Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36667 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In the Table to § 165.506, make the 

following amendments: 

■ a. Under ‘‘(d) Coast Guard Sector 

North Carolina—COTP Zone,’’ suspend 

entry 5; 

■ b. Under, ‘‘(d) Coast Guard Sector 

North Carolina—COTP Zone,’’ add entry 

16 to read as follows: 

§ 165.506 Safety Zones; Fifth Coast Guard 

District Fireworks Displays. 

* * * * * 

TABLE TO § 165.506 

(d) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—COTP Zone 

Number Date Location Regulated area 

* * * * * * * 

16 ....................... July 4–5, 2013 .. Currituck Sound, Corolla, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters of the Currituck Sound within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 36°22′23.8′′ N 

longitude 075°49′56.3′′, located near Whale Head Bay. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 4, 2013. 

A. Popiel, 

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

Port Sector North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14548 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.133E–3.] 

Final Priority; National Institute on 

Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program—Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Centers 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority for a 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Center (RERC) on Technologies to 

Support Successful Aging with 

Disability under the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program administered by the 

National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 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 outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective July 19, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

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: 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 

The purpose of NIDRR’s RERCs 

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 RERCs 

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. 

We published a proposed priority for 

this program in the Federal Register on 

April 3, 2013 (78 FR 20069). That notice 

contained background information and 

our reasons for proposing the particular 

priority. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, nine parties submitted 

comments on the proposed priority. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes or suggested 

changes the law does not authorize us 

to make under the applicable statutory 

authority. In addition, we generally do 

not address comments that raise 

concerns not directly related to the 

proposed priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and 

changes in the priority since publication 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
36668 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

Comment: Four commenters 

requested that NIDRR modify the 

priority to emphasize the importance of 

multidisciplinary teams and to require 

the use of such teams to achieve the 

RERC’s intended outcomes. One of these 

commenters specifically described the 

importance of including engineers, 

psychologists, research methodologists 

with expertise in experiments, and 

health and medical professionals on the 

RERC staff. 

Discussion: NIDRR does not typically 

specify or require staffing patterns or 

approaches in its priorities. Instead, we 

ask our peer reviewers to assess the 

quality of the proposed staff relative to 

the activities the applicant proposes to 

conduct. Specifically, we ask reviewers 

to assess ‘‘the extent to which the key 

personnel and other key staff have 

appropriate training and experience in 

disciplines required to conduct all 

proposed activities’’ (34 CFR 

350.54(n)(3)(i)). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters noted 

that the priority’s focus on home-based 

technologies may not be broad enough 

to promote physical and cognitive 

functioning of individuals aging with 

long-term disabilities. These 

commenters requested that NIDRR 

expand the priority’s focus beyond 

‘‘home-based’’ technologies to include 

‘‘community-based’’ technologies as 

well. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenters. By requiring research and 

development on home-based 

technologies to improve outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities as they age, 

we primarily intended to signify that we 

were requiring the RERC to conduct 

work on technologies that are intended 

for use outside of the clinical setting. 

We did not intend to preclude work on 

technologies that have applications in 

the community. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

by changing ‘‘home-based’’ to ‘‘homeand community-based.’’ 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested that NIDRR modify paragraph 

(4) in General RERC Requirements to 

specify that ‘‘universal design’’ requires 

smart technologies that personalize their 

features through dynamic interaction 

with the user. Another commenter 

suggested that NIDRR modify this 

paragraph by requiring ‘‘flexibility of 

technology use’’ for a wide variety of 

target populations and environments. 

Discussion: NIDRR does not agree that 

further specificity in the principles of 

universal design is needed. The 

requirement and definition are 

purposefully broad, which allows 

applicants to apply universal design 

approaches to a wide variety of existing 

and emerging technologies, 

environments or settings, and target 

populations to address a broad range of 

access barriers. NIDRR does not want to 

overemphasize one particular 

application or interpretation of 

universal design principles. It is up to 

applicants to describe how the 

technologies that are the focus of their 

proposed research and development 

activities meet this universal design 

requirement. The peer review process 

will determine the merits of each 

proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that NIDRR modify the priority to 

require engagement of a wide variety of 

stakeholders in the RERC’s work in 

order to promote adoption of new 

technologies in the area of aging with a 

disability. This commenter also 

requested that NIDRR modify the 

priority to require engagement of 

stakeholders in developing, testing, 

evaluating, and disseminating the 

RERC’s work. This commenter noted 

that it will be particularly important to 

engage older individuals in the RERC’s 

work (including individuals aging with 

disabilities and older service providers) 

to address their relative lack of 

experience with technology. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that 

engagement and collaboration with 

stakeholders is important to realizing 

the RERC’s intended outcomes. NIDRR 

believes that the priority, which 

requires collaboration and 

communication with relevant 

stakeholders to promote access to and 

use of technologies to improve 

outcomes of individuals with 

disabilities as they age, sufficiently 

addresses the commenter’s points. In 

addition, in the third and fifth 

numbered paragraphs of General RERC 

Requirements, NIDRR requires 

collaboration with a wide variety of 

stakeholders to increase research 

capacity in the area of rehabilitation 

engineering related to aging with a 

disability and to increase awareness and 

understanding of cutting-edge 

developments in this area. In the third 

bulleted paragraph of General RERC 

Requirements, NIDRR also requires 

applicants to propose and implement a 

plan for including individuals with 

disabilities or their representatives in all 

aspects of the RERC’s work. In the 

context of this priority, this requirement 

refers to the inclusion of individuals 

who are aging with long-term 

disabilities. 

Nothing in the priority precludes 

applicants from proposing to engage 

with older service providers to help 

address any lack of familiarity with 

technology, as suggested by the 

commenter. However, we do not have a 

sufficient basis for requiring all 

applicants to do so. In response to the 

requirements related to stakeholder 

involvement, applicants must propose 

appropriate collaborations with the goal 

of contributing to the intended 

outcomes of the RERC. The peer review 

process will determine the merits of 

each application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that NIDRR modify the 

priority to require the RERC to educate 

the ‘‘community at large’’ on how to 

work with and accommodate 

individuals with disabilities as they age. 

Discussion: It is beyond the scope of 

this RERC priority to educate the 

community at large on how to work 

with and accommodate individuals with 

disabilities as they age. Such a broadly 

stated requirement would necessitate 

activities that go well beyond the 

research, development, and related 

activities that are central to this RERC’s 

work. Instead, this priority requires 

targeted collaboration with, and 

inclusion of, relevant stakeholders in all 

aspects of the RERC’s work. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the priority allows applicants to develop 

and evaluate new technologies or 

evaluate existing or commercially 

available technologies, or both. This 

commenter recommended that NIDRR 

modify the priority to require the 

development of new technologies, given 

the current limitations of commercially 

available technologies. This commenter 

also suggested that NIDRR modify the 

priority to include the possibility of 

‘‘blending’’ commercially available 

technologies with technology developed 

by the RERC. 

Discussion: Nothing in the priority 

precludes applicants from focusing their 

research and development activities on 

the development of new technologies or 

on developing new technologies and 

‘‘blending’’ them with commercially 

available technologies. We do not want 

to preclude proposals from applicants 

who choose to evaluate existing or 

commercially available technologies 

only. The peer review process will 

determine the merits of each proposal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the evidence base for technologies 

can only be built within specific 

disability groups and not for ‘‘all 

persons with disabilities.’’ This 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36669 

commenter recommended that NIDRR 

modify the priority so that it requires 

applicants to specify the disability 

group to which the RERC’s research and 

development work will apply. 

Discussion: NIDRR generally agrees 

that it is important for applicants to 

specify the target population for their 

proposed research and development 

work. At the same time, applicants can 

propose multiple or broad target 

populations, and we do not want to 

preclude applicants from proposing 

research and development toward 

technologies with broad application. As 

part of the selection criteria that are 

used to evaluate RERC applications, we 

ask reviewers to assess ‘‘the extent to 

which the applicant clearly describes 

the need and target population’’ (34 CFR 

350.54(a)(2)(i)). The peer review process 

will determine the merits of each 

application. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority: 

Background: 

This final priority is in concert with 

NIDRR’s Long-Range Plan (Plan) for 

Fiscal Years 2013–2017. The Plan, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20299), 

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 improve the health 

and functioning, employment, and 

community living and participation of 

individuals with disabilities through 

comprehensive programs of research, 

engineering, training, technical 

assistance, and knowledge translation 

and dissemination. The Plan reflects 

NIDRR’s commitment to quality, 

relevance, and balance in its programs 

to ensure appropriate attention to all 

aspects of well-being of individuals 

with disabilities and to all types and 

degrees of disability, including lowincidence and severe disabilities. 

Priority—RERC on Technologies to 

Support Successful Aging with 

Disability. 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes the following priority for the 

establishment of a Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center (RERC) on 

Technologies to Support Successful 

Aging With Disability. Within its 

designated priority research area, this 

RERC will focus on innovative 

technological solutions, new 

knowledge, and new concepts that will 

improve the lives of individuals with 

disabilities. 

Under this priority, the RERC must 

research, develop or identify, and 

evaluate innovative technologies and 

strategies that maximize the physical 

and cognitive functioning of individuals 

with long-term disabilities as they age. 

This RERC must engage in research and 

development activities to build a base of 

evidence for the usability of, and costeffectiveness of home- and communitybased 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, homeand community-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 

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 and their 

representatives; disability organizations; 

service providers; professional journals; 

manufacturers; and other interested 

parties regarding trends and evolving 

product concepts related to its 

designated priority research area. 

(6) Increased impact of research in the 

designated priority research area. The 

RERC must contribute to this outcome 

by providing technical assistance to 

relevant public and private 

organizations, individuals with 

disabilities, employers, and schools on 

policies, guidelines, and standards 

related to its designated priority 

research area. 

(7) Increased transfer of RERCdeveloped technologies to the 

marketplace. The RERC must contribute 

to this outcome by developing and 

implementing a plan for ensuring that 

all technologies developed by the RERC 

are made available to the public. The 

technology transfer plan must be 

developed in the first year of the project 

period in consultation with the NIDRRfunded Disability Rehabilitation 

Research Project, Center on Knowledge 

Translation for Technology Transfer. 

In addition, the RERC must— 

• Have the capability to design, build, 

and test prototype devices and assist in 

the technology transfer and knowledge 

translation of successful solutions to 

relevant production and service delivery 

settings; 

• Evaluate the efficacy and safety of 

its new products, instrumentation, or 

assistive devices; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, a plan that describes 

how it will include, as appropriate, 

individuals with disabilities or their 

representatives in all phases of its 

activities, including research, 

development, training, dissemination, 

and evaluation; 

• Provide as part of its proposal, and 

then implement, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
36670 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• Coordinate with relevant NIDRRfunded projects, as identified through 

consultation with the NIDRR project 

officer. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

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 final 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 final 

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 final priority only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that 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 does 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, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

final priority have been completed 

successfully. Establishing a new RERC 

based on the final priority will generate 

new knowledge through research and 

development and improve the lives of 

individuals with disabilities. The new 

RERC will generate, disseminate, and 

promote the use of new information that 

will improve the options for individuals 

with disabilities to fully participate in 

their communities. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36671 

Dated: June 14, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and the duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14652 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0626; FRL–9391–2] 

Acetamiprid; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances and modifies existing 

tolerances for residues of acetamiprid in 

or on multiple commodities which are 

identified and discussed later in this 

document. Interregional Research 

Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

19, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 19, 2013, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0626, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Ertman, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9367; email address: 

ertman.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0626 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before August 19, 2013. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0626, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of February 

27, 2013 (78 FR 13295) (FRL–9380–2), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 3E8147) by IR–4, 

500 College Road East, Suite 201W., 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.578 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the insecticide, acetamiprid, 

(1E)-N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- 

N′-cyano-N-methylethanimidamide, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on corn, sweet, kernel 

plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 

ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 15 ppm; and 

corn, sweet, stover at 30 ppm. The 

petition also proposed increasing the 

existing tolerances in fat, meat, and 

meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse, 

and sheep, and milk. Tolerances in 

cattle, goat, horse, and sheep meat are 

proposed at 0.30 ppm; cattle, goat, 

horse, and sheep fat at 0.20 ppm; cattle, 

goat, horse, and sheep meat byproducts 

at 0.70 ppm; and milk at 0.30 ppm. That 

document referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by Nisso America 

Incorporated, the registrant, which is 

available in the docket, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

In the Federal Register of September 

28, 2012 (77 FR 59578) (FRL–9364–6), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 2F8060) by 

Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. c/o Nisso 

America Inc., 88 Pine St., 14th Fl., New 

York, NY 10005. The petition requested 

that 40 CFR 180.578 be amended by 

increasing the existing tolerances for 

residues of the insecticide, acetamiprid, 

(1E)-N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- 

N′-cyano-N-methylethanimidamide, 

including its metabolites and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES