[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20069-20073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07763]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email protected]. 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: [email protected].
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 Long-Range 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
[[Page 20070]]
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 self-sufficiency 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 community-based settings for this population
is severely limited (Lindenberger et al, 2008; Krakauer, 2006; Tyrer et
al., 2006). The commercially available, home-based 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
[[Page 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/at-use/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 cost-effectiveness 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 low-cost,
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
[[Page 20072]]
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 RERC-developed 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 NIDRR-funded 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 NIDRR-funded 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
[[Page 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