Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9869 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves safety for the public and 

is not expected to result in any 

significant adverse environmental 

impact as described in NEPA. This rule 

is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A 

preliminary environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add § 100.T08–0015 to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.T08–0015 Special Local Regulation; 

Moss Point Rockin’ the Riverfront Festival; 

Robertson Lake & O’Leary Lake; Moss 

Point, MS. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

regulated area: a portion of Robertson 

Lake & O′Leary Lake, Moss Point, MS, 

enclosed by a bounded area starting at 

a point on the shore at approximately 

30° 25′ 11.0′′ N, 088 32′ 24.4′′ W, then 

east to 30° 25′ 12.9′′ N, 088 32′ 18.0′′ W, 

then south to 30° 24′ 50.9′′ N, 088 32′ 

09.6′′ W, then west following the shore 

line back to the starting point at 30° 25′ 

11.0′′ N, 088 32′ 24.4′′ W. 

(b) Enforcement dates. This rule will 

be enforced from 11:00 a.m. until 4:00 

p.m. on April 27–28, 2013. 

(c) Special Local Regulations. 

(1) The Coast Guard will patrol the 

regulated area under the direction of a 

designated Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander. The Patrol Commander 

may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF– 

FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign 

‘‘PATCOM’’. 

(2) All Persons and vessels not 

registered with the sponsor as 

participants or official patrol vessels are 

considered spectators. The ‘‘official 

patrol vessels’’ consist of any Coast 

Guard, state, or local law enforcement 

and sponsor provided vessels assigned 

or approved by the Captain of the Port 

Mobile to patrol the regulated area. 

(3) Spectator vessels desiring to 

transit the regulated area may do so only 

with prior approval of the Patrol 

Commander and when so directed by 

that officer and will be operated at a 

minimum safe navigation speed in a 

manner which will not endanger 

participants in the regulated area or any 

other vessels. 

(4) No spectator shall anchor, block, 

loiter, or impede the through transit of 

participants or official patrol vessels in 

the regulated area during the effective 

dates and times, unless cleared for entry 

by or through an official patrol vessel. 

(5) The patrol commander may forbid 

and control the movement of all vessels 

in the regulated area. When hailed or 

signaled by an official patrol vessel, a 

vessel shall come to an immediate stop 

and comply with the directions given. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

(6) Any spectator vessel may anchor 

outside the regulated area, but may not 

anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable 

channel. Spectator vessels may be 

moored to a waterfront facility within 

the regulated area in such a way that 

they shall not interfere with the progress 

of the event. Such mooring must be 

complete at least 30 minutes prior to the 

establishment of the regulated area and 

remain moored through the duration of 

the event. 

(7) The Patrol Commander may 

terminate the event or the operation of 

any vessel at any time it is deemed 

necessary for the protection of life or 

property. 

(8) The Patrol Commander will 

terminate enforcement of the special 

local regulations at the conclusion of the 

event. 

(d) Informational Broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through broadcast notices to mariners of 

the enforcement period for the regulated 

area as well as any changes in the 

planned schedule. 

Dated: January 21, 2013. 

D.J. Rose, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03122 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Numbers: 84.133B–3, 84.133B–4, 

84.133B–5, and 84.133B–6.] 

Proposed Priorities—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 priorities. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes four priorities 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 Community 

Living and Participation for Individuals 

with Physical Disabilities (priority 1), 

RRTC on Employment of Individuals 

with Physical Disabilities (priority 2), 

RRTC on Health and Function of 

Individuals with Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities (priority 3), 

and RRTC on Community Living and 

Participation for Individuals with 

Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities (priority 4). The Assistant 

Secretary may use one or more of these 

priorities 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 the 

priorities to contribute to improved 

outcomes in these areas for individuals 

with disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 14, 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 Priorities 

for Combined RRTC Notice’’ in the 

subject line of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245– 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9870 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 priorities is in 

concert with NIDRR’s currently 

approved 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: 

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 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 four priorities 

each of which NIDRR intends to use for 

one or more competitions 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 

these priorities. 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 priorities, 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 these proposed 

priorities. 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 these proposed priorities 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). 

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 advanced 

research, training, technical assistance, 

and dissemination activities in general 

problem areas, as specified by NIDRR. 

These activities are designed to benefit 

rehabilitation service providers, 

individuals with disabilities, and the 

family members or other authorized 

representatives of individuals with 

disabilities. Additional information on 

the RRTC program can be found at: 

www.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 Priorities: 

Background: 

This notice contains four proposed 

priorities. Each priority reflects a major 

area or domain of NIDRR’s research 

agenda (community living and 

participation, health and function, and 

employment), combined with a specific 

broad disability population (physical 

disability or intellectual and 

developmental disability). 

Definitions: 

The research that is proposed under 

these priorities must be focused on one 

or more stages of research. If the RRTC 

is to conduct research that can be 

categorized under more than one 

research stage, or research that 

progresses from one stage to another, 

those research stages must be clearly 

specified. For purposes of these 

priorities, the stages of research, which 

we published for comment on January 

25, 2013, are: 

(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 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9871 

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 1—RRTC on 

Community Living and Participation for 

Individuals with Physical Disabilities. 

NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that 

will generate new knowledge about 

community living and participation for 

individuals with physical disabilities 

and will serve as a national resource 

center for individuals with physical 

disabilities and their families. 

Of the 51.5 million American adults 

with a disability, 41.5 million have 

disabilities in the physical domain 

(Brault, 2012). Despite the U.S. Supreme 

Court’s Olmstead decision, 527 U.S. 581 

(1999), which required States to provide 

services ‘‘in the most integrated setting 

appropriate to the needs of qualified 

individuals with disabilities,’’ id. at 607, 

people with physical disabilities 

continue to encounter significant 

barriers to living in the community and 

participating in activities of their 

choice. These barriers contribute to 

economic disadvantage and social 

isolation (Reinhard et al., 2011). Barriers 

to community living and participation 

for people with physical disabilities 

manifest themselves at both the 

individual and environmental level. 

They include limited access to: Home 

and community-based long-term 

services and supports, such as personal 

assistance and family caregiving, 

assistive technologies and devices and 

environmental modifications, 

medication management, and 

information and referral. The barriers 

also include lack of access to affordable 

and accessible housing and insufficient 

transportation services (Reinhard et al., 

2011). 

In 2010, 8.09 million adults (3.66 

million working-age adults ages 18 to 64 

and 4.43 million adults 65 years and 

over) were estimated to need personal 

assistance from a family member, friend, 

or paid helper in order to live in the 

community due to difficulties in 

performing basic activities of daily 

living (ADL), such as bathing, dressing, 

toileting, and getting around in one’s 

home (Center for Personal Assistance 

Services, 2012). By 2030, the number of 

adults projected to need personal 

assistance with ADLs is estimated to 

increase by as much as 50 percent 

(Center for Personal Assistance Services, 

2012). While studies show that the 

home is the setting of choice for the vast 

majority of people with physical 

disabilities and older adults who need 

assistance with daily activities 

(Salomon, 2010), there is a growing 

disparity between the demand for and 

supply of caregivers who are available 

and trained to provide these services 

(PHI, 2008). 

References: 

Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with 

Disabilities: 2010. Washington, DC: 

Department of Commerce, Economics 

and Statistics Administration, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 

PHI. (2008). Occupational projections 

for direct-care workers 2006–2016, Facts 

1. Bronx, NY: PHI (formerly the 

Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute). 

Available from: 

www.directcareclearinghouse.org/ 

download/BLSfactSheet4-10-08.pdf. 

Reinhard, S. C., Kassner, E., Houser, 

A., and Mollica, R. (September 2011). 

Raising expectations: A State scorecard 

on long-term services and supports for 

older adults, people with physical 

disabilities, and family caregivers. The 

AARP Foundation: Washington, DC. 

Available from: http://assets.aarp.org/ 

rgcenter/ppi/ltc/ltss_scorecard.pdf. 

Salomon, E. (March 2010). AARP 

Public Policy Institute: Housing policy 

solutions to support aging in place. Fact 

Sheet 172. Washington, DC: ARRP 

Center for Housing Policy. Available 

from: http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ 

ppi/liv-com/fs172-aging-in-place.pdf. 

Center for Personal Assistance 

Services (2012). Projections for the 

Population Needing Personal 

Assistance, 2015–2030, U.S. Available 

from: www.pascenter.org/ 

state_based_stats/disability_stats/ 

adl_projections.php?state=us. 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for an RRTC on 

Community Living and Participation for 

Individuals with Physical Disabilities. 

The RRTC must contribute to 

maximizing the community living and 

participation outcomes of individuals 

with physical disabilities by: 

(a) Conducting research activities in 

one or more of the following priority 

areas, focusing on individuals with 

physical disabilities as a group or on 

individuals in specific disability or 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with physical disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with physical disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved 

community living and participation 

outcomes for individuals with physical 

disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved community living and 

participation outcomes for individuals 

with physical disabilities. Interventions 

include any strategy, practice, program, 

policy, or tool that, when implemented 

as intended, contributes to 

improvements in outcomes for 

individuals with physical disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government practices, 

policies, and programs on community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with physical disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved community 

living and participation outcomes for 

transition-aged youth with physical 

disabilities. 

(b) Focusing its research on one or 

more specific stages of research. If the 

RRTC is to conduct research that can be 

categorized under more than one of the 

research stages, or research that 

progresses from one stage to another, 

those stages must be clearly specified. 

These stages and their definitions are 

provided at the beginning of the 

Proposed Priorities section in this 

notice. 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to community living and 

participation for individuals with 

physical disabilities, their families, and 

other stakeholders by conducting 

knowledge translation activities that 

include, but are not limited to: 

(i) Providing information and 

technical assistance to service 

providers, individuals with physical 

disabilities and their representatives, 

and other key stakeholders: 

(ii) Providing training, including 

graduate, pre-service, and in-service 

training, to rehabilitation providers and 

other disability service providers, to 

facilitate more effective delivery of 

services to individuals with physical 

disabilities. This training may be 

provided through conferences, 

workshops, public education programs, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

in-service training programs, and 

similar activities: 

(iii) Disseminating research-based 

information and materials related to 

community living and participation for 

individuals with physical disabilities; 

and 

(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. 

Proposed Priority 2—RRTC on 

Employment of Individuals with 

Physical Disabilities. 

Background: 

NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that 

will generate new knowledge about 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with physical disabilities and will serve 

as a national resource center for 

individuals with physical disabilities 

and their families. Despite the 

enactment of legislation and the 

implementation of a variety of policy 

and program efforts at the Federal and 

State levels to improve employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities, the employment rate for 

individuals with disabilities remains 

substantially lower than the rate for 

those without disabilities. 

Of the 51.5 million American adults 

with a disability, 41.5 million have 

disabilities in the physical domain 

(Brault, 2012). Recent data from the 

Survey of Income and Program 

Participation revealed that 40.8 percent 

of individuals with only physical 

disabilities were employed, compared to 

79.1 percent of individuals without a 

disability (Brault, 2012). Not only were 

people with physical disabilities much 

less likely to be employed, their median 

earnings were $1,998 per month as 

compared to $2,724 per month earned 

by people without a disability (Brault, 

2012). 

Previous research has demonstrated 

the importance of a variety of factors 

relevant to hiring, job retention, and 

advancement for individuals with 

physical disabilities. These include, but 

are not limited to, (1) individual factors 

such as disability characteristics, 

education, and age (Ottomanelli & Lind, 

2009); (2) employer practices and 

organizational culture, including 

diversity management practices and the 

provision of accommodations such as 

assistive technology and personal 

assistance services (Chan et al., 2010; 

Colella & Bruye`re, 2011; Nafukho et al., 

2010; Ottomanelli & Lind, 2009; Stumbo 

et al., 2009); (3) government policies 

and programs, such as transportation 

systems, benefit programs, and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (Colella 

& Bruye`re, 2011; Ottomanelli & Lind, 

2009); (4) programs for individuals in 

transition from school to work (Test et 

al., 2009); and (5) the effectiveness of 

vocational rehabilitation and other 

employment support practices (Marini 

et al., 2008; Ottomanelli & Lind, 2009). 

References: 

Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with 

Disabilities: 2010. Household economic 

studies. U.S. Census Bureau. Available 

from: www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/ 

p70–131.pdf. 

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Maher, P., Lee, 

E–J., Jones, R., and Johnson, E. T. (2010). 

Demand-side factors related to 

employment of people with disabilities: 

A survey of employers in the Midwest 

region of the United States. Journal of 

Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 412– 

419. 

Colella, A., and Bruye`re, S. (2011). 

Disability and employment: New 

directions for industrial/organizational 

psychology. In American Psychological 

Association Handbook on Industrial 

Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, 473– 

503. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

Marini, I., Lee, G. K., Chan, F., 

Chapin, M. H., and Romero, M. G. 

(2008). Vocational rehabilitation service 

patterns related to successful 

competitive employment outcomes of 

persons with spinal cord injury. Journal 

of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28, 1–13. 

Nafukho, F. M., Roessler, R. T., and 

Kacirek, K. (2010). Disability as a 

diversity factor: Implications for human 

resource practices. Advances in 

Developing Human Resources, 12, 395– 

406. 

Ottomanelli, L., and Lind, L. (2009). 

Review of critical factors related to 

employment after spinal cord injury: 

Implications for research and vocational 

services. Journal of Spinal Cord 

Medicine, 32, 503–531. 

Stumbo, N. J., Martin, J. K., and 

Hedric, B. N. (2009). Assistive 

technology: Impact on education, 

employment and independence of 

individuals with physical disabilities. 

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30, 

99–110. 

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, 

A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., and 

Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based 

secondary transition predictors for 

improving postschool outcomes for 

students with disabilities. Career 

Development for Exceptional 

Individuals, 32l, 160–181. 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for an RRTC on 

Employment of Individuals with 

Physical Disabilities. 

The RRTC must contribute to 

maximizing the employment outcomes 

of individuals with physical disabilities 

by: 

(a) Conducting research activities in 

one or more of the following priority 

areas, focusing on individuals with 

physical disabilities as a group or on 

individuals in specific disability or 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with physical disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with physical disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with physical disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved employment outcomes for 

individuals with physical disabilities. 

Interventions include any strategy, 

practice, program, policy, or tool that, 

when implemented as intended, 

contributes to improvements in 

outcomes for individuals with physical 

disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government practices, 

policies and programs on employment 

outcomes for individuals with physical 

disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for transition-aged youth with 

physical disabilities. 

(vi) Vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

practices that contribute to improved 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with physical disabilities. 

(b) Focusing its research on one or 

more specific stages of research. If the 

RRTC is to conduct research that can be 

categorized under more than one of the 

research stages, or research that 

progresses from one stage to another, 

those stages must be clearly specified. 

These stages and their definitions are 

provided at the beginning of the 

Proposed Priorities section in this 

notice. 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to employment for 

individuals with physical disabilities, 

their families, and other stakeholders by 

conducting knowledge translation 

activities that include, but are not 

limited to: 

(i) Providing information and 

technical assistance to service 

providers, individuals with physical 

disabilities and their representatives, 

and other key stakeholders. 

(ii) Providing training, including 

graduate, pre-service, and in-service 

training, to rehabilitation providers and 

other disability service providers, to 

facilitate more effective delivery of 

employment services and supports to 

individuals with physical disabilities. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9873 

This training may be provided through 

conferences, workshops, public 

education programs, in-service training 

programs, and similar activities. 

(iii) Disseminating research-based 

information and materials related to 

employment for individuals with 

physical 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. 

Proposed Priority 3—RRTC on Health 

and Function of Individuals with 

Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

Background: 

NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that 

will generate new knowledge about 

health and function outcomes for 

persons with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities across the 

lifespan and will serve as a national 

resource center for persons with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities and their families. 

Intellectual and developmental 

disabilities are defined by limitations in 

adaptive functioning associated with 

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 

1.6 percent of the U.S. population 

(about 5 million people) has intellectual 

and developmental disabilities (Larson 

et al., 2001). 

Findings from research on the health 

of persons with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities in this 

country indicate substantially higher 

than normal rates of (1) complex health 

conditions; (2) poorly managed chronic 

conditions, such as diabetes, heart 

disease, sensory impairments, or 

epilepsy; (3) health problems and use of 

psychotropic medications; (4) limited 

access to and use of quality preventive 

health care and health promotion 

programs; and (5) early onset of 

conditions and impairments such as 

Alzheimer’s disease among persons 

with Down syndrome (Horwitz et al., 

2000; Krahn et al., 2006; National Task 

Group on Intellectual Disabilities and 

Dementia Practice, 2012). 

While the health of the general 

population is routinely monitored 

through national surveys, the health of 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities is not. As a 

result, significant health problems 

among the population may remain 

largely undetected (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2002; 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 2009). At the same time, it 

is clear that persons with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities have 

poorer health and function outcomes 

than the general population; have costs 

of health and related care that are 

disproportionately higher than for 

persons without intellectual and 

developmental disabilities; have 

insufficient access to and use of 

preventive health services; and have 

lifestyle and risk factors that are 

associated with poor health outcomes 

and premature mortality (Kaiser 

Commission on Medicaid and the 

Uninsured, 2006, 2011; Bershadsky et 

al., 2012; Krahn et al., 2006; Stancliffe 

et al., 2011; U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2002). 

References: 

Bershadsky, J., Taub, S., Engler, J., 

Moseley, C., Lakin, K. C, Stancliffe, R., 

Larson, S., Ticha, R., Bailey, C., and 

Bradley, V. (2012). Place of residence 

and preventive health care for 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities services recipients in 20 

states. Public Health Reports, 127(5), 

475–485. 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. (2009). U.S. Surveillance of 

Health of People with Intellectual 

Disabilities. A White Paper. Available 

from: www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ 

disabilityandhealth/pdf/209537– 

A_IDmeeting%20short%20version12– 

14–09.pdf. 

Developmental Disabilities Assistance 

and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 

106–402). 

Horwitz, S., Kerker, B., Owens, P., 

and Zigler, E. (2000). The health status 

and needs of individuals with mental 

retardation. New Haven: Yale 

University. 

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and 

the Uninsured. (2006). Profiles of 

Medicaid’s high cost populations. 

Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family 

Foundation. Available from: 

www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7565.pdf. 

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and 

the Uninsured. (2011). Medicaid home 

and community-based service programs: 

Data update. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser 

Family Foundation. Available from: 

www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7720– 

04.pdf 

Krahn, G. L., Hammond, L., and 

Turner, A. (2006). A cascade of 

disparities: Health and health care 

access for people with intellectual 

disabilities. Mental Retardation and 

Developmental Disabilities Research 

Reviews, 12, 22–27. 

Larson, S. A., Lakin, K. C., Anderson, 

L., Lee, N. K., Lee, J. K., and 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. 

National Task Group on Intellectual 

Disabilities and Dementia Practice. 

(2012). ‘‘My thinker’s not working’’: A 

national strategy for enabling adults 

with intellectual disabilities affected by 

dementia to remain in their community 

and receive quality supports. Available 

from: www.aadmd.org/ntg/thinker. 

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., and Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual 

disability: Definition, classification, and 

systems of supports (11th ed.). 

Washington, DC: American Association 

on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

Stancliffe, R., Lakin, K. C., Larson, S., 

Taub, S., Engler, J., Bershadsky, J., and 

Fortune, J., (2011). Overweight and 

obesity among adults with intellectual 

disabilities who use intellectual 

disability/developmental disability 

services in 20 U.S. States. American 

Journal on Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities, 116(6), 401– 

418. 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. (2002). Closing the 

gap: A national blueprint to improve the 

health of persons with mental 

retardation. Report of the Surgeon 

General’s Conference on Health 

Disparities and Mental Retardation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

the Surgeon General. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for an RRTC on 

Health and Function of Individuals with 

Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

The RRTC must contribute to 

maximizing the health and function 

outcomes of individuals with 

intellectual and/or developmental 

disabilities by: 

(a) Conducting 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 health and 

function outcomes for individuals with 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved access 

to rehabilitation and health care and 

improved health and function outcomes 

for individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved health and function outcomes 

for individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

Interventions include any strategy, 

practice, program, policy, or tool that, 

when implemented as intended, 

contributes to improvements in 

outcomes for the specified population. 

(iv) Effects of government practices, 

policies and programs on health care 

access and on health and function 

outcomes for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved health and 

function outcomes for transition-aged 

youth with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

(b) Focusing its research on one or 

more specific stages of research. If the 

RRTC is to conduct research that can be 

categorized under more than one of the 

research stages, or research that 

progresses from one stage to another, 

those stages must be clearly specified. 

These stages and their definitions are 

provided at the beginning of the 

Proposed Priorities section in this 

notice. 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to health and function 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 to service 

providers, 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 rehabilitation providers and 

other disability service providers, to 

facilitate more effective delivery of 

services to 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 research-based 

information and materials related to 

health and function 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. 

Proposed Priority 4—RRTC on 

Community Living and Participation for 

Individuals with Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities. 

Background: 

NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that 

will generate new knowledge about 

community living and participation 

outcomes for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities and will serve as a national 

resource center on community living 

and participation for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities and their families. 

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 1.6 percent of the U.S. population 

(about 5 million people) has intellectual 

and developmental disabilities (Larson 

et al., 2001). 

There have been significant changes 

in the nature of services provided to 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disability over the last 

four decades. Since the late 1960s, 

public institution placements of 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities have 

decreased by more than 85 percent 

(Larson et al., 2012). Individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities currently receive a wide 

range of community services. These 

include personal care and other 

residential support; physical, 

occupational, speech, and other 

therapies; vocational rehabilitation and 

other employment supports; and respite 

care and other assistance to family 

caregivers. These services are financed 

primarily through various Medicaid 

programs, including Medicaid Home 

and Community Based Services. 

Demand for these services outweighs 

supply. There are long waiting lists, 

estimated to include 120,000 to 300,000 

persons nationally, depending on the 

definition of ‘‘persons waiting’’ (Larson 

et al., 2012; Kaiser Family Foundation, 

2009). In the past decade, most of the 

growth in service recipients has come 

from persons living with family 

members (Larson et al., 2012). 

Research on outcomes for persons 

receiving community-based supports, 

while consistently showing better 

outcomes than for persons receiving 

institutional care (Stancliffe & Lakin, 

2005), shows that persons with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities receiving community-based 

supports have less choice, less 

participation, fewer relationships, and 

more loneliness than persons who do 

not have intellectual and developmental 

disabilities (Stancliffe et al., 2007; 

McVilly et al., 2006). Another major 

challenge relates to providing 

appropriate support of all kinds, 

including ensuring availability of welltrained direct support workers, for the 

steadily growing number of individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities who continue to live with 

family members into adulthood. 

References: 

Developmental Disabilities Assistance 

and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 

106–402). 

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2009). 

Medicaid home and community-based 

services: Data update. Washington, DC: 

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the 

Uninsured. 

Larson, S.A., Lakin, K.C., Anderson, 

L., Lee, N.K., Lee, J.K., and 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. 

Larson, S.A., Ryan, A., Salmi, P., 

Smith, D., and Wuorio, A. (2012). 

Residential service for persons with 

developmental disabilities: Status and 

trends through 2010. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota, Research and 

Training Center on Community Living. 

McVilly, K.R., Stancliffe, R.J., 

Parmenter, T.R., and Burton-Smith, 

R.M. (2006). ‘‘I get by with a little help 

from my friends’’: Adults with 

intellectual disability discuss 

loneliness. Journal of Applied Research 

in Intellectual Disabilities, 19(2), 191– 

203. 

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., and 

Yeager, M.H. (2010). Intellectual 

disability: Definition, classification, and 

systems of supports (11th ed.). 

Washington, DC: American Association 

on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities. 

Stancliffe, R.J., and Lakin, C.K. (2005). 

Costs and outcomes of community 

services for people with intellectual 

disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. 

Brookes Publishing. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9875 

Stancliffe, R.J., Lakin, C.K., Doljanac, 

R., Byun, S.Y., Taub, S., Chiri, G., and 

Ferguson, P. (2007). Loneliness and 

living arrangements. Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities, 45(6), 380– 

390. 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for an RRTC on 

Community Living and Participation for 

Individuals with Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities. 

The RRTC must contribute to 

improving the community living and 

participation outcomes of individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities by: 

(a) Conducting 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 community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved 

community living and participation 

outcomes for individuals with 

intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved community living and 

participation outcomes for individuals 

with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities. Interventions include any 

strategy, practice, program, policy, or 

tool that, when implemented as 

intended, contributes to improvements 

in outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government practices, 

policies and programs on community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved community 

living and participation outcomes for 

transition-aged youth with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities. 

(b) Focusing its research on one or 

more specific stages of research. If the 

RRTC is to conduct research that can be 

categorized under more than one of the 

research stages, or research that 

progresses from one stage to another, 

those stages must be clearly specified. 

These stages and their definitions are 

provided at the beginning of the 

Proposed Priorities section in this 

notice. 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to community living and 

participation 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 to service 

providers, 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 rehabilitation providers and 

other disability service providers, to 

facilitate more effective delivery of 

services to 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 research-based 

information and materials related to 

community living and participation 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. 

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; 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(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 these proposed 

priorities only upon a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their 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 7, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03203 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0063; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AY24 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status and 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Jemez Mountains Salamander 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the September 12, 2012, proposed 

endangered status for the Jemez 

Mountains salamander and proposed 

designation of critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment of 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Jemez Mountains 

salamander, and an amended required 

determinations section of the proposal. 

We are proposing minor amendments to 

the proposed critical habitat units based 

on updated mapping data. In addition, 

we are proposing minor changes to 

clarify the primary constituent 

elements. We are reopening the 

comment period to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed rule, 

the associated draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment, the 

amended required determinations 

section, and the proposed changes to the 

primary constituent elements and 

critical habitat units described in this 

document. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

they will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received on or before March 14, 2013. 

Comments submitted electronically 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES section, below) must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

on the listing proposal to Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2012–0063, and submit 

comments on the critical habitat 

proposal and associated draft economic 

analysis to Docket No. FWS–R2–ES– 

2013–0005. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for an explanation of the 

two dockets. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit comments 

on the listing proposal by U.S. mail or 

hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– 

0063; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

Submit comment on the critical habitat 

proposal and draft economic analysis by 

U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– 

ES–2013–0005; Division of Policy and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1