Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 32107 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0098] 

RIN 2105–AD87 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Air Travel; Accessibility of 

Aircraft and Stowage of Wheelchairs 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is seeking comment on 

whether or not the prohibition against 

using the seat-strapping method 

(placing a wheelchair across a row of 

seats using a strap kit with safetyapproval from the Federal Aviation 

Administration or applicable foreign 

government) to transport a passenger’s 

wheelchair in the cabin of newer aircraft 

as set forth in DOT regulations should 

be deleted, modified, or remain as 

written. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments regarding this 

proposal. Comments must be received 

on or before August 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2011–0098 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2011–0098 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received in 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 DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amna Arshad, Trial Attorney, Office of 

the Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W96– 

405, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366– 

9179. You may also contact Blane A. 

Workie, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of the Assistant General 

Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W96–464, 

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–9342. 

Arrangements to receive this notice in 

an alternative format may be made by 

contacting the above named individuals. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis 

The preliminary regulatory analysis 

suggests that the benefits of the 

proposed requirement to allow carriers 

to use the seat-strapping method to stow 

a passenger’s manual folding wheelchair 

in the cabin of ‘‘new’’ aircraft exceed its 

costs. This analysis, outlined in the 

table below, finds that the expected net 

present value of the rule over 20 years 

at a 7% discount rate would amount to 

$243 million to $273 million. 

Present value 

(millions) 

Total Quantified Benefits ....................................................... 20 years, 7% discounting .................................................... $243 to $273. 

Total Quantified Costs * ......................................................... 20 years, 7% discounting .................................................... $0. 

Net Quantified Benefits ......................................................... 20 years, 7% discounting .................................................... $243 to $273. 

* No basis for concluding that rule would impose quantified costs on any party. 

Information on additional benefits and 

costs for which quantitative estimates 

could not be developed is provided in 

the Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

section. 

Background 

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) 

prohibits discrimination by U.S. and 

foreign carriers against passengers with 

disabilities. (See 49 U.S.C. 41705) Its 

implementing regulation, 14 CFR Part 

382, contains detailed standards and 

requirements to ensure carriers provide 

nondiscriminatory service to passengers 

with disabilities. This rule was updated 

on May 13, 2008, to, among other 

things, cover foreign air carriers. (73 FR 

27614) This NPRM seeks comment on 

whether the Department should amend 

the provisions in the May 13, 2008, rule 

pertaining to the stowage of one 

passenger’s manual folding wheelchair 

in the cabin of aircraft with 100 or more 

passenger seats (§ 382.67) in order to 

allow the continued use of the seatstrapping method (placing a wheelchair 

across a row of seats using a strap kit 

approved by the Federal Aviation 

Administration or applicable foreign 

government). 

When the requirement for in-cabin 

space for a folding passenger wheelchair 

was originally adopted in 1990, the 

Department’s intention was that new 

aircraft would have a designated space 

(e.g., a closet or similar compartment) in 

which a passenger’s wheelchair could 

be stowed. (55 FR 8007) The practice of 

seat-strapping was not authorized, or 

even mentioned, in the regulatory text 

or the original rulemaking. The practice 

of seat-strapping was subsequently 

permitted under Department 

enforcement policy as an alternative to 

compliance with the regulation’s 

requirement with respect to 

accommodating a passenger’s manual 

folding wheelchair in the cabin. The 

Department determined in the final rule 

issued in 2008 that it was best not to 

carry over this policy to the new rule 

with respect to new aircraft (i.e., aircraft 

ordered after May 13, 2009, or delivered 

after May 13, 2011), and required, 

consistent with the intent of the original 

1990 rule, that new aircraft be capable 

of accommodating a passenger’s 

wheelchair in a priority stowage space 

in the cabin. The Department made this 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
32108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

decision because of concerns that seatstrapping (1) Is an awkward way of 

transporting a wheelchair in the cabin; 

(2) can result in less timely stowage and 

return of the passenger’s wheelchair; (3) 

can be more conspicuous and bring 

unwanted attention to passengers with 

disabilities; (4) can be more likely to 

result in damage to the passenger’s 

wheelchair; and (5) can result in lastminute surprise denials of service to 

other passengers holding confirmed 

tickets on full flights. Existing aircraft 

were not required to be retrofitted, 

however, and airlines could continue to 

use seat-strapping on those aircraft. 

Within six months of issuance of the 

May 13, 2008, final rule, the Department 

received two requests to continue the 

use of seat-strapping. The Department 

also received a request to stow a 

passenger’s manual folding wheelchair 

in a designated cargo stowage space as 

an alternative to stowing the passenger’s 

wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft. 

These requests were submitted pursuant 

to the ‘‘equivalent alternative’’ provision 

of the May 13, 2008, final rule, which 

allows carriers to request a 

determination that a carrier’s policy, 

practice, or other accommodation 

provides substantially equivalent 

accessibility to passengers with 

disabilities compared to a specified 

provision of Part 382. (See 14 CFR 

382.9) 

The Department denied the two 

requests to continue the use of seatstrapping because it was contrary to the 

explicit language of the rule, and a 

change in the substance of the rule must 

be addressed through rulemaking. (See 

Response to Application of JetBlue 

Airways Corp., for an Equivalent 

Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 

382.123(c), Docket DOT–OST–2008– 

0273–0063 (filed July 22, 2009); 

Response to Application of US Airways, 

Inc., for an Equivalent Alternative 

Determination from 14 CFR 382.123(c), 

Docket DOT–OST–2008–0273–0064 

(filed July 22, 2009).) The Department, 

however, granted a request to stow a 

passenger’s manual folding wheelchair 

in a designated cargo stowage space as 

an alternative to stowing the wheelchair 

in the cabin on a one-year trial basis 

subject to numerous conditions to 

ensure the same or greater accessibility 

to persons with a disability. (See 

Response to Application of Aerovias Del 

Continente Americano S.A., for an 

Equivalent Alternative Determination 

from 14 CFR 382.67 and 14 CFR 

382.123, Docket DOT–OST–2008–0273– 

0101.) 

The Department believes that the 

issues raised by carriers with regard to 

using the seat-strapping method should 

be considered further. Therefore, the 

Department is seeking comment on 

whether carriers should be allowed to 

use the seat-strapping method to stow a 

passenger’s manual folding wheelchair 

in the cabin of ‘‘new’’ aircraft. The 

Department wants to make clear that, by 

issuing this NPRM, we are not taking a 

position on the merits of the use of seatstrapping. The proposed regulatory text 

is language that the Department could 

use if we decide to change the rule. Its 

presence does not mean that making 

such a change is the Department’s 

policy preference at this time. 

In addition to comments on whether 

or not seat-strapping should be allowed 

as an alternative to the requirement for 

a designated stowage space in the cabin 

for a passenger wheelchair, the 

Department has developed a series of 

questions to assist us in determining the 

impact of seat-strapping on passengers 

with a disability, other members of the 

traveling public, and carriers. The 

Department will consider information in 

response to the questions posed below 

in determining whether carriers should 

be allowed to use seat-strapping. The 

Department specifically seeks comments 

on the following broad categories: 

Potential stigmatization associated with 

the seat-strapping method, impact on 

other passengers that may result from 

the seat-strapping method, compliance 

cost if the prohibition on the use of the 

seat-strapping method remains, 

complaints relating to damage to 

wheelchairs or delay in the return and 

stowage of a passenger’s wheelchair, 

training of carrier employees, 

identification of priority space for 

assistive devices, additional 

accommodations that may be required if 

seat-strapping method is permitted, and 

other miscellaneous questions. 

Stigmatization 

(1) Concerns over potential 

stigmatization or embarrassment 

associated with the seat-strapping 

method, including but not limited to, 

how a passenger might feel if he or she 

is made aware that other passengers 

could be denied boarding on a full flight 

in order to accommodate his or her 

wheelchair in the cabin of the aircraft 

and how carriers might address such 

situations; and 

(2) Procedures currently used, or that 

could be created, to minimize the 

potential stigmatization or 

embarrassment associated with the seatstrapping method. 

Impact on Other Passengers 

(1) The effect the seat-strapping 

method would have on passengers other 

than those stowing a wheelchair in the 

cabin of an aircraft; 

(2) Procedures currently used, or that 

could be created, to minimize the 

possibility that passengers will be 

denied boarding due to the use of the 

seat-strapping method; and 

(3) The number of passengers denied 

boarding per year due to the use of the 

seat-strapping method on old aircraft 

(i.e., aircraft ordered on or before May 

13, 2009, or aircraft delivered on or 

before May 13, 2011) and a description 

of the process by which such data were 

collected. 

Compliance Cost 

(1) The cost to carriers if the 

prohibition on the use of the seatstrapping method remains as currently 

written in 14 CFR 382.123(c) (i.e., 

prohibited on any aircraft ordered after 

May 13, 2009, or delivered after May 13, 

2011); 

(2) The effects, other than cost, that 

continuing the prohibition of the seatstrapping method would have on 

carriers; and 

(3) Benefits to using the seat-strapping 

method, aside from cost savings to 

carriers, over the requirement to have a 

priority stowage space. 

(4) Any increased costs to carriers, 

such as increased purchases of 

wheelchair strapping kits, that would 

result from allowing the seat-strapping 

method. 

Complaints Regarding Damage to 

Wheelchairs and Timely Stowage and 

Return of a Passenger’s Wheelchair 

(1) Concerns regarding damage to a 

wheelchair if the seat-strapping method 

is allowed; 

(2) Complaints received regarding 

wheelchair damage from using the seatstrapping method; 

(3) Complaints received regarding 

wheelchair damage from stowing a 

wheelchair in a priority space in the 

cabin (e.g., closets), using a method 

other than the seat-strapping method; 

and 

(4) Concerns regarding less timely 

stowage and return of a passenger’s 

manual folding wheelchair when using 

the seat-strapping method. 

Training 

(1) How do carriers currently ensure 

that their employees know that 

passengers can use the seat-strapping 

method to stow wheelchairs; and 

(2) Whether the existing requirement 

for carriers to train their public contact 

employees to proficiency on the proper 

and safe operation of any equipment 

used to accommodate passengers with a 

disability is sufficient to ensure carrier 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 32109 

employees know the proper manner in 

which stow a wheelchair across a row 

of seats using a strap kit. 

Identification of Priority Space for 

Stowage of Assistive Devices 

(1) Whether the Department should 

require carriers to visually identify 

through some sort of placard (e.g., a 

placard that notes the space is a 

‘‘Priority Stowage Space for Assistive 

Devices,’’ with the International Symbol 

for Access) that wheelchairs, other 

mobility aids, and other assistive 

devices have priority for stowage in the 

cabin compartment over other items; 

and 

(2) Whether there is any benefit in 

requiring airlines to inform passengers 

of the location of seats where a folding 

manual wheelchair may be stowed. 

Additional Accommodations if Seat 

Strapping Method Is Allowed 

(1) Whether the dimensions of a 

wheelchair that must fit without 

disassembly into the priority space 

currently 13 inches by 36 inches by 42 

inches or less should be increased if the 

Department allows carriers to use the 

seat-strapping method as a means of 

stowing a folding manual wheelchair in 

the passenger cabin; 

(2) Given the wide variety of 

wheelchairs and mobility devices on the 

market, what dimensions would be a 

reasonable compromise between the 

needs of passengers and the space 

constraints of carriers using the seatstrapping method to stow wheelchairs; 

and 

(3) If seat-strapping is allowed, should 

carriers be required to accommodate 

more than one folding wheelchair in the 

passenger cabin when the stowage of 

additional wheelchairs would not 

displace other passengers. 

Other 

(1) Whether the Department should 

prohibit or allow U.S. and foreign 

carriers to remove existing closets or 

other priority spaces used for stowing a 

passenger’s wheelchair on aircraft 

covered by Part 382 (i.e., should any 

requirement that is adopted only apply 

to new aircraft); 

(2) Whether the Department should 

allow the use of the seat-strapping 

method only on single-aisle aircraft as 

there is sufficient space for a closet or 

other priority stowage space on twinaisle aircraft; and 

(3) Any other information or data that 

are relevant to the Department’s 

decision. 

We invite all interested persons to 

comment on the issues raised in this 

notice. Our final action will be based on 

the comments and supporting evidence 

filed in this docket and on our own 

analysis. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures, and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

This action has been determined to be 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget in accordance 

with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) and is consistent 

with the requirements in both orders. 

Executive Order 13563 refers to 

nonquantifiable values, including equity 

and fairness. 

The Regulatory Evaluation estimates 

that the monetary benefit of allowing 

airlines to use seat-strapping exceeds 

the monetary costs. Specifically, the 

benefit of allowing carriers to use seatstrapping would likely result in a total 

net revenue gain over a 20-year period 

of $243–$273 million present value. 

This represents revenue derived from 

seats that would not have to be removed 

in order to make space for a permanent 

wheelchair stowage area. No mandatory 

additional cost will be imposed on 

carriers if seat-strapping is allowed as 

an alternative to complying with the 

current requirement to provide a 

priority space for wheelchair stowage. It 

is unclear whether allowing carriers to 

use the seat-strapping method would 

impose costs related to damage or 

delayed stowage and return of 

wheelchairs on passengers with 

disabilities. Based on a review of the 

Department’s consumer complaint 

database and discussions with the 

industry, the Department has no 

evidence that such consequences are 

likely and seeks comment particularly 

from persons with disabilities and 

disability organizations. Furthermore, 

non-disabled, ticketed passengers may 

be required to forego their seats on a full 

flight in order to accommodate a 

wheelchair, but the Department has not 

received any complaints regarding this 

practice. We request from the public any 

information that will improve the 

accuracy of our estimates or aid us in 

determining whether seat-strapping 

offers advantages or disadvantages that 

have not been considered. A copy of the 

Preliminary Regulatory Analysis has 

been placed in the docket. 

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

has been analyzed in accordance with 

the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). 

This notice does not propose any 

regulation that has substantial direct 

effects on the States, the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. It does not 

propose any regulation that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments. It does not 

propose any regulation that preempts 

State law, because States are already 

preempted from regulating in this area 

under the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 

U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 13084 

This notice has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because none of the options on which 

we are seeking comment would 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We hereby certify that the rule proposed 

in this notice of proposed rulemaking 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A direct air carrier or a foreign 

air carrier is a small business if it 

provides air transportation only with 

small aircraft (i.e., aircraft designed to 

have a maximum passenger capacity of 

not more than 60 seats or a maximum 

payload capacity of not more than 

18,000 pounds). See 14 CFR 399.73. The 

subject matter of this notice only affects 

aircraft with 100 or more passenger 

seats. Therefore, this requirement would 

not apply to small businesses. In 

addition, the proposed change would 

lessen the burden on U.S. and foreign 

air carriers by allowing the carriers to 

retain their current seating configuration 

and not remove seats to install a priority 

space in the cabin for a passenger 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
32110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

wheelchair. We invite comment to 

facilitate our assessment of the potential 

impact of these initiatives on small 

entities. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule imposes no new information 

reporting or record keeping 

necessitating clearance by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this notice. 

Issued this 26th day of May 2011, at 

Washington, DC. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382 

Air carriers, Civil rights, and 

Individuals with disabilities. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department is proposing 

to amend 14 CFR part 382, as follows: 

PART 382—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 

TRAVEL 

1. The authority citation for part 382 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41705. 

2. Section 382.67 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.67 What is the requirement for 

priority space in the cabin to store 

passengers’ wheelchairs? 

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure that 

there is a priority space (e.g., a closet or 

a row of seats where a wheelchair may 

be strapped using a strap kit approved 

by the Federal Aviation Administration 

or applicable foreign government) in the 

cabin of sufficient size to stow at least 

one typical adult-sized folding, 

collapsible, or break-down manual 

passenger wheelchair, the dimensions of 

which are 13 inches by 36 inches by 42 

inches or less without having to remove 

the wheels or otherwise disassemble it. 

This requirement applies to any aircraft 

with 100 or more passenger seats. 

(b) This space must be other than the 

overhead compartments and under-seat 

spaces routinely used for passengers’ 

carry-on items. 

(c) If passengers holding confirmed 

reservations are not able to travel on a 

flight because their seats are being used 

to stow a passenger’s wheelchair as 

required by paragraph (a) of this section, 

carriers must compensate those 

passengers in an amount to be 

calculated as provided for in instances 

of involuntary denied boarding under 

14 CFR part 250, where part 250 

applies. 

(d) As a carrier, you must never 

request or suggest that a passenger 

should not stow his or her wheelchair 

in the cabin to accommodate other 

passengers (e.g., informing a passenger 

that stowing a wheelchair in the cabin 

will require other passengers to be 

removed from the flight), or for any 

other non-safety related reason (e.g., 

easier for the carrier if the wheelchair is 

stowed in the cargo). 

(e) As a foreign carrier, you must meet 

the requirement of paragraph (a) of this 

section for new aircraft ordered after 

May 13, 2009, or delivered after May 13, 

2010. As a U.S. carrier, this requirement 

applies to you with respect to new 

aircraft you operate that were ordered 

after April 5, 1990, or which were 

delivered after April 5, 1992. 

§ 382.123 [Amended] 

3. Section 382.123(c) is removed. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13802 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0719–201115; FRL– 

9314–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio, 

Kentucky, and Indiana; CincinnatiHamilton Nonattainment Area; 

Determination of Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two 

determinations regarding the tri-state 

Cincinnati-Hamilton (Ohio, Kentucky, 

and Indiana) fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Cincinnati Area’’ or 

‘‘the Area’’). First, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Area has attained the 

1997 annual average PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This proposed determination 

of attainment is based upon complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

period showing that the Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA finalizes 

this proposed determination of 

attainment, the requirements for the 

Area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions related to 

attainment of the standard shall be 

suspended for so long as the Area 

continues to attain the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Second, EPA is also proposing 

to determine, based on quality-assured 

and certified monitoring data for the 

2007–2009 monitoring period, that the 

Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by its applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your general 

comments and your comments 

specifically regarding the Kentucky 

portion of the Cincinnati Area, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0719, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9040. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0719, 

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: Lynorae Benjamin, 

Chief, 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 normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

Submit your comments regarding the 

Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati Area, identified by Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0719, by one 

of the following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 312–353–6960. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604–3507. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, U.S. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1