12002 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

revocation decision, or if a hearing on 

the need for sex offender treatment 

(including a revocation hearing) was 

conducted within 24 months of the 

request for the special condition. 

(iv) In most cases we expect that a 

hearing conducted under this paragraph 

will be held in person with you, 

especially if you are supervised in the 

District of Columbia. But we may 

conduct the hearing by videoconference. 

(v) You may appeal the imposition of 

a special condition requiring sex 

offender treatment as provided in 

§ 2.220 unless you asked for the change 

or we make the change as part of an 

expedited revocation decision. 

(3) Whether your criminal record 

includes a conviction for a sex offense 

or not, if we propose to impose other 

restrictions on your activities, we will 

use either the notice and comment 

procedures of paragraph (c) or the 

hearing procedures of this paragraph, 

depending on a case-by-case evaluation 

of the releasee’s interest and the public 

interest. 

(e) Application of release conditions 

to an absconder. If you abscond from 

and evade supervision, you will stop the 

running of your supervised release term 

as of the date of your absconding and 

you will prevent the expiration of your 

supervised release term. But you will 

still be bound by the conditions of 

release while you are an absconder, 

even after the original expiration date of 

your supervised release term. We may 

revoke the term of supervised release for 

a violation of a release condition that 

you commit before the revised 

expiration date of the supervised release 

term (the original expiration date plus 

the time you were an absconder). 

(f) Revocation for certain violations of 

release conditions. If we find after a 

revocation hearing that you have 

illegally possessed a controlled 

substance, refused to comply with drug 

testing, possessed a firearm or tested 

positive for illegal controlled substances 

more than three times during one year, 

we must revoke the term of supervised 

release and impose a prison term as 

provided at § 2.218. When considering 

mandatory revocation for repeatedly 

failing a drug test, we must consider 

appropriate alternatives to 

incarceration. 

(g) Supervision officer guidance. We 

expect you to understand the conditions 

of release according to the plain 

meaning of the conditions. You should 

ask for guidance from your supervision 

officer if there are conditions you do not 

understand and before you take actions 

that may risk violation of your release 

conditions. The supervision officer may 

instruct you to refrain from particular 

conduct, or to take specific actions or to 

correct an existing violation of a release 

condition. If the supervision officer 

directs you to report on your 

compliance with an officer’s instruction 

and you fail to do so, we may consider 

that your failure is itself a release 

violation. 

(h) Definitions. As used in this 

section, the term— 

(1) Supervision officer means a 

community supervision officer of the 

District of Columbia Court Services and 

Offender Supervision Agency or a 

United States probation officer; 

(2) Domestic violence crime has the 

meaning given that term by 18 U.S.C. 

3561, except that the term ‘‘court of the 

United States’’ as used in that definition 

shall be deemed to include the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia; 

(3) Approved offender-rehabilitation 

program means a program that has been 

approved by CSOSA (or the United 

States Probation Office) in consultation 

with a State Coalition Against Domestic 

Violence or other appropriate experts; 

(4) Certificate of release means the 

certificate of supervised release 

delivered to the release under § 2.203; 

and 

(5) Firearm has the meaning given by 

18 U.S.C. 921. 

(6) Sex offense means any 

‘‘registration offense’’ as that term is 

defined at DC Code 22–4001(8) and any 

‘‘sex offense’’ as that term is defined at 

42 U.S.C. 16911(5). 

■ 5. Revise the first sentence of § 2.220 

to read as follows: 

§ 2.220 Appeal. 

A supervised releasee may appeal a 

decision to revoke supervised release, 

impose a term of imprisonment or a new 

term of supervised release after 

revocation, or impose or modify a 

condition of supervised release. * * * 

Isaac Fulwood, 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03942 Filed 2–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Proposed Priority—National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Rehabilitation Research 

and Training Centers [CFDA Number: 

84.133B–7] 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority for the 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Center (RRTC) Program administered by 

the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 

Specifically, this notice proposes a 

priority for an RRTC on Disability 

Statistics and Demographics. The 

Assistant Secretary may use this priority 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on areas of 

national need. We intend the priority to 

contribute to improved outcomes in 

these areas for individuals with 

disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Marlene Spencer, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 5133, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. You must 

include the phrase ‘‘Proposed Priority 

for a RRTC on Disability Statistics and 

Demographics’’ 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. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 12003 

This notice proposes one priority, that 

NIDRR intends to use for one or more 

competitions in FY 2013 and possibly 

later years. However, nothing precludes 

NIDRR from publishing additional 

priorities, if needed. Furthermore, 

NIDRR is under no obligation to make 

an award using this priority. The 

decision to make an award will be based 

on the quality of applications received 

and available funding. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priority, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific topic that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from this proposed priority. 

Please let us know of any further ways 

we could reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this proposed priority in room 

5133, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities, to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Rehabilitation Research and Training 

Centers 

The purpose of the RRTCs, which are 

funded through the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program, is to achieve the goals 

of, and improve the effectiveness of, 

services authorized under the 

Rehabilitation Act through advanced 

research, training, technical assistance, 

and dissemination activities in general 

problem areas, as specified by NIDRR. 

These activities are designed to benefit 

rehabilitation service providers, 

individuals with disabilities, and the 

family members or other authorized 

representatives of individuals with 

disabilities. Additional information on 

the RRTC program can be found at: 

www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/resprogram.html#RRTC. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 

764(b)(2). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. Proposed Priority: 

This notice contains one proposed 

priority, RRTC on Disability Statistics 

and Demographics. 

Background: 

For more than 25 years, NIDRR has 

supported research about disability 

statistics and demographics to assist 

government agencies, service providers, 

consumers, advocates, and others who 

need guidance or support in generating, 

analyzing, interpreting, or disseminating 

disability data. NIDRR seeks to fund an 

RRTC that will continue to serve as a 

national resource center for all 

stakeholders involved in the collection, 

analysis, dissemination, and use of 

national disability data. 

Research, training, and technical 

assistance is needed so that national 

surveys are designed to help ensure that 

the experiences and outcomes of people 

with disabilities are fully and accurately 

captured in the data collections 

(Livermore et al, 2011). Improved 

questionnaire designs and innovative 

data collection strategies can facilitate 

the collection of valid and reliable 

disability data (National Research 

Council, 2009). Research on the benefits 

and drawbacks of various 

methodological approaches to the 

collection and analysis of disability data 

can improve the quality and consistency 

of that data and increase confidence in 

disability research findings (Burkhauser, 

Houtenville, and Tennant, 2012). 

Over the course of the last five years, 

new sources of disability data have 

become available. While inconsistencies 

in the conceptualization and 

measurement of disability persist 

(National Research Council, 2009), 

Federal agencies are making progress in 

improving the scope and quality of the 

disability-related data that they are 

collecting (Livermore et al., 2011). For 

example, a standard six-question 

measure to identify the disability status 

of survey respondents is being used in 

a growing number of Federal surveys. 

The use of this measure in a variety of 

national data collection efforts has the 

potential to lead to new detailed data 

about the lives and experiences of 

individuals with disabilities—including 

data about employment status, housing, 

transportation, education, health status, 

and health care access. For example, 

this six-question measure was recently 

selected by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services to meet the 

Affordable Care Act’s requirement for 

collecting standard disability data in all 

national population health surveys (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of Minority Health, 

2012). 

Policymakers continue to cite the 

need for statistical information about 

the indirect and direct costs of 

disability, health disparities, 

individuals with disabilities living in 

institutional settings, and unmet needs 

for services or technologies to facilitate 

environmental access and to enhance 

community living (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

Disease Prevention and Health 

Promotion, 2012; National Council on 

Disability, 2008). Through analysis, 

compilation, and dissemination of 

disability data from national surveys 

and administrative sources, the RRTC 

will continue to inform the 

development of evidence-based 

disability policy and programs. 

References: 

Burkhauser, R., Houtenville, A., and 

Tennant, J. (2012). Capturing the elusive 

working-age population with disabilities: 

Reconciling conflicting social success 

estimates from the current population 

survey and the American community 

survey. Journal of Disability Policy 

Studies. Available From: http:// 

dps.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/ 

30/1044207312446226 

Livermore, G., Whalen, D. Prenovitz, S., 

Aggarwal, R., and Bardos, M. Disability 

data in national surveys. Available from: 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2011/ 

DDNatlSur.shtml 

National Council on Disability. (2008). 

Keeping track: National disability status 

and program performance indicators. 

Available from: www.ncd.gov/ 

publications/2008/April212008 

National Research Council. (2009). Improving 

the measurement of late-life disability in 

population surveys: Beyond ADLs and 

IADLs, summary of a workshop. Gooloo 

S., Wunderlich, Rapporteur. Committee 

on National Statistics and Committee on 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
12004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Population. Division of Behavioral and 

Social Sciences and Education. 

Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Office of Minority Health 

(2012). Final Data Collection Standards 

for Race, Ethnicity, Primary Language, 

Sex, and Disability Status Required by 

Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act. 

Available from: http:// 

minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/ 

browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=208. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Office of Disease Prevention 

and Health Promotion. (2012). Healthy 

people 2020: Disability and health. 

Washington, DC. Available from: http:// 

healthypeople.gov/2020/ 

topicsobjectives2020/ 

overview.aspx?topicid=9 

Proposed Priority: 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for a Rehabilitation 

Research and Training Center (RRTC) on 

Disability Statistics and Demographics. This 

RRTC must conduct research, knowledge 

translation, training, dissemination, and 

technical assistance activities to advance the 

use and usefulness of disability statistics and 

demographic data to inform disability policy 

and the provision of services to individuals 

with disabilities. Under this priority, the 

RRTC must be designed to contribute to the 

following outcomes: 

(a) National disability data and statistics 

that are of high quality and relevant to 

improving the lives of individuals with 

disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to 

this outcome by conducting analyses, 

providing recommendations, and optimizing 

methodologies for conducting surveys of 

individuals with disabilities, including 

sampling techniques, and methods for 

appropriately interviewing and collecting 

data from individuals with a wide range of 

disabilities. 

(b) Timely analyses of high-quality, 

relevant disability and demographic statistics 

to inform the development of disability 

policies and programs. The RRTC must 

contribute to this outcome by: 

(i) Producing secondary analyses of 

national, State, and administrative data that 

address critical program and service needs. 

(ii) Evaluating progress with regard to 

national goals for individuals with 

disabilities and their families. 

(iii) Providing statistical consultation, 

including specialized analyses, to facilitate 

the appropriate use of survey and 

administrative data by policymakers, 

advocates, individuals with disabilities, and 

other stakeholders. 

(c) Improved access to disability statistics 

and demographic information. The RRTC 

must contribute to this outcome by: 

(i) Serving as a resource on disability 

statistics and demographics for Federal and 

other government agencies, policymakers, 

consumers, advocates, researchers, and other 

interested parties. 

(ii) Disseminating research findings in 

clear and useful formats to Federal and other 

government agencies, policymakers, 

consumers, advocates, researchers, and 

others to enhance planning, policymaking, 

program administration, and delivery of 

services to individuals with disabilities. 

(iii) Developing and disseminating an 

annual report on disability in the United 

States that includes statistics on current 

status and trends related to the prevalence of 

disabilities, and employment, health, 

community living, and other outcomes of 

importance in monitoring the well-being of 

individuals with disabilities. 

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 would justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis 

that follows, the Department believes that 

these proposed priorities are 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 12005 

determined as necessary for administering 

the Department’s programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers 

Program have been well established over the 

years. Projects similar to the RRTCs have 

been completed successfully, and the 

proposed priorities will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new RRTCs 

will generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that would improve 

outcomes for individuals with disabilities in 

the areas of community living and 

participation, employment, and health and 

function. 

Intergovernmental Review: This program is 

not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in an 

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

audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the 

Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, 

DC 20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245–7363. 

If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: The 

official version of this document is the 

document published in the Federal Register. 

Free Internet access to the official edition of 

the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 

Regulations is available via the Federal 

Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in text or 

Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To 

use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat 

Reader, which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search feature at: 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at this 

site, you can limit your search to documents 

published by the Department. 

Dated: February 15, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03995 Filed 2–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0546; FRL–9784–4] 

RIN 2060–AR43 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel 

Standards; Public Hearing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearing and extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a 

public hearing to be held for the 

proposed rule ‘‘Regulation of Fuels and 

Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel 

Standards,’’ which was published 

separately in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 2013. (78 FR 9282.) The 

hearing will be held in Ann Arbor, 

Michigan on March 8, 2013. EPA is also 

extending the comment period on the 

proposed rule to April 7, 2013. The 

proposed rule would amend the 

renewable fuel standard program 

regulations to establish annual 

percentage standards for cellulosic 

biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced 

biofuel, and renewable fuels that would 

apply to all gasoline and diesel 

produced in the U.S. or imported in the 

year 2013. The proposal is based in part 

on EPA’s proposed projection of 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2013, 

and its proposed determination that the 

applicable volumes of advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel specified in the 

statute should not be modified in 2013. 

DATES: The public hearing will be held 

on March 8, 2013 at the location noted 

below under ADDRESSES. The hearing 

will begin at 9 a.m. and end when all 

parties present who wish to speak have 

had an opportunity to do so. Parties 

wishing to testify at the hearing should 

notify the contact person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

March 1, 2013. Additional information 

regarding the hearing appears below 

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at 

the following location: National Vehicle 

and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000 

Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

48105. A complete set of documents 

related to the proposal is available for 

public inspection at the EPA Docket 

Center, located at 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, 

DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. Documents are also 

available through the electronic docket 

system at http://www.regulations.gov. 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0546.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

MacAllister, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood 

Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4131; Fax number: 

(734) 214–4816; Email address: 

macallister.julia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposal for which EPA is holding the 

public hearing has been published 

separately in the Federal Register at 78 

FR 9282, February 7, 2013. 

Public Hearing: The public hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposal 

(which can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/ 

renewablefuels/index.htm). The EPA 

may ask clarifying questions during the 

oral presentations but will not respond 

to the presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as any oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Written comments must be 

received by the last day of the comment 

period. 

The public hearing will be held on 

March 8, 2013 at the location noted 

under ADDRESSES, and will begin at 9 

a.m. and end when all parties present 

who wish to speak have had an 

opportunity to do so. Those wishing to 

testify at the public hearing should 

register in advance by notifying the 

contact person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by March 1, 2013 

and copies of written statements will be 

included in the rulemaking docket. 

In the NPRM, we established the 

deadline for comments as March 25, 

2013. Because EPA is required to 

provide no less than 30 days for 

comments after the date of the hearing, 

we are extending the end of the 

comment period to April 7, 2013. 

How can I get copies of this document, 

the proposed rule, and other related 

information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0546. The EPA has also 

developed a Web site for the RFS 

program, including the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, at the address 

given above. Please refer to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for detailed 

information on accessing information 

related to the proposal. 

Dated: February 15, 2013. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04003 Filed 2–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1