Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20069 

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 that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves special local regulations 

issued in conjunction with a regatta or 

marine parade. 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 in 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 § 100.35–T05–0129 to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–0129 Special Local 

Regulations for Marine Events, Spa Creek 

and Annapolis Harbor; Annapolis, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

location is a regulated area: All waters 

of the Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor, 

from shoreline to shoreline, bounded by 

a line drawn near the entrance of Spa 

Creek originating at latitude 38°58′40′′ 

N, longitude 076°28′49′′ W, thence south 

to latitude 38°58′32′′ N, longitude 

076°28′45′′ W. The regulated area is 

bounded to the southwest by a line 

drawn from latitude 38°58′34′′ N, 

longitude 076°29′05′′ W thence south to 

latitude 38°58′27′′ N, longitude 

076°28′55′′ W, located at Annapolis, 

MD. All coordinates reference Datum 

NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U. S. 

Coast Guard who has been designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) The 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander may 

forbid and control the movement of all 

vessels and persons in the regulated 

area. When hailed or signaled by an 

official patrol vessel, a vessel or person 

in the regulated area shall immediately 

comply with the directions given. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

(2) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

this regulated area can be contacted at 

telephone number 410–576–2693 or on 

marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16 

(156.8 MHz). 

(3) The Coast Guard will publish a 

notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and issue a 

marine information broadcast on VHF– 

FM marine band radio announcing 

specific event date and times. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 

on July 20, 2013. 

Dated: March 19, 2013. 

Kevin C. Kiefer, 

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

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07682 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR)—Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Centers 

(RERCs)—Technologies To Support 

Successful Aging With Disability 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.133E–3 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes one priority for the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by NIDRR. Specifically, 

this notice proposes one priority for an 

RERC: Technologies to Support 

Successful Aging with Disability. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this priority 

for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 

2013 and later years. We take this action 

to focus research attention on areas of 

national need. We intend to use this 

priority to improve rehabilitation 

services and outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 3, 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 RERCs’’ in the priority title 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 currently approved LongRange Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8166), 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 one priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for RERC 

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 

awards for 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 Order 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). 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Centers Program (RERCs) 

The purpose of NIDRR’s RERC 

program, which is funded through the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program, is to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act. 

It does so by conducting advanced 

engineering research, developing and 

evaluating innovative technologies, 

facilitating service delivery system 

changes, stimulating the production and 

distribution of new technologies and 

equipment in the private sector, and 

providing training opportunities. RERCs 

seek to solve rehabilitation problems 

and remove environmental barriers to 

improvements in employment, 

community living and participation, 

and health and function outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities. 

The general requirements for RERCs 

are set out in subpart D of 34 CFR part 

350 (What Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers Does the Secretary 

Assist?). 

Additional information on the RERC 

program can be found at: www.ed.gov/ 

rschstat/research/pubs/index.html. 

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

764(b)(3). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

Proposed Priority 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

RERC on Technologies To Support 

Successful Aging With Disability 

Background 

Current estimates indicate that 

between 37 million and 52 million 

individuals living in the United States 

have some kind of disability (IOM, 

2007a; Brault, 2012). These numbers 

will likely grow significantly in the next 

25–30 years as the baby boom 

generation continues to enter later life, 

when the risk of disability is the highest 

(IOM, 2007a). Projections based on the 

U.S. Census data from 2010 indicate 

that by 2030, the population 65 years 

and older will almost double from 35 

million to more than 71 million or to 

approximately 20 percent of the overall 

population (Brault, 2012). 

Although older age is a major risk 

factor for disability, millions of younger 

and middle-age adults also live with 

disabilities. In 2010, some 29.5 million 

Americans aged 21 to 64 or 16.6 percent 

of the working-age population reported 

disabilities (Brault, 2012). This large 

working-age group includes people who 

are aging with life-long and early onset 

disabilities that were once fatal or 

associated with shortened life 

expectancy (Jensen et al., 2011; IOM, 

2007b, Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004). This 

population is now experiencing the 

benefits of increased longevity as well 

as premature or atypical aging related to 

their condition, its management, or 

other environmental factors (Jensen et 

al., 2011; IOM, 2007; Kailes, 2006; 

Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004). 

As working-age and older adults with 

disabilities grow older, many face 

significant new challenges to their 

health and independence due to the 

onset of secondary conditions 

associated with changes in the 

underlying impairment and the onset of 

age-related, chronic conditions (Freid et 

al., 2012; Jensen et al., 2011; IOM, 

2007b; Kailes, 2006; Kemp & Mosqueda, 

2004; Kinny et al., 2004). The challenges 

of aging with and into disability are 

compounded by the presence of 

economic and environmental barriers, 

such as a lack of affordable and 

accessible transportation and housing 

services. There is a lack of innovative 

technologies that extend the benefits of 

health promotion and rehabilitation 

interventions and strategies into home 

and community-based settings (Rizzo et 

al., 2012; Czaja & Sharit, 2009; IOM, 

2007a; IOM, 2007c; Mann, 2005). 

For example, while emerging research 

indicates that functional motor capacity 

and independence can be improved, 

maintained, or recovered via consistent 

participation in exercise and 

rehabilitation programs for individuals 

with upper and lower extremity 

impairments (Winstein et al., 2012; 

Czaja & Sharit, 2009; Merians, et al. 

2009; Krakauer, 2006; Mann, 2005; 

Mynatt & Rodgers, 2002), the 

availability of evidence-based exercise 

and rehabilitation programs and 

interventions in home and communitybased settings for this population is 

severely limited (Lindenberger et al, 

2008; Krakauer, 2006; Tyrer et al., 2006). 

The commercially available, homebased technologies that promise to 

improve balance and prevent falls are 

not informed by evidence from 

rehabilitation science and gerontology 

and have not been evaluated for use by 

individuals with disabilities (Rizzo et 

al., 2011; Czaja & Sharit, 2009; 

Lindenberger et al., 2008). 

Despite limitations in the availability 

of evidence-based technologies and 

interventions to support healthy aging 

with disability, findings from social and 

demographic research suggests that 

assistive technologies (AT) and 

information and communication 

technologies (ICT) are playing an 

increasingly important role in the lives 

of people with disabilities (Wild et al., 

2008; Freedman et al., 2006). For 

example, secondary analysis of data 

from the National Long-Term Care 

Survey found that the steadily 

increasing use of these technologies was 

associated with downward trends in the 

reported rates of disability among adults 

age 65 and over (Spillman, 2004). Other 

research suggests that AT and ICT may 

substitute for, or supplement, personal 

care (Carlson and Ehrlich, 2005). 

Findings such as these suggest that 

greater availability and use of low-cost, 

evidence-based, computer-aided 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20071 

technologies, such as AT and ICT, could 

help the Nation prepare for a future 

characterized by a growing population 

of working-age and older adults with 

long-term disabilities and increased 

demand for healthcare and long-term 

services and supports, combined with a 

shrinking proportion of younger people 

available to provide personal assistance 

(Lindenberger, 2008; IOM, 2007a, Pew & 

Van Hemel, 2004). To respond to the 

challenges and opportunities in the 

emerging area of aging, disability and 

technology, NIDRR proposes to fund a 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Center (RERC) on Technologies to 

Support Healthy Aging With Disability. 

References 

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

disabilities: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. Available at 

www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70– 

131.pdf. 

Carlson D., & Ehrlich N. (2005). Assistive 

technology and information technology use 

and need by persons with disabilities in the 

United States, 2001. Washington, DC: 

National Institute on disability and 

Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department 

of Education. Available at http:// 

www2.ed.gov/rschstat/reserach/pubs/atuse/at-use-2001.doc. 

Czaja, S.J., & Sharit, J. (2009). The aging of 

the population: Opportunities and 

challenges for human factors engineering. 

The Bridge: Linking Engineering and 

Society, 39(1): 34–40. Available at 

www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/ 

TechnologiesforanAgingPopulation/ 

TheAgingofthePopulation.aspx. 

Freedman, V.A., Agree, E.M., Martin, L.G., & 

Cornman, J.C. (2006). Trends in the use of 

assistive technology and personal care for 

late-life disability, 1992–2000. 

Gerontologist, 46(1): 124–127. 

Freid, V.M., Bernstein, A.B., & Bush, M.A. 

(2012). Multiple chronic conditions among 

adults aged 45 and over: Trends Over the 

past 10 years. NCHS data brief, no. 100. 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health 

Statistics. 2010. Available at www.cdc.gov/ 

nchs/data/databriefs/db100.htm. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007a. The 

future of disability in America. Committee 

on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette, 

A.M., editors. Chapter 1: Introduction, pp. 

16–34. Washington (DC): The National 

Academies Press. Available at 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007b. The 

future of disability in America. Committee 

on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette, 

A.M., editors. Chapter 5: Secondary 

conditions and aging with disability, pp. 

136–161. Washington (DC): The National 

Academies Press. Available at 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2007c. The 

future of disability in America. Committee 

on Disability in America; Field, M.J., Jette, 

A.M., editors. Chapter 7: Assistive and 

mainstream technologies for people with 

disabilities, pp. 183–221. Washington (DC): 

The National Academies Press. Available 

at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11434. 

Jensen, M.P., Molton, I.R., Groah, S.L., 

Campbell, M.L., Charlifue, S., Chiodo, A., 

Forchheimer, M., Krause, J.S., & Tate D. 

(2011). Secondary health conditions in 

individuals aging with SCI: Terminology, 

concepts, and analytic approaches. Spinal 

Cord, 50(5): 373–378. 

Kailes, J.L. (2006). A User’s Perspective on 

Midlife (Ages 18–65) Aging with Disability. 

Workshop on Disability in America: A New 

Look. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press, pp. 194–204. 

Kemp, B.J., & Mosqueda, L. (Eds.) (2004). 

Aging with a disability: What the clinician 

needs to know. Baltimore, MD: The Johns 

Hopkins University Press. 

Kinny, S., Patrick, D.L., & Doyle D.L. (2004). 

Prevalence of secondary conditions among 

people with disabilities. American Journal 

of Public Health, 94(3): 443–445. 

Krakauer, J.W. (2006). Motor learning: Its 

relevance to stroke recovery and 

neurorehabilitation. Current Opinion in 

Neurology, 19: 84. 

Lindenberger, U., Lovden, M., Schellenbach, 

M., Li, S., & Kruger, A. (2008). 

Psychological principles of successful 

aging technologies; a mini-review. 

Gerontology, 54: 59–68. 

Mann, W.C. (2005). Aging, Disability, and 

Independence: Trends and Perspectives. 

Smart Technology for Aging, Disability, 

and Independence: The State of the 

Science. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., pp. 1–29. 

Merians, A.S, Tunik, E., Fluet, G.G., Qiu, Q., 

& Adamovich, S.V. (2009). Innovative 

approaches to the rehabilitation of upper 

extremity hemiparesis using virtual 

environments. European Journal of 

Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 45: 

123. 

Mynatt, E., & Rodgers, W. (2002). Developing 

technology to support the functional 

independence of older adults. Ageing 

International, 27: 24. 

Pew, R.W., & Van Hemel, S.B. (2004). 

National Research Council (U.S.) Steering 

Committee for the Workshop on 

Technology for Adaptive Aging, et al. 

Technology for adaptive aging. 

Washington, DC; National Academies 

Press. 

Rizzo, A., Requejo, P., Winstein, C., Lange, 

B., Ragusa, G., Merians, A., Patton J., 

Banerjee, P., & Aisen, A. (2011). Virtual 

reality applications for addressing the 

needs of those aging with disability. In 

Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 18, J.D. 

Westwood et al. (Eds.) IOS Press, 2011 

Available at www.isi.edu/research/rerc/ 

spotlight/files/ 

NIDRR_MMVR2011_workshop_book.pdf. 

Spillman, B.C. (2004). Changes in elderly 

disability rates and the implications for 

health care utilization and cost. Milbank 

Quarterly, 82(1): 157–194. 

Tyrer, H.W., Alwan, M., Demiris, G., He, Z., 

Keller, J., Skubic, M., & Rantz, M. (2006). 

Technology for successful aging. 

Proceedings of the 28th institute of 

electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE) 

Engineering in medicine and biology 

society (EMBS) annual international 

conference, New York City, USA; pp. 

3290–3293. Available at http:// 

eldertech.missouri.edu/files/ 

Technology_for_Successful_Aging.pdf. 

Wild, K., Boise. L., Lundell, J., & Foucek A. 

(2008). Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of 

cognitive and physical health: Reactions 

and perceptions of older adults. Journal of 

Applied Gerontology, 27(2): 181–200. 

Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ 

articles/PMC2629437/?tool=pubmed. 

Winstein, C.J., Requejo, P.S., Zelinski, E.M., 

Mulroy, S.J., & Crimmins, E.M. (2012). A 

transformative subfield in rehabilitation 

science at the nexus of new technologies, 

aging, and disability. Frontiers in 

Psychology, 3 (Article 340): 1–8. Available 

at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ 

PMC3448347/. 

Proposed Priority 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes the following priority for the 

establishment of a Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center (RERC) on 

Technologies to Support Successful 

Aging With Disability. Within its 

designated priority research area, this 

RERC will focus on innovative 

technological solutions, new 

knowledge, and new concepts that will 

improve the lives of individuals with 

disabilities. 

Under this priority, the RERC must 

research, develop or identify, and 

evaluate innovative technologies and 

strategies that maximize the physical 

and cognitive functioning of individuals 

with long-term disabilities as they age. 

This RERC must engage in research and 

development activities to build a base of 

evidence for the usability of, and costeffectiveness of home-based interactive 

technologies that are intended to 

improve physical and cognitive 

functioning of individuals with 

disabilities as they age. This RERC may 

develop and evaluate new technologies, 

or identify and evaluate existing or 

commercially available technologies, or 

both, that are designed to improve the 

physical and cognitive outcomes of this 

population. In addition, the RERC must 

facilitate access to, and use of the lowcost, home-based interactive 

technologies that improve the physical 

and cognitive outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities, through such means as 

collaborating and communicating with 

relevant stakeholders, providing 

technical assistance, and promoting 

technology transfer. 

General RERC Requirements 

Under this priority, the RERC must be 

designed to contribute to the following 

outcomes: 

(1) Increased technical and scientific 

knowledge relevant to its designated 

priority research area. The RERC must 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

contribute to this outcome by 

conducting high-quality, rigorous 

research and development projects. 

(2) Increased innovation in 

technologies, products, environments, 

performance guidelines, and monitoring 

and assessment tools applicable to its 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

through the development and testing of 

these innovations. 

(3) Improved research capacity in its 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by collaborating with the relevant 

industry, professional associations, 

institutions of higher education, health 

care providers, or educators, as 

appropriate. 

(4) Improved usability and 

accessibility of products and 

environments in the RERC’s designated 

priority research area. The RERC must 

contribute to this outcome by 

emphasizing the principles of universal 

design in its product research and 

development. For purposes of this 

section, the term ‘‘universal design’’ 

refers to the design of products and 

environments to be usable by all people, 

to the greatest extent possible, without 

the need for adaptation or specialized 

design. 

(5) Improved awareness and 

understanding of cutting-edge 

developments in technologies within its 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by identifying and communicating with 

relevant stakeholders, including NIDRR, 

individuals with disabilities, their 

representatives, disability organizations, 

service providers, professional journals, 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties regarding trends and evolving 

product concepts related to its 

designated priority research area. 

(6) Increased impact of research in the 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by providing technical assistance to 

relevant public and private 

organizations, individuals with 

disabilities, employers, and schools on 

policies, guidelines, and standards 

related to its designated priority 

research area. 

(7) Increased transfer of RERCdeveloped technologies to the 

marketplace. The RERC must contribute 

to this outcome by developing and 

implementing a plan for ensuring that 

all technologies developed by the RERC 

are made available to the public. The 

technology transfer plan must be 

developed in the first year of the project 

period in consultation with the NIDRRfunded Disability Rehabilitation 

Research Project, Center on Knowledge 

Translation for Technology Transfer. 

In addition, the RERC must— 

• Have the capability to design, build, 

and test prototype devices and assist in 

the technology transfer and knowledge 

translation of successful solutions to 

relevant production and service delivery 

settings; 

• Evaluate the efficacy and safety of 

its new products, instrumentation, or 

assistive devices; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, a plan that describes 

how it will include, as appropriate, 

individuals with disabilities or their 

representatives in all phases of its 

activities, including research, 

development, training, dissemination, 

and evaluation; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, in consultation with 

the NIDRR-funded National Center for 

the Dissemination of Disability 

Research, a plan to disseminate its 

research results to individuals with 

disabilities, their representatives, 

disability organizations, service 

providers, professional journals, 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, a plan to disseminate 

its research results to individuals with 

disabilities and their representatives; 

disability organizations; service 

providers; professional journals; 

manufacturers; and other interested 

parties. In meeting this requirement, 

each RERC may use a variety of 

mechanisms to disseminate information, 

including state-of-the-science 

conferences, Webinars, Web sites, and 

other dissemination methods; and 

• Coordinate with relevant NIDRRfunded projects, as identified through 

consultation with the NIDRR project 

officer. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20073 

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 regulatory action 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 Programs have been well 

established over the years in that similar 

projects have been completed 

successfully. This proposed priority 

would generate new knowledge through 

research and development. The new 

RERCs would generate, disseminate, 

and promote the use of new information 

that would improve the options for 

individuals with disabilities to fully 

participate in their communities. 

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) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 29, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of Assistant Secretary 

for Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07763 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2013–0105; FRL–9796–7] 

Adequacy of Oregon’s Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA Region 10 proposes to 

approve a modification to the State of 

Oregon’s approved Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill Program. On March 22, 

2004, EPA issued final regulations 

allowing research, development, and 

demonstration (RD&D) permits to be 

issued to certain municipal solid waste 

landfills by approved states. On June 14, 

2012, Oregon submitted an application 

to EPA Region 10 seeking Federal 

approval of its RD&D requirements. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing on or 

before May 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2013–0105, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: calabro.domenic@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (206) 553–6640, to the 

attention of Domenic Calabro. 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Domenic Calabro, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: 

AWT–122, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Domenic Calabro, 

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, U.S. 

EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Mailstop: AWT–122, Seattle, 

WA 98101. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Office’s normal 

hours of operation. 

For detailed instructions on how to 

submit comments, please see the direct 

final rule which is located in the Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenic Calabro at (206) 553–6640 or 

by email at calabro.domenic@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

the EPA is approving modifications to 

Oregon’s Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill permit program to allow for 

Research, Development, and 

Demonstration permits through a direct 

final rule without prior proposal, 

because the EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipates 

no adverse comments to this action. 

Unless we receive written adverse 

comments which oppose this approval 

during the comment period, the direct 

final rule will become effective on the 

date it establishes, and we will not take 

further action on this proposal. If the 

EPA receives written adverse comments, 

the direct final rule will be withdrawn 

and all public comments received will 

be addressed in a subsequent final rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS