Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 13597 

TABLE TO § 165.506—Continued 

[All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983] 

No. Date Location Regulated area 

13 ............ August—1st Tuesday ............... New River, Jacksonville, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 34°44′45′′ 

N, longitude 077°26′18′′ W, approximately one half mile 

south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, North Carolina. 

14 ............ July 4th ..................................... Pantego Creek, Belhaven, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters on the Pantego Creek within a 600 foot radius of the 

launch site on land at position 35°32′35′′ N, 076°37′46′′ W. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 11, 2013. 

Steven H. Ratti, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04622 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.133B–9.] 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Rehabilitation Research 

and Training Center 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority for the 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Center (RRTC) Program administered by 

the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 

Specifically, this notice proposes a 

priority for an RRTC on Community 

Living and Participation for Individuals 

with Psychiatric Disabilities. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this priority 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on an area of 

national need. We intend the priority to 

contribute to improved community 

living and participation for individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 5133, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must 

include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priority 

for Community Living and Participation 

for Individuals with Psychiatric 

Disabilities’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7532 or by email: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of proposed priority is in concert 

with NIDRR’s Long-Range Plan (Plan). 

The Plan, which was published in the 

Federal Register on February 15, 2006 

(71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the 

Internet at the following site: 

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 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 this priority. The 

decision to make an award will be based 

on the quality of applications received 

and available funding. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priority, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific topic that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this proposed priority 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13598 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Population studies use a variety of terms to 

describe psychiatric disabilities, including ‘‘serious 

mental illness,’’ ‘‘mental health disorder,’’ and 

‘‘psychiatric disability.’’ In this notice we use the 

term ‘‘psychiatric disability,’’ except where quoting 

specific population studies. 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program, is to achieve the goals 

of 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 Priority: This notice 

contains one proposed priority. 

RRTC on Community Living and 

Participation for Individuals with 

Psychiatric Disabilities. 

Background: 

NIDRR seeks to fund an RRTC that 

will generate new knowledge about 

community living and participation for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities 

and serve as a national resource center 

for individuals with psychiatric 

disabilities1 and their families. 

Mental health disorders are one of the 

leading causes of disability in the 

United States (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2010) with 

an estimated 13 million adults 

(approximately 1 in 17) diagnosed with 

a seriously debilitating mental illness. 

Individuals with psychiatric disabilities 

include individuals from diverse 

geographic, cultural, linguistic, and 

educational backgrounds, as well as 

people who may have additional 

physical, mental, or sensory disabilities 

(Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard, 2012; 

Gamm, Stone, & Pittman, 2010; 

Metraux, Caplan, Klugman, & Hadley, 

2007). 

Most individuals with psychiatric 

disabilities today live in community 

settings—a result of the 

deinstitutionalization movement of the 

1960s to 1980s, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 1999 

U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision 

(National Council on Disability, 2008; 

Nelson, 2010; Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 

581 (1999); Salzer, Kaplan, & Atay, 

2006). However, despite moving into 

community settings, many individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities continue to 

experience segregation, isolation, 

stigma, and unequal access in areas 

such as housing, employment, 

education, transportation, recreation, 

health, safety, and family life (National 

Council on Disability, 2008; Stephan, 

2009). 

Research has shown that individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities tend to live 

disproportionately in the poorest 

neighborhoods, often with limited 

access to community resources and in 

settings that do not adequately promote 

dignity and independence (Metraux, 

Brusilovskiy, Prvu-Bettger, Wong, & 

Salzer, 2012; Metraux, Caplan, 

Klugman, & Hadley, 2007; National 

Council on Disability, 2008; Nelson, 

2010). Parents with psychiatric 

disabilities continue to struggle for 

custody rights of their children 

(National Council on Disability, 2012; 

Callow, Buckland, & Jones, 2011). 

Individuals with psychiatric disabilities 

from diverse cultural and linguistic 

backgrounds continue to encounter 

barriers and ineffective approaches to 

prevention, treatment, and community 

inclusion (Hernandez, Nesman, 

Mowery, Acevedo-Polakovich, & 

Callejas, 2009). Individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities also have high 

rates of unemployment, yet disabilityrelated income support programs create 

disincentives to work (National Council 

on Disability, 2008). Finally, an 

important part of community living is 

staying safe during emergencies such as 

natural disasters and terrorist attacks, 

yet there is very little research on 

effective emergency preparedness, 

mitigation, response, or recovery for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities 

(National Council on Disability, 2006; 

National Council on Disability, 2011). 

References 

Callow, E., Buckland, K., & Jones, S. (2011). 

Parents with disabilities in the United 

States: Prevalence, perspectives, and a 

proposal for legislative change to protect 

the right to family in the disability 

community. Texas Journal on Civil 

Liberties & Civil Rights, 17(1), 9–41. 

Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., & Pollard, R. 

(2012). Mental health of deaf people. The 

Lancet, 379, 1037–1044. 

Gamm, L., Stone, S., & Pittman, S. (2010). 

Mental health and mental disorders—A 

rural challenge: A literature review. 

Rural Healthy People, 97–113. 

Hernandez, M., Nesman, T., Mowery, D., 

Acevedo-Polakovich, I.D., & Callejas, 

L.M. (2009). Cultural competence: A 

literature review and conceptual model 

for mental health services. Psychiatric 

Services, 60(8), 1046–1050. 

Metraux, S., Brusilovskiy, E., Prvu-Better, 

J.A., Wong, Y.I., & Salzer, M. (2012). 

Geographic access to and availability of 

community resources for persons 

diagnosed with severe mental illness. 

Health and Place, 18, 621–629. 

Metraux, S., Caplan, J.M., Klugman, D., & 

Hadley, T.R. (2007). Assessing 

residential segregation among Medicaid 

recipients with psychiatric disability in 

Philadelphia. Journal of Community 

Psychology, 35(2), 239–255. 

National Council on Disability (2006). The 

needs of people with psychiatric 

disabilities during and after Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita: Position paper and 

recommendations. Washington, DC: 

Author. www.ncd.gov/newsroom/ 

publications/2006/peopleneeds.htm. 

Accessed January 4, 2013. 

National Council on Disability (2008). 

Inclusive livable communities for people 

with psychiatric disabilities. 

Washington, DC: Author. www.ncd.gov/ 

publications/2008/03172008. Accessed 

January 4, 2013. 

National Council on Disability (2011). 

National disability policy: A progress 

report. Washington, DC: Author. 

www.ncd.gov/progress_reports/ 

Oct312011. Accessed January 4, 2013. 

National Council on Disability (2012). 

Rocking the cradle: Ensuring the rights of 

parents with disabilities and their 

children. Washington, DC: Author. 

www.ncd.gov/publications/2012/ 

Sep272012/. Accessed January 4, 2013. 

Nelson, G. (2010). Housing approaches for 

people with serious mental illness: 

Approaches, evidence, and 

transformative change. Journal of 

Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXVII 

(4), 123–146. 

Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 

Salzer, M., Kaplan, K., & Atay, J. (2006). State 

psychiatric hospital census after the 

1999 Olmstead decision: Evidence of 

decelerating deinstitutionalization. 

Psychiatric Services, 57(10), 1501–1504. 

Stephan, S. (2009). Beyond residential 

segregation: The application of Olmstead 

to segregated employment settings. 

Georgia State University Law Review, 26 

(3), Article 12. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of Disease Prevention 

and Health Promotion (2010). Healthy 

People 2020. Washington, DC: Author. 

www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ 

topicsobjectives2020/ 

overview.aspx?topicId=28. Accessed 

January 4, 2013. 

Definitions: 

The research that is proposed under 

this priority 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 the purposes of this 

priority, the stages of research, which 

we published for comment on January 

25, 2013 (78 FR 5330), are: 

(i) Exploration and Discovery means 

the stage of research that generates 

hypotheses or theories by conducting 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 13599 

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 

contexts. This stage of research can 

include assessing the training needed 

for wide-scale implementation of the 

intervention, and approaches to 

evaluation of the intervention in real 

world applications. 

(iv) Scale-Up Evaluation means the 

stage of research during which a project 

analyzes whether an intervention is 

effective in producing improved 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities when implemented in a realworld setting. During this stage of 

research, a project tests the outcomes of 

an evidence-based intervention in 

different settings. The project examines 

the challenges to successful replication 

of the intervention, and the 

circumstances and activities that 

contribute to successful adoption of the 

intervention in real-world settings. This 

stage of research may also include welldesigned studies of an intervention that 

has been widely adopted in practice, but 

that lacks a sufficient evidence-base to 

demonstrate its effectiveness. 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for an RRTC on 

Community Living and Participation for 

Individuals with Psychiatric 

Disabilities. 

The RRTC must contribute to 

improving the community living and 

participation outcomes of individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities by: 

(a) Conducting research activities in 

one or more of the following priority 

areas, focusing on individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities as a group or on 

individuals in specific disability or 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities: 

(i) Technology to improve community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities. 

(ii) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved 

community living and participation 

outcomes for individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities. 

(iii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved community living and 

participation outcomes for individuals 

with psychiatric disabilities. 

Interventions include any strategy, 

practice, program, policy, or tool that, 

when implemented as intended, 

contributes to improvements in 

outcomes for individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities. 

(iv) Effects of government practices, 

policies, and programs on community 

living and participation outcomes for 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities. 

(v) Practices and policies that 

contribute to improved community 

living and participation outcomes for 

transition-aged youth with psychiatric 

disabilities; 

(b) Focusing research on one or more 

specific stages of research. If the RRTC 

plans 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 in the Definitions section of 

this notice; and 

(c) Serving as a national resource 

center related to community living and 

participation for individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities, their families, 

service and support providers, 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 psychiatric 

disabilities and their representatives, 

and other key stakeholders; 

(ii) Providing training, including 

graduate, pre-service, and in-service 

training, to rehabilitation service 

providers and other disability service 

providers, to facilitate more effective 

delivery of services to individuals with 

psychiatric 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 psychiatric 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits would justify its costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that would maximize 

net benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this proposed priority is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years. Projects 

similar to the RRTC have been 

completed successfully, and the 

proposed priority will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RRTC will generate, disseminate, and 

promote the use of new information that 

would improve outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities in the areas 

of community living and participation, 

employment, and health and function. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the 

FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

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

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: February 25, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

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

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Traumatic Brain Injury 

Model Systems Centers Collaborative 

Research Project 

[CFDA Number: 84.133A–7.] 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority under the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this 

notice proposes a priority for a 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Project (DRRP) on Traumatic Brain 

Injury Model Systems Centers 

Collaborative Research Projects. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this priority 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS