Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25109 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary section, 

§ 100.35T05–0276 to read as follows: 

§ 100.35T05–0276 Special Local 

Regulations for Marine Events; Potomac 

River, National Harbor Access Channel, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

location is a regulated area: All waters 

of the Potomac River, within lines 

connecting the following positions: 

From 38°47′35′′ N, longitude 077°02′22′′ 

W, thence to latitude 38°47′12′′ N, 

longitude 077°00′57′′ W, and from 

latitude 38°47′24′′ N, longitude 

077°03′03′′ W to latitude 38°46′54′′ N, 

longitude 077°01′09′′ W. All coordinates 

reference Datum NAD 1983.\ 

(b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. 

Coast Guard who has been designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) The 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander may 

forbid and control the movement of all 

vessels and persons in the regulated 

area. When hailed or signaled by an 

official patrol vessel, a vessel or person 

in the regulated area shall immediately 

comply with the directions given. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

(2) Persons desiring to transit the 

regulated area must first obtain 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore or his designated 

representative. To seek permission to 

transit the area, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore and his designated 

representatives can be contacted at 

telephone number 410–576–2693 or on 

Marine Band Radio, VHF–FM channel 

16 (156.8 MHz). All Coast Guard vessels 

enforcing this regulated area can be 

contacted on marine band radio VHF– 

FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(3) The Coast Guard will publish a 

notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and issue a 

marine information broadcast on VHF– 

FM marine band radio announcing 

specific event date and times. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 11 

a.m. on July 8, 2012. 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

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

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10252 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AN46 

Notice of Information and Evidence 

Necessary To Substantiate Claim 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In a document published in 

the Federal Register on December 11, 

2009, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposed to amend its 

regulations regarding VA’s duty to 

notify a claimant of the information and 

evidence necessary to substantiate a 

claim. This document withdraws that 

proposed rule. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

as of April 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah W. Fusina, Legal Consultant, 

Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation 

and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–9700. 

(This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 11, 2009, VA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(74 FR 65702), notifying the public of 

VA’s intent to amend its regulations 

regarding its duty to notify a claimant of 

information and evidence necessary to 

substantiate a claim. The purpose was to 

implement the Veterans’ Benefits 

Improvement Act of 2008, which 

required the promulgation of regulations 

prescribing the requirements relating to 

the content of notice to be provided 

under 38 U.S.C. 5103(a). Public Law 

110–389, 122 Stat. 4145, 4147. VA 

received several comments raising 

concerns with the proposed rule, 

including concerns relating to the 

establishment of effective dates, the 

clarity of what types of evidence are 

accepted, the specificity of the contents 

for notice, and the general clarity and 

consistency of the text of the proposed 

rule. Based on consideration of 

comments received on the proposed 

rule and further evaluation of available 

options, VA intends to propose revised 

rules warranting a new notice of 

proposed rulemaking and publiccomment period. Thus, VA is 

withdrawing the proposed rule. 

Approved: April 19, 2012. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10259 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0274; FRL–9665–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from certain boilers, 

process heaters and steam generators. 

We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0274, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

25110 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

ICAPCD ...................... 400.2 Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators .............................................. 02/23/10 07/20/10 

On August 25, 2010, EPA determined 

that the submittal for ICAPCD Rule 

400.2 met the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 400.2. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 400.2 

regulates emissions of NOX from boilers, 

process heaters and steam generators 

with a heat input rating of 5 MMBtu/ 

hour or more. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each NOX or VOC major 

source in nonattainment areas classified 

as moderate or above (see sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The ICAPCD regulates 

an ozone nonattainment area classified 

as moderate (see 40 CFR part 81). 

Because Rule 400.2 regulates major 

stationary sources of NOX, it must fulfill 

NOX RACT requirements. On December 

3, 2009, EPA determined that ICAPCD 

attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone based upon ambient air 

monitoring data showing the area had 

monitored attainment during the 2006– 

2008 monitoring period (74 FR 63309). 

This determination suspended some of 

the planning requirements related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS but not the Section 182(b)(2) 

and 182(f) RACT requirements for major 

NOX emission sources. The ICAPCD 

also regulates a serious PM–10 

nonattainment area, and is therefore 

subject to the requirement under 

sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) of the 

Act to implement Best Available Control 

Measures (BACM, which includes Best 

Available Control Technology or BACT) 

for control of PM–10 and PM–10 

precursor emissions. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen 

Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ 

(the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, 

November 25, 1992. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious 

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum 

to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 

16, 1994). 

5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 

452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

6. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, 

Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters,’’ CARB, July 

18, 1991. 

7. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Industrial/ 

Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ US 

EPA 453/R–94–022, March 1994. 

8. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Utility 

Boilers,’’ US EPA 452/R–93–008, March 

1994. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25111 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 13, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10201 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0082; FRL–9634–2] 

Revisions to the Hawaii State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Hawaii State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from motor vehicles, water 

separation, pumps, compressors, waste 

gas, and open burning, as well as several 

administrative requirements. We are 

proposing to approve several local rules 

to regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0082, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: Hawaii State Department of 

Health Rules 11–60.1–1, 11–60.1–2, 11– 

60.1–4, 11–60.1–8, 11–60.1–11, 11– 

60.1–14, 11–60.1–15, 11–60.1–16, 11– 

60.1–17, 11–60.1–20, 11–60.1–32, 11– 

60.1–34, 11–60.1–40, 11–60.1–41, 11– 

60.1–42, 11–60.1–51, 11–60.1–53, 11– 

60.1–54, and 11–60.1–56. In the Rules 

and Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving these local 

rules in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS