25106 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

makes a report to the time the airline 

provides its mishandled baggage data to 

DOT. 

• How could the aforementioned 

systems and processes be adapted to 

accommodate the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• What new systems and processes 

would be necessary for carriers to 

comply with the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• What other resource requirements, 

e.g. additional personnel and training, 

would be necessary for carriers to 

comply with the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• What would be the dollar cost of 

adjustments to existing systems and 

processes, new systems and processes, 

and other resource requirements? 

• The Department assumes that, as a 

matter of good business practice, 

airlines already gather and maintain 

information on the total number of 

counter-checked bags, gate-checked 

bags, and valet bags transported in the 

aircraft compartment. Under this 

assumption, the costs of compliance 

would include the adaption of the 

current reporting systems and processes 

(or, if they do not exist, the 

development and implementation of 

new systems and processes) that gather 

existing data for the new reporting 

requirements, in addition to any 

recurring annual expenses (e.g. staff 

time) for developing such reports. We 

are interested in learning if our 

assumption about current industry 

practice is inaccurate. 

• How much lead time is necessary to 

implement the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• Is there any other information that 

the Department should consider 

regarding the metric used to calculate 

mishandled baggage rates? 

3. The Reporting of Mishandled 

Wheelchairs and Scooters 

• What is the current industry 

practice regarding processing and 

accounting for wheelchairs and scooters 

that are checked at the check-in counter, 

at the self-service bag drop, at the gate, 

or at the aircraft door? Are they 

accounted for separately from other 

baggage? The Department would like to 

understand the entire process from what 

happens on the ground and the 

associated data systems when 

passengers check their wheelchairs or 

scooters, to what happens on the ground 

and the associated data systems when 

passengers claim the assistive device 

upon arrival whether that is at the 

baggage carousel, the gate or jet bridge. 

• What are the existing processes and 

data systems associated with reporting 

mishandled wheelchairs and scooters 

transported in the cargo hold? 

• How could the aforementioned 

systems and processes be adapted to 

accommodate the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• What new systems and processes 

would be necessary for carriers to 

comply with the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• What other resource requirements, 

e.g. additional personnel and training, 

would be necessary for carriers to 

comply with the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• What would be the dollar cost of 

adjustments to existing systems and 

processes, new systems and processes, 

and other resource requirements? 

• The Department assumes that, as a 

matter of good business practice, 

airlines already gather and maintain 

information on damage, delay, and loss 

of wheelchairs and scooters transported 

in the aircraft cargo compartment. 

Under this assumption, the costs of 

compliance would include the adaption 

of the current reporting systems and 

processes (or, if they do not exist, the 

development and implementation of 

new systems and processes) that gather 

existing data for the new reporting 

requirements, in addition to any 

recurring annual expenses (e.g. staff 

time) for developing such reports. We 

are interested in learning if our 

assumption about current industry 

practice is inaccurate. 

• How much lead time is necessary to 

implement the proposed reporting 

requirement? 

• Is there any other information that 

the Department should consider 

regarding the reporting of mishandled 

wheelchairs and scooters? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 

2012. 

Pat Hu, 

Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10179 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0276] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events; Potomac River, National 

Harbor Access Channel, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish special local regulations 

during the ‘‘Swim Across the Potomac 

River’’ swimming competition, to be 

held on the waters of the Potomac River 

on July 8, 2012. These special local 

regulations are necessary to provide for 

the safety of life on navigable waters 

during the event. This action is 

intended to temporarily restrict vessel 

traffic in a portion of the Potomac River 

during the event. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 29, 2012. The Coast 

Guard anticipates that this proposed 

rule will be effective and enforced on 

July 8, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2012–0276 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; 

telephone 410–576–2674, email 

Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25107 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking, indicate the specific section 

of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

You may submit your comments and 

material online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online, it will be considered 

received by the Coast Guard when you 

successfully transmit the comment. If 

you fax, hand deliver, or mail your 

comment, it will be considered as 

having been received by the Coast 

Guard when it is received at the Docket 

Management Facility. We recommend 

that you include your name and a 

mailing address, an email address, or a 

telephone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type the 

docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box 

and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit 

a Comment’’ on the line associated with 

this rulemaking. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type the 

docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box 

and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open 

Docket Folder on the line associated 

with this rulemaking. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one on or before the end of the 

comment period, using one of the 

methods specified under ADDRESSES. 

Please explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Basis and Purpose 

On July 8, 2012, the National Harbor 

Marina of Oxon Hill, Maryland, will 

sponsor a swimming competition across 

the Potomac River between Alexandria, 

Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. The 

event consists of up to 250 swimmers on 

a 1.3-mile linear course located 

downriver from the Woodrow Wilson 

Memorial (I–495/I–95) Bridge. The 

swimmers will be supported by 

sponsor-provided watercraft. The start 

will be located at North Point in Jones 

Point Park and the finish will be located 

along the shore at National Harbor 

Marina. Portions of the swim course 

will cross the Potomac River federal 

navigation channel and the National 

Harbor Access Channel. Due to the need 

for vessel control during the event, the 

Coast Guard will temporarily restrict 

vessel traffic in the event area to provide 

for the safety of participants, spectators 

and other transiting vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

temporary special local regulations on 

specified waters of the Potomac River. 

The regulations will be in effect from 

7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on July 8, 2012. The 

regulated area, approximately 1,900 

yards in length and 350 yards in width, 

extends across the entire width of the 

Potomac River between the Virginia and 

Maryland shorelines and includes all 

waters of the Potomac River, within 

lines connecting the following 

positions: From latitude 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. The effect of this 

proposed rule will be to restrict general 

navigation in the regulated area during 

the event. Vessels intending to transit 

the Potomac River through the regulated 

area, including the National Harbor 

Access Channel, will only be allowed to 

safely transit the regulated area when 

the Coast Guard Patrol Commander has 

deemed it safe to do so. These 

regulations are needed to control vessel 

traffic during the event to enhance the 

safety of participants, spectators and 

transiting vessels. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 

or under section 1 of Executive Order 

13563. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under those 

Orders. We expect the economic impact 

of this proposed rule to be so minimal 

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 

the regulatory policies and procedures 

of DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

regulation will prevent traffic from 

transiting portions of the Potomac River 

and National Harbor Access Channel 

during the event, the effect of this 

regulation will not be significant due to 

the limited duration that the regulated 

area will be in effect and the extensive 

advance notifications that will be made 

to the maritime community via the 

Local Notice to Mariners and marine 

information broadcasts, so mariners can 

adjust their plans accordingly. 

Additionally, the regulated area has 

been narrowly tailored to impose the 

least impact on general navigation yet 

provide the level of safety deemed 

necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to 

transit safely through a portion of the 

regulated area, but only after the last 

participant has cleared that portion of 

the regulated area and when the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe 

to do so. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

25108 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in the effected portion of the 

Potomac River, including and National 

Harbor Access Channel, during the 

event. 

Although this regulation prevents 

traffic from transiting portions of the 

Potomac River and the National Harbor 

Access Channel during the event, this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons. This proposed rule 

would be in effect for only a limited 

period. Though the regulated area 

extends across the entire width of the 

river, vessel traffic may be permitted to 

safely transit a portion of the regulated 

area, but only after all participants have 

safely cleared that portion of the 

regulated area and when the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe 

for vessel traffic to do so. All Coast 

Guard vessels enforcing this regulated 

area can be contacted on marine band 

radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

Before the enforcement period, we will 

issue maritime advisories so mariners 

can adjust their plans accordingly. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore, MD. The Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and determined that this rule 

does not have implications for 

federalism. 

Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves implementation of 

regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 

applicable to organized marine events 

on the navigable waters of the United 

States that could negatively impact the 

safety of waterway users and shore side 

activities in the event area. The category 

of water activities includes but is not 

limited to sail boat regattas, boat 

parades, power boat racing, swimming 

events, crew racing, canoe and sail 

board racing. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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