop physical complications, some 

of which may not become apparent until 

long after the injury (NINDS, 2002). 

There have been several initiatives in 

recent years to review and synthesize 

the available evidence on outcomes 

following TBI (e.g., Guillamondegui et 

al., 2011; Institute of Medicine (IOM), 

2008) and on the effectiveness of 

rehabilitation treatments for TBI (e.g., 

Brasure et al., 2012; IOM, 2011). There 

are, however, significant challenges to 

conducting and synthesizing research 

on these topics such as the complexity 

of the condition, the significant number 

of factors that affect recovery in this 

population, and the complexity of the 

interventions (Brasure et al., 2012). 

Experts agree that there remains a strong 

need for future research to better 

establish the evidence base for 

rehabilitation interventions for this 

population (Brasure et al., 2012). 

The Traumatic Brain Injury Model 

Systems (TBIMS) program was created 

by NIDRR in 1987 to demonstrate the 

benefits of a coordinated system of 

neurotrauma and rehabilitation care and 

to conduct innovative research on all 

aspects of care for those who sustain 

TBIs. For purposes of the TBIMS, TBI is 

defined as damage to brain tissue 

caused by an external mechanical force 

as evidenced by loss of consciousness or 

post-traumatic amnesia due to brain 

trauma or by objective neurological 

findings that can be reasonably 

attributed to TBI on physical or mental 

status examination. Both penetrating 

and non-penetrating wounds that fit 

these criteria are included, but primary 

anoxic encephalopathy is not. 

NIDRR currently funds 16 TBIMS 

centers throughout the United States. 

These centers provide comprehensive 

systems of brain injury care to 

individuals who sustain TBIs and 

conduct TBI research, including clinical 

research and the analysis of 

standardized data in collaboration with 

other related projects. The mission of 

the TBIMS is to improve the lives of 

persons who experience TBIs, and to 

help their families and communities, by 

creating and disseminating new 

knowledge about the natural course of 

TBI and rehabilitation treatment and 

outcomes following TBI. 

Since 1989, the TBIMS centers have 

collected and contributed information 

on common data elements for a 

centralized TBIMS database, which is 

maintained through a NIDRR-funded 

grant for a National Data and Statistical 

Center for the TBIMS. (Additional 

information on the TBIMS database can 

be found at https://www.tbindsc.org.) 

The TBI National Data and Statistical 

Center for the TBIMS coordinates data 

collection, manages the TBIMS 

database, and provides statistical 

support to the model systems projects. 

As of September 2012, the TBIMS 

centers have contributed 11,247 cases to 

the TBIMS database, with follow-up 

data extending 20 years after injury. 

In 2003 and again in 2008, NIDRR 

leveraged the capacity of the TBIMS 

program by funding large-scale 

collaborative research projects that 

required participation across TBIMS 

centers. The collaborative projects 

funded in 2008 included a randomized 

controlled trial of the effectiveness of 

amantadine hydrochloride in treating 

post-TBI irritability and aggression and 

a practice-based study of factors that 

predict the effectiveness of 

rehabilitation interventions following 

TBI. Through the funding of this 

priority, the TBIMS program will 

continue to serve as a platform for 

multi-site research that contributes to 

evidence-based rehabilitation 

interventions and improves the lives of 

individuals with TBIs. 

References 

Brasure, M., Lamberty, G.J., Sayer, N.A., 

Nelson, NW., MacDonald, R., Ouellette, 

J., Tacklind, J., Grove, M., Rutks, I.R., 

Butler, M.E., Kane, R.L., Wilt, T.J. (2012). 

Multidisciplinary postacute 

rehabilitation for moderate to severe 

traumatic brain injury in adults. 

(Prepared by the Minnesota Evidencebased Practice Center under Contract No. 

290–2007–10064–I.) AHRQ Publication 

No. 12–EHC101–EF. Rockville, MD: 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality. Retrieved September 6, 2012 

from: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ 

reports/final.cfm. 

Corrigan, J.D., Selassie, A.W., Orman, J.A.L. 

(2010). The epidemiology of traumatic 

brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma 

Rehabilitation, 25(2), 72–80. 

Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. 

(2012). DoD worldwide numbers for TBI 

(non-combat and combat injuries). 

Retrieved September 6, 2012 from: 

www.dvbic.org/TBINumbers.aspx. 

Faul, M., Xu, L., Wald, M., et al. (March 

2010). Traumatic brain injury in the 

United States: Emergency department 

visits, hospitalizations and deaths 2002– 

2006. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Center 

for Injury Prevention and Control. 

Guillamondegui, O.D., Montgomery, S.A., 

Phibbs, F.T., McPheeters, M.L., 

Alexander, P.T., Jerome, R.N., McKoy, 

J.N., Seroogy, J.J., Eicken, J.J., 

Krishnaswami, S., Salomon, R.M., 

Hartmann, K.E. (April 2011). Traumatic 

brain injury and depression. 

Comparative effectiveness review No. 25. 

(Prepared by Vanderbilt Evidence-based 

Practice Center under Contract No. 290– 

2007–10065–I.) AHRQ Publication No. 

11–EHC017–EF. Rockville, MD: Agency 

for Healthcare Research and Quality. 

Retrieved September 6, 2012 from: 

www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ 

reports/final.cfm. 

Institute of Medicine. (2008). Gulf War and 

health: Volume 7. Long-term 

consequences of traumatic brain injury. 

Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved September 6, 

2012 from: www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/ 

Gulf-War-and-Health-Volume-8-HealthEffects-of-Serving-in-the-Gulf-War.aspx. 

Institute of Medicine. (2011). Cognitive 

rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain 

injury: Evaluating the evidence. 

Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved September 6, 

2012 from: www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/ 

Cognitive-Rehabilitation-Therapy-forTraumatic-Brain-Injury-Evaluating-theEvidence.aspx. 

National Institute of Neurological Disorders 

and Stroke (NINDS). (2002). Traumatic 

brain injury: Hope through research. 

Bethesda, MD: National Institute of 

Health. NIH Publication No. 02–2478. 

Retrieved September 6, 2012 from: 

www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/ 

detail_tbi.htm. 

Sayer, N.A., Chiros, C.E., Sigford, B., et al. 

(2008). Characteristics and rehabilitation 

outcomes among patients with blast and 

other injuries sustained during the global 

war on terror. Archives of Physical 

Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(1), 163– 

70. 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for the funding of 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects (DRRPs) to serve as Traumatic 

Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) 

multi-site collaborative research 

projects. To be eligible under this 

priority, an applicant must have 

received a grant under the TBIMS 

centers priority (see https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/ 

06/11/2012-14115/disability-andrehabilitation-research-projects-andcenters-program-traumatic-brain-injurymodel). Each TBIMS multi-site 

collaborative research project must be 

designed to contribute to evidencebased rehabilitation interventions and 

clinical practice guidelines that improve 

the lives of individuals with traumatic 

brain injuries (TBIs) through research, 

including the testing of approaches to 

treating TBIs or the assessment of the 

outcomes of individuals with TBIs. Each 

TBIMS multi-site collaborative research 

project must contribute to this outcome 

by— 

(a) Collaborating with three or more of 

the NIDRR-funded TBIMS centers (for a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 13603 

minimum of four TBIMS sites). In 

addition to the required TBIMS sites, 

applicants may also propose to include 

other TBI research sites that are not 

currently participating in the TBIMS 

program; 

(b) Conducting multi-site research on 

questions of significance to TBI 

rehabilitation, using clearly identified 

research designs. The research must 

focus on outcomes in one or more of the 

following domains identified in 

NIDRR’s Long-Range Plan, published in 

the Federal Register on February 15, 

2006 (71 FR 8165): health and function, 

participation and community living, 

technology, and employment; 

(c) Demonstrating the capacity to 

carry out multi-site collaborative 

research projects, including 

administrative capabilities, experience 

with management of multi-site research 

protocols, and demonstrated ability to 

maintain standards for quality and 

confidentiality of data gathered from 

multiple sites; 

(d) Addressing the needs of people 

with disabilities, including individuals 

from traditionally underserved 

populations; 

(e) Coordinating with the NIDRRfunded Model Systems Knowledge 

Translation Center to provide scientific 

results and information for 

dissemination to clinical and consumer 

audiences; and 

(f) Ensuring participation of 

individuals with disabilities in 

conducting TBIMS research. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priority: 

We will announce the final priority in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priority after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

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 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 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 new DRRP have been 

completed successfully, and the new 

DRRP, established consistently with the 

proposed priority, is expected to 

improve the lives of individuals with 

disabilities and generate through 

research and development, disseminate, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13604 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and promote the use of new information 

that would improve the lives of 

individuals with disabilities who have 

experienced TBIs. 

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 a 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 25, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04699 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0887; FRL–9785–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Revisions to the Knox County Portion 

of the Tennessee State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Knox County portion of 

the Tennessee State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) on August 19, 

2009, August 22, 2012, and October 12, 

2012. The SIP submittals include 

changes to Knox County Air Quality 

Management Regulations concerning 

Open Burning, Permits and Regulation 

of Volatile Organic Compounds. TDEC 

considers Knox County’s SIP revisions 

to be as or more stringent than the 

Tennessee SIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to approve the Knox County 

SIP revisions because the State has 

demonstrated that they are consistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s implementation plan revision as 

a direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0887, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0887,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

A detailed rationale for the approval is 

set forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: February 12, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04415 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 226 and 252 

RIN 0750–AH85 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: 

Encouragement of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Programs 

(DFARS Case 2012–D027) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement a section of the National 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS