3864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, or thirdparty disclosure requirements), to obtain 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’). The amendment 

will not impose collection requirements, 

so OMB approval is unnecessary. 

VII. Communications by Outside 

Parties to the Commissioners or Their 

Advisors 

Written communications and 

summaries or transcripts of oral 

communications respecting the merits 

of this proceeding from any outside 

party to any Commissioner or 

Commissioner’s advisor will be placed 

on the public record. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 429 

Sales Made at Homes or at Certain 

Other Locations; Trade practices. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Federal Trade 

Commission proposes to amend part 

429 of title 16, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 16 CFR 

parts 429 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.0, by revising the 

introductory text of paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 429.0 Definitions 

* * * * * 

(a) Door-to-Door sale—A sale, lease, 

or rental of consumer goods or services 

with a purchase price of $130 or more, 

whether under single or multiple 

contracts, in which the seller or his 

representative personally solicits the 

sale, including those in response to or 

following an invitation by the buyer, 

and the buyer’s agreement or offer to 

purchase is made at a place other than 

the place of business of the seller (e.g., 

sales at the buyer’s residence or at 

facilities rented on a temporary basis, 

such as hotel or motel rooms, 

convention centers, fairgrounds and 

restaurants, or sales at the buyer’s 

workplace or in dormitory lounges). The 

term door-to-door sale does not include 

a transaction: 

* * * * * 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31558 Filed 1–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program—Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Centers 

CFDA Number: 84.133E–1. 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority for the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this 

notice proposes a priority for 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Centers (RERCs): Hearing Enhancement. 

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 February 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must 

include ‘‘Proposed Priorities for RERCs’’ 

and the priority title in the subject line 

of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7532 or by email: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This notice of proposed priority is in 

concert with NIDRR’s currently 

approved 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 a priority that 

NIDRR intends to use for an RERC 

competition in FY 2013 and possibly in 

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 

notice of final priorities, 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 5140, 550 12th 

Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 3865 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities; to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities; and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Centers (RERCs) 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. 

Proposed Priority: This notice 

contains one proposed priority. 

Hearing Enhancement. 

Background: Approximately 34.2 

million Americans have a hearing 

impairment (Kochkin, 2009). An 

untreated hearing impairment has 

profound implications for people across 

the lifespan (e.g., in education, schoolto-work transition, employment, 

community participation, and general 

social and emotional well-being) 

(Pallarito, 2010; Kochkin, 2010b; 

Chisolm et al., 2007a). 

Research and development related to 

hearing enhancement technologies has 

produced advances in areas related to 

digital and wireless hearing aids, 

assistive technologies, cochlear and 

middle ear implants, and aural 

rehabilitation, but many research and 

development needs remain (Fellinger et 

al., 2012; Stender, 2011; Groth and 

Anthonsen, 2010; Kochkin, 2010a; 

Chisolm et al., 2007b; Sweetow and 

Sabes, 2007; Pirzanski, 2006). For 

example, research has indicated that 

while 95 percent of people with a 

hearing impairment can benefit from 

hearing aids, only 23 percent actually 

use them (Kochkin, 2007). Among the 

many reasons for not using hearing aids 

are characteristics of the hearing aids 

themselves (e.g., the hearing aids are 

uncomfortable and unreliable, do not 

work well in noisy environments, and 

do not work seamlessly across multiple 

settings and technologies) (Kochkin, 

2010a; Kochkin, 2007). Assistive 

listening devices (e.g., FM systems, 

infrared systems, and audio induction 

loop systems) still have significant 

limitations related to portability, 

usability, and performance, particularly 

during group discussions (Harkins and 

Tucker, 2007). More research and 

development is needed on cochlear and 

middle ear implants to determine and 

optimize performance and benefits in 

real-life situations (Peterson et al., 2010; 

Rameh et al., 2010). 

Successful hearing enhancement 

technologies have been demonstrated to 

improve the quality of life for people 

with hearing impairments (Fellinger et 

al., 2012; Kochkin, 2010b; Chisolm et 

al., 2007a, 2007b). Accordingly, NIDRR 

seeks to fund an RERC to address 

problems that prevent the use of, or 

reduce the use and benefit of, hearing 

enhancement technologies, and to 

optimize options for people with 

hearing impairments. 

References: 

Chisolm, T.H., Johnson, C.E., Danhaer, J.L., 

Portz, L.J.P, Abrams, H.B., Lesner, S., 

McCarthy, P.A., and Newman, C.W. 

(2007a). A systematic review of healthrelated quality of life and hearing aids: 

Final report of the American Academy of 

Audiology Task Force on the HealthRelated Quality of Life Benefits of 

Amplification in Adults. Journal of the 

American Academy of Audiology, 18: 

151–183. 

Chisolm, T.H., Noe, C.M., McArdle, R., and 

Abrams, H. (2007b). Evidence for the use 

of hearing assistive technology by adults: 

The role of the FM system. Trends in 

Amplification, 11(2): 73–89. 

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

(2012). Mental health of deaf people. The 

Lancet, 379: 1037–1044. 

Groth, J., and Anthonsen, F. (2010). Fewer 

wires, less complexity, and more 

connections: The new challenge for 

wireless hearing instruments. Hearing 

Review, 17(6): 28–36. 

Harkins, J., and Tucker, P. (2007). An internet 

survey of individuals with hearing loss 

regarding assistive listening devices. 

Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 91–100. 

Kochkin, S. (2010a). MarkeTrak VIII: 

Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids 

is slowly increasing. Hearing Journal, 

63(1): 19–24. 

Kochkin, S. (2010b). MarkeTrak VIII: The 

efficacy of hearing aids in achieving 

compensation equity in the workplace. 

Hearing Journal, 63(10): 19–26. 

Kochkin, S. (2009). MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year 

trends in the hearing health market. 

Hearing Review, 16 (11): 12–31. 

Kochkin, S. (2007). MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles 

to adult non-user adoption of hearing 

aids. Hearing Journal, 60(4): 27–43. 

Pallarito, K. (2010). Teach patients who hear 

‘‘well enough’’ the real cost of neglecting 

hearing loss. Hearing Journal, 63(8): 19– 

25. 

Peterson, N.R., Pisoni, D.B., & Miyamoto, 

R.T. (2010). Cochlear implants and 

spoken language processing abilities: 

Review and assessment of the literature. 

Medicine, Clinical Neurology and 

Exercise & Occupational Therapy, 28(2). 

Pirzanski, C. (2006, August). Earmolds and 

hearing aid shells: A tutorial part 4: BTE 

styles, materials, and acoustic 

modifications. Hearing Review. 

Rameh, C., Meller, R., Lavielle, J., Deveze, A., 

and Magnan, J. (2010). Long-term patient 

satisfaction with different middle ear 

implants in sensorineural hearing loss. 

Ontology & Neurotology, 31(6): 883–892. 

Stender, T. (2011). Phone and TV solutions 

for better hearing. Hearing Review, 

18(10): 24–30. 

Sweetow, R.W., and Sabes, J.S. (2007). 

Technologic advances in aural 

rehabilitation: Applications and 

innovative methods of service delivery. 

Trends in Amplification, 11(2): 101–111. 

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 

Hearing Enhancement. The RERC must 

focus on innovative technological 

solutions, new knowledge, and concepts 

that will improve the lives of 

individuals with disabilities. 

Under this priority, the RERC must 

research, develop, and evaluate 

technologies, methods, and systems that 

will improve the accessibility, usability, 

and performance of hearing 

enhancement technologies (e.g., hearing 

aids, ear molds, assistive listening 

devices, and implants) for people with 

hearing loss, including but not limited 

to people with untreated hearing loss. 

This includes: (a) Addressing 

technological factors that prevent or 

reduce adoption of and benefit from 

hearing enhancement devices (e.g., 

hearing aid and implant design features, 

ear mold fit and comfort, and assistive 

listening devices and technologies for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
3866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

group settings); (b) improving the 

compatibility of hearing enhancement 

technologies with other technologies 

such as cell phones, mobile devices, 

television, and the Internet; (c) 

improving the performance of hearing 

enhancement devices in social 

environments (e.g., school, work, 

recreation, and entertainment); and (d) 

enhancing aural rehabilitation and 

consumer involvement strategies (e.g., 

online access to peer and expert input 

on hearing technologies and 

communication strategies; consumer 

focus groups and surveys; and consumer 

beta testing and review of products) to 

maximize hearing enhancement in reallife settings. The RERC must involve key 

stakeholders (including but not limited 

to people with hearing loss) in the 

design and implementation of RERC 

activities. 

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 

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 maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this proposed 

priority is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

proposed priority have been completed 

successfully. Establishing new RERCs 

based on the proposed priority would 

generate new knowledge through 

research and development and improve 

the lives of individuals with disabilities. 

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) by 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 3867 

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: January 14, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00939 Filed 1–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0700; FRL–9771–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, conditionally approve in part, 

and disapprove in part, the July 17, 

2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission provided by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through 

the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) of the 

Kentucky Energy and Environment 

Cabinet. Kentucky DAQ submitted the 

July 17, 2012, SIP submission as a 

replacement to its original September 8, 

2009, SIP submission. Specifically, this 

proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2008 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) 

infrastructure SIP. The CAA requires 

that each state adopt and submit a SIP 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Kentucky DAQ 

made a SIP submission demonstrating 

that the Kentucky SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in the 

Commonwealth (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure submission’’). EPA is 

now proposing three related actions on 

Kentucky DAQ’s infrastructure SIP 

submission. First, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Kentucky DAQ’s 

infrastructure submission, provided to 

EPA on July 17, 2012, satisfies certain 

required infrastructure elements for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, 

with respect to the infrastructure 

requirements related to specific 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) requirements, EPA is proposing to 

approve, in part and conditionally 

approve in part, the infrastructure SIP 

submission based on a December 19, 

2012, Kentucky DAQ commitment to 

submit specific enforceable measures for 

approval into the SIP to address specific 

PSD program deficiencies. Third, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Kentucky 

DAQ’s infrastructure SIP submission 

with respect to certain interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS because the 

submission does not address the 

statutory provisions with respect to the 

relevant NAAQS and thus does not 

satisfy the criteria for approval. The 

CAA requires EPA to act on this portion 

of the SIP submission even though 

under a recent court decision (which is 

not yet final as EPA has requested 

rehearing), Kentucky DAQ was not yet 

required to submit a SIP submission to 

address these interstate transport 

requirements. Moreover, under that 

same court decision, this disapproval 

does not trigger an obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

plan (FIP) to address these interstate 

transport requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0700, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9140. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0700,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0700. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with