Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14483 

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 

on 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 on 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 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. Projects 

similar to the new RTTC have been 

completed successfully, and the new 

RTTC, established consistently with this 

priority, is expected to improve the lives 

of individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds; generate through 

research and development, disseminate, 

and promote the use of new information 

that will improve the outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities; and 

increase the capacity of minority 

entities to conduct disability and 

rehabilitation research and develop 

rehabilitation professionals. 

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: March 1, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05225 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.133B–10.] 

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 under 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 Promoting 

Healthy Aging for Individuals with 

Long-Term Physical 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 health and 

function outcomes for individuals aging 

with long-term physical disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 5, 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14484 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 Promoting Healthy Aging for 

Individuals with Long-Term Physical 

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 

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 

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 Priority 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority. 

RRTC on Promoting Healthy Aging for 

Individuals with Long-Term Physical 

Disabilities. 

Background 

Of the 51.5 million adults with a 

disability, 41.5 million have disabilities 

in the physical domain (Brault, 2012). 

These numbers will likely grow 

significantly in the next 25 to 30 years 

as the baby boom generation continues 

to enter later life, when the risk of 

disability is the highest (IOM, 2007). 

In 2010, 29.5 million Americans aged 

21 to 64, or 16.6 percent of the workingage 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 associated 

with shortened life expectancy (IOM, 

2007; Jensen et al., 2011; Kemp & 

Mosqueda, 2004). This segment of the 

disabled population with early-onset, 

life-long disabilities is now 

experiencing the benefits of increased 

longevity as well as premature or 

atypical aging related to their conditions 

(Groah et al., 2012; IOM, 2007; Jensen et 

al., 2011; Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004). 

Aging with disability is now a 

common experience of individuals with 

significant physical disabilities (Kemp & 

Mosqueda, 2004). We still lack national 

statistics on the size of this emerging 

population due to limitations in major 

national surveys that track disability, 

which do not collect information on age 

of onset or duration of primary 

disability (IOM, 2007; Washko et al., 

2012). However, the most recent 

estimates available indicate that 

approximately seven to nine percent of 

adults had a disability with onset before 

age 20, and approximately 20 to 30 

percent experienced the onset of their 

disability between ages 20 and 44 

(Verbrugge & Yang, 2002). 

Regardless of timing of onset, as 

individuals with long-term disabilities 

age, many face significant new 

challenges to their health and 

independence due to the onset of 

secondary conditions associated with 

changes in the underlying impairment 

(Groah et al., 2012; IOM, 2007; Jensen et 

al., 2011; Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004; 

Kinny et al., 2004). The Institute of 

Medicine has defined a ‘‘secondary 

condition’’ as ‘‘any additional physical 

or mental health condition that occurs 

as a result of having a primary disabling 

condition,’’ including pain, fatigue, and 

muscle weakness (IOM, 2007). 

Working-age individuals living with 

long-term disabilities may also 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14485 

experience atypical or accelerated aging 

due to earlier onset and higher rates of 

age-related chronic conditions 

compared to their same-age nondisabled counterparts (Groah et al., 

2012; IOM, 2007; Jensen et al., 2011). 

These chronic health problems may 

include, for example, osteoarthritis, 

osteoporosis, falls, chronic respiratory 

conditions, diabetes, and heart disease 

(Freid et al., 2012; Iezzoni, 2010; Jensen 

et al., 2011; Kemp & Mosqueda, 2004; 

Kinny et al., 2004; Ravesloot et al., 

2007). 

Addressing the rehabilitation and 

health care needs of individuals aging 

with disabilities involves challenges for 

providing and coordinating a range of 

appropriate health care services, 

financing those services, and evaluating 

their ongoing effectiveness (Iezzoni, 

2010; Washko et al., 2012). Considerable 

anecdotal evidence and numerous 

small-scale studies indicate that the 

negative effects of secondary conditions 

can be managed and even prevented 

through rehabilitation and healthpromotion activities (Groah et al., 2012; 

Harrison, 2006; Jensen et al., 2011; 

Ravesloot et al. 2007 & 2005; Rimmer et 

al., 2000). However, there are few 

evidence-based interventions to 

promote healthy aging of individuals 

with physical disabilities outside of the 

post-acute setting (Groah et al., 2012; 

Harrison, 2006; Jensen et al., 2011). 

Only recently has the topic of secondary 

conditions and aging with disability 

begun to receive attention in the public 

health and gerontology literatures 

(Groah & Kehn, 2010; Iezzoni, 2010; 

Ravesloot et al., 2007; Washko et al., 

2012). 

The limitations in evidence-based 

information available to guide the 

treatment, management, and prevention 

of secondary conditions and to promote 

the overall health of individuals aging 

with physical disability is of particular 

concern given demographic trends 

(Harrison, 2006; Jensen et al., 2011; 

Ravesloot et al., 2007). For example, of 

the 27 objectives identified for 

improvement in the most recent Healthy 

People 2020 initiative, under the topic 

area of ‘‘Disability and Health’’ only 

four evidence-based community 

interventions are cited to guide 

implementation of these objectives. 

None of these objectives focus on 

prevention of secondary conditions or 

health promotion programs for 

individuals with long-term disabilities 

(Healthy People 2020, 2010). 

To respond to the challenges and 

opportunities at the intersection of aging 

and disability, NIDRR proposes to fund 

a Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Center (RRTC) on Promoting Healthy 

Aging for Individuals with Long-Term 

Physical Disabilities. The goal of this 

proposed priority is to advance 

knowledge and accelerate the 

development, modification, and 

evaluation of evidence-based 

interventions and strategies that can be 

applied in clinical and communitybased settings to promote healthy aging 

and to reduce secondary conditions for 

individuals with physical disabilities. 

To achieve these goals, NIDRR 

encourages collaborations among 

rehabilitation and aging researchers and 

between academic research centers and 

community organizations serving 

individuals aging with disabilities. 

References 

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

Disabilities: 2010, Current Population 

Reports, P70–131. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. 

Available from www.census.gov/prod/

2012pubs/p70–131.pdf. Accessed December 

18, 2012. 

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. Available from: www.cdc.gov/ 

nchs/data/databriefs/db100.htm. Accessed 

December 18, 2012. 

Groah, S.L., Charlifue, S., Tate, D., Jensen, 

M.P., Molton, I.R., Forchheimer, M., Krause, 

J.S., Lammertse, D.P., & Campbell, M. (2012). 

Spinal Cord Injury and Aging: Challenges 

and Recommendations for Future Research. 

American Journal of Physical Medicine & 

Rehabilitation, 91(1): 80. doi: 10.1097/ 

PHM.0b013e31821f70bc. Available from: 

http://journals.lww.com/ajpmr/Abstract/ 

2012/01000/Spinal_Cord_Injury_and_

Aging__Challenges_and.10.aspx. Accessed 

December 18, 2012. 

Groah S.L., & Kehn, M.E. (2010). The State 

of Aging and Public Health for People with 

Spinal Cord Injury: Lost in Transition? 

Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 

15(3): 10. doi: 10.1310/sci1503–1. Available 

from: http://thomasland.metapress.com/ 

content/p6837l6448kp3211/fulltext.pdf. 

Accessed December 18, 2012. 

Harrison, T. (2006). Health Promotion for 

Persons with Disabilities: What Does the 

Literature Reveal? Family Community Health 

Supplement, 29(1S): 12S. Available from: 

www.nursingcenter.com/lnc/ 

journalarticle?Article_ID=622107. Accessed 

December 18, 2012. 

Healthy People 2020 (2010). U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Office of Disease Prevention and Health 

Promotion. Available from: 

www.healthypeople.gov/2020/

topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?

topicId=9, and www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ 

topicsobjectives2020/ebr.aspx?topicId=9. 

Accessed December 18, 2012. 

Iezzoni, L.I. (2010). Multiple Chronic 

Conditions and Disabilities: Implications for 

Health Services Research and Data Demands. 

Health Services Research, 45(5 Pt 2): 1523. 

doi: 10.1111/j.1475–6773.2010.01145.x. Epub 

2010 Aug 2. Available from: 

www.freepatentsonline.com/article/HealthServices-Research/238476482.html. Accessed 

December 18, 2012. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2007). The 

Future of Disability in America. Field, M.J., 

& Jette, A.M., editors. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press. 

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. 

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

Aging with a Disability: What the Clinician 

Needs to Know. Baltimore, MD: 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. 

Ravesloot, C.H., Seekins, T., Cahill, T., 

Lindgren, S., Nary, D.E., & White, G. (2007). 

Health Promotion for People with 

Disabilities: Development and Evaluation of 

the Living Well with a Disability Program. 

Health Education Research 22(4): 522. 

doi:10.1093/her/cyl114. 

Ravesloot, C., Seekins, T., & White, G. 

(2005). Living Well with a Disability Health 

Promotion Intervention: Improved Health 

Status for Consumers and Lower Costs for 

Healthcare Policy Makers. Rehabilitation 

Psychology, 50: 239–45. 

Rimmer, J.H., Braunschweig, C., & 

Silverman, K (2000). Effects of a Short-Term 

Health Promotion Intervention for a 

Predominantly African-American Group of 

Stroke Survivors. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 18: 332. 

Verbrugge, L.M., & Yang, L.S. (2002). Aging 

with Disability and Disability with Aging. 

Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(4): 

253–267. 

Washko, M., Campbell, M.L., & Tilly, J.A. 

(2012). Accelerating the Translation of 

Research into Practice in Long-Term Services 

and Supports: A Critical Need for Federal 

Infrastructure at the Nexus of Aging and 

Disability. Journal of Gerontological Social 

Work, 55(2): 112–125. 

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 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 

new and refined analyses of data, 

producing observational findings, and 

creating other sources of research-based 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14486 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Promoting Healthy Aging for 

Individuals with Long-Term Physical 

Disabilities. The RRTC must contribute 

to the development of new knowledge 

and accelerate the development, 

modification, and evaluation of 

evidence-based interventions and 

strategies that can be applied in clinical 

and community-based settings to 

promote healthy aging, including 

reducing secondary conditions, of 

individuals with long-term physical 

disabilities. 

To contribute to this outcome the 

RRTC must— 

(a) Conduct research activities in one 

or more of the following priority areas, 

focusing on individuals aging with longterm physical disabilities as a group or 

on individuals in specific disability or 

demographic subpopulations of 

individuals with long-term physical 

disabilities: 

(i) Individual and environmental 

factors associated with improved access 

to rehabilitation and health care 

resulting in improved health and 

function outcomes for individuals aging 

with long-term physical disabilities. 

(ii) Interventions that contribute to 

improved health and function outcomes 

for individuals aging with long-term 

physical disabilities. Interventions 

include any strategy, practice, program, 

policy, or tool that, when implemented 

as intended, contributes to 

improvements in outcomes for the 

specified population. 

(iii) Effects of government practices, 

policies, and programs on health care 

access and on health and function 

outcomes for individuals aging with 

long-term physical disabilities. 

(iv) Technology to improve health and 

function outcomes for individuals aging 

with long-term physical disabilities; 

(b) Focus 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 in the ‘‘Definitions’’ section of 

this notice; 

(c) Serve as a national resource center 

related to health and function for 

individuals aging with long-term 

physical disabilities, their families, and 

other stakeholders by: 

(i) Providing information and 

technical assistance to service 

providers, individuals aging with longterm 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 aging with longterm physical 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 

aging with long-term physical 

disabilities; and 

(d) Involve 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14487 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits 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 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, 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: March 1, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05227 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360; FRL–9380–8] 

Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed 

Extension of Time-Limited Interim 

Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation proposes the 

extension of the time-limited interim 

tolerances for the combined residues of 

the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, 

including its metabolites, in or on 

multiple commodities which are 

identified in Unit III of this document, 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2013. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS