Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2853 

This regulation clarifies the 

definitions of proceeds of amounts 

collected and collected proceeds for 

purposes of section 7623 and that the 

provisions of Treas. Reg. § 301.7623– 

1(a) concerning refund prevention 

claims are applicable to claims under 

section 7623(a) and (b). In clarifying the 

definitions of proceeds of amounts 

collected and collected proceeds, this 

regulation provides that the reduction of 

an overpayment credit balance is also 

considered proceeds of amounts 

collected and collected proceeds under 

section 7623. 

Special Analysis 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a 

regulatory assessment is not required. It 

also has been determined that section 

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure 

Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply 

to these regulations, and, because the 

regulations do not impose a collection 

of information on small entities, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to 

section 7805(f) of the Code, these 

regulations have been submitted to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for comment 

on its impact on small businesses. 

Comments and Requests for a Public 

Hearing 

Before this proposed regulation is 

adopted as a final regulation, 

consideration will be given to any 

electronic or written comments (a 

signed original and eight (8) copies) that 

are submitted timely to the IRS. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on the clarity of the 

proposed rule and how it may be made 

easier to understand. All comments will 

be available for public inspection and 

copying. A public hearing may be 

scheduled if requested in writing by a 

person that timely submits written 

comments. If a public hearing is 

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and 

place of the hearing will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of this regulation 

is Kirsten N. Witter, Office of the 

Associate Chief Counsel (General Legal 

Services). 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 

Employment taxes, Estate taxes, 

Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Proposed Amendment to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 301 is amended by adding an 

entry in numerical order to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 

301.7623–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7623. 

* * * 

Par. 2. Section 301.7623–1 is 

amended by revising the section 

heading, and paragraphs (a) and (g), to 

read as follows: 

§ 301.7623–1 Rewards and awards for 

information relating to violations of internal 

revenue laws. 

(a) In general—(1) Rewards and 

awards. When information that has been 

provided to the Internal Revenue 

Service results in the detection of 

underpayments of tax or the detection 

and bringing to trial and punishment 

persons guilty of violating the internal 

revenue laws or conniving at the same, 

the IRS may approve a reward under 

section 7623(a) in a suitable amount 

from the proceeds of amounts collected 

in cases when rewards are not otherwise 

provided by law, or shall determine an 

award under section 7623(b) from 

collected proceeds. 

(2) Proceeds of amounts collected and 

collected proceeds. For purposes of 

section 7623 and this section, both 

proceeds of amounts collected and 

collected proceeds include: tax, 

penalties, interest, additions to tax, and 

additional amounts collected by reason 

of the information provided; amounts 

collected prior to receipt of the 

information if the information provided 

results in the denial of a claim for 

refund that otherwise would have been 

paid; and a reduction of an overpayment 

credit balance used to satisfy a tax 

liability incurred because of the 

information provided. 

* * * * * 

(g) Effective/applicability date. This 

section is applicable with respect to 

rewards paid after January 29, 1997, 

except the rules of paragraph (a) of this 

section apply with respect to rewards 

and awards paid after these regulations 

are published as final regulations in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather C. Maloy, 

(Acting) Deputy Commissioner for Services 

and Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–928 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1027; FRL–9253–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Requirement To 

Address Interstate Transport for the 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve and, in the alternative, 

proposing to disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Delaware Department 

of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control (DNREC) on September 16, 

2009, as supplemented with a technical 

analysis submitted for parallelprocessing by DNREC on December 9, 

2010, to address significant contribution 

to nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 2006 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). EPA’s 

rationale for proposing approval and, in 

the alternative, proposing disapproval of 

Delaware’s September 16, 2009 SIP 

revision and its associated December 9, 

2010 supplement is described in this 

proposal. Please note that today’s 

proposed rulemaking action addresses 

only those portions of Delaware’s 

September 16, 2009 submittal which 

pertain to significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State 

requirements pursuant to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is not taking action at this 

time on any other portion of Delaware’s 

September 16, 2009 submittal. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–1027 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.

gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1027, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was 

signed by the Administrator and publically 

disseminated on September 21, 2006. Because EPA 

did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) 

infrastructure SIP submittals, these submittals for 

the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on September 

21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006 

signature date. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

1027. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://www.

regulations.gov or e-mail. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

anonymous access system, which means 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 

without going through http://www.

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034, or by 

e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the 

following: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. Description of the SIP Revision Submitted 

by the State of Delaware 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

submittals? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve and, in 

the alternative, proposing to disapprove 

a revision to the Delaware SIP submitted 

by DNREC on September 16, 2009, as 

supplemented with a technical analysis 

submitted by DNREC for parallelprocessing on December 9, 2010, to 

satisfy the infrastructure SIP 

requirements relating to interstate 

transport in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the CAA with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The December 9, 2010 

supplement to DNREC’s September 16, 

2009 revision consists of a technical 

analysis that provides detailed support 

for Delaware’s position that it has 

satisfied the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The December 

9, 2010 supplement to the September 

16, 2009 SIP revision was submitted to 

EPA by DNREC for parallel-processing 

with a request that it be considered by 

EPA in taking any rulemaking action on 

the September 16, 2009 SIP submission. 

Before EPA takes final action on 

DNREC’s SIP revision to satisfy the 

infrastructure SIP requirements relating 

to interstate transport in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA pursuant to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, DNREC will 

have completed conducting the public 

participation procedures required by 

section 110(a) of the CAA on the 

December 9, 2010 supplement to its 

September 16, 2009 SIP revision. Once 

those procedures are completed, DNREC 

will formally submit the technical 

analysis to EPA, along with all required 

administrative documentation, as a final 

supplement to the September 16, 2009 

SIP revision. Delaware’s December 9, 

2010 request for parallel-processing of 

the technical analysis was done 

pursuant to the procedures of 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix v at section 2.3. 

It should be noted that this proposed 

rulemaking action addresses only those 

portions of Delaware’s September 16, 

2009 submittal which address the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating 

to significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At 

this time, EPA is not taking action on 

any additional requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) or on any other portions 

of Delaware’s September 16, 2009 

submittal. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA revised the 24-hour average PM2.5

primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 

35 μg/m3 which became effective on 

December 18, 2006. Section 110(a)(1) of 

the CAA requires States to submit 

infrastructure SIP revisions to address a 

new or revised NAAQS within three 

years after promulgation of such 

standards, or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe.1 As provided by 

section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a 

determination that a SIP submittal is 

complete under section 110(k)(1), the 

Administrator shall act on the plan. As 

authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, where portions of the State 

submittals are severable, EPA may 

propose to approve only those severable 

portions of the submittals that meet the 

requirements of the CAA. When the 

deficient provisions are not severable 

from all of the submitted provisions, 

EPA must propose disapproval of the 

submittals, consistent with section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA. 

Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements 

that such new infrastructure SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued its 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

NAAQS’’ (hereafter the 2009 Guidance). 

EPA developed the 2009 Guidance to 

inform States making submissions to 

meet the requirements of section 110, 

including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS due on 

September 16, 2009. 

As identified in EPA’s 2009 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2855 

2See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010). 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another State in the 

ways contemplated in the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The SIP 

must prevent sources in the State from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

States; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

States; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other States. 

In its 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated 

that SIP submissions from States 

pertaining to the ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ and ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) must contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from within the State that 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

State. EPA further indicated that the 

State’s submission must explain 

whether or not emissions from the State 

have this impact and, if so, address the 

impact. EPA stated that the State’s 

conclusion must be supported by an 

adequate technical analysis. EPA 

recommended the various types of 

information that could be relevant to 

support the State SIP submission, such 

as information concerning emissions in 

the State, meteorological conditions in 

the State and the potentially impacted 

States, monitored ambient 

concentrations in the State, and air 

quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA 

indicated that States should address the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirement independently, which 

requires an evaluation of impacts on 

areas of other States that are meeting the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely 

areas designated nonattainment. Lastly, 

in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that 

States could not rely on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS because CAIR does not address 

this NAAQS. 

EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 

2005 (See 70 FR 25162). The CAIR 

required States to reduce emissions of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) that significantly 

contribute to, and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for 

PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind 

State. The CAIR was intended to 

provide States covered by the rule with 

a mechanism to satisfy their CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to 

address significant contribution to 

downwind nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance in 

another State with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many States 

adopted CAIR’s provisions and 

submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate 

compliance with CAIR’s requirements 

in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations for those two criteria 

pollutants. 

EPA was sued by a number of parties 

on various aspects of CAIR, and on July 

11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit issued 

its decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in their 

entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008). 

However, in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing, the Court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The Court 

thereby left CAIR in place in order to 

‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR’’ until EPA 

replaces it with a rule consistent with 

the Court’s opinion. Id. at 1178. The 

Court directed EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s 

flaws’’ consistent with its July 11, 2008, 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing that 

action. Id. 

In order to address the judicial 

remand of CAIR, on August 2, 2010, 

EPA proposed a new rule to address 

interstate transport pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone’’ (hereafter the 

Transport Rule).2 As part of the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

specifically examined the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that 

emissions from sources in a State must 

not ‘‘significantly contribute to 

nonattainment’’ and ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by other States. The modeling 

performed by EPA for the proposed 

Transport Rule indicates that emissions 

from the State of Delaware significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in another State. The 

Transport Rule Federal Implementation 

Plan, (hereafter the Transport Rule FIP), 

as proposed, thus covers the State of 

Delaware. 

The State of Delaware had not 

expected to be subject to or covered by 

the proposed Transport Rule FIP. The 

State’s expectation that it would not be 

covered was based on its periodic 

emission inventories (PEI) for PM2.5 and 

three Delaware regulations that had 

been approved by EPA into the 

Delaware SIP to control PM2.5 precursor 

emissions. On September 16, 2009, 

Delaware submitted a SIP revision to 

address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirement that emissions from sources 

in a State must not ‘‘significantly 

contribute to nonattainment’’ and 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another State. 

The State of Delaware’s expectation was 

and is that EPA would approve that SIP 

revision. 

On October 1, 2010, DNREC 

submitted timely, extensive comments 

to the rulemaking docket of the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP (see 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0491). These comments identify several 

errors and omissions which DNREC 

believes were made by EPA in the 

modeling and analyses performed for 

the proposed Transport Rule FIP with 

regard to the State of Delaware. It is 

DNREC’s contention that once EPA fully 

considers its October 1, 2010 comments 

submitted on the proposed Transport 

Rule FIP, that EPA will conclude that 

the State of Delaware does not 

contribute to nonattainment and does 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another 

State. It is Delaware’s position that its 

SIP approved rules in conjunction with 

applicable Federal rules achieve 

emission reductions in PM2.5 precursors 

such that emissions from the State of 

Delaware neither significantly 

contribute to any other State’s 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS nor interfere with the ability of 

any other State to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Further, Delaware contends 

that existing Federal rules (not 

including CAIR) and State rules 

approved into its existing SIP, keep 

Delaware’s emissions below the caps 

that EPA proposed to set for the State 

of Delaware in the proposed Transport 

Rule FIP. Both DNREC’s comments on 

the proposed Transport Rule and its 

December 9, 2010 supplemental 

technical analysis include 

comprehensive documentation of the 

emissions of SO2 and NOx from 

Delaware’s PEI, and a thorough 

explanation of the differences between 

the PEI and the emissions in the 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

used by EPA in performing the 

modeling and analyses in support of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3Regulation 1146—Electric Generating Unit 

Multi-Pollutant Regulation. Final rule published 

August 28, 2008 (73 FR 50723), effective September 

29, 2008. Regulation 1148—Control of Stationary 

Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit 

Emissions. Final rule published November 10, 2008 

(73 FR 66554), effective December 10, 2008. 

Regulation 1142, Section 2—Control of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions from Industrial Boilers and 

Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries. Final rule 

published on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31711), effective 

July 6, 2010. Correction notice done (for table) on 

June 10, 2010 (75 FR 32858). Note: Regulation 1142 

was not referred to in DNREC’s September 16, 2009 

submittal as it was adopted by Delaware on October 

14, 2009, effective November 11, 2009, and SIP 

approved on June 4, 2010. It is referred to in 

DNREC’s December 9, 2010 supplemental submittal 

as another regulation imposing BACT level controls 

for PM2.5 precursors and SIP-approved by EPA. 

proposed Transport Rule. The DNREC 

contends that the State of Delaware 

should not be subject to and covered by 

the final Transport Rule FIP, and that 

EPA should approve its September 16, 

2009 SIP submittal as supplemented by 

the technical analysis submitted on 

December 9, 2010. 

III. Description of the SIP Revision 

Submitted by the State of Delaware 

In order to meet the ‘‘three-years from 

promulgation due date’’ of September 

16, 2009 for submittal of the 

infrastructure SIP elements required by 

section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated on 

September 16, 2006; on September 16, 

2009, the State of Delaware submitted a 

SIP revision to address the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Because EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) NAAQS’’ was not 

issued until September 25, 2009, 

DNREC contends it could not have met 

the September 16, 2009 statutory due 

date had it waited for EPA’s guidance to 

prepare and submit its infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

DNREC makes the point that until the 

2009 Guidance was issued, Delaware 

was not aware that a technical analysis 

was required to be part of a SIP 

submittal to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. It is DNREC’s contention that 

its October 1, 2010 comments submitted 

to EPA on the proposed Transport Rule 

(see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491) meet the 2009 Guidance’s 

requirement for a technical analysis in 

support of its September 16, 2009 SIP 

submittal to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Despite this contention and in 

the best interests of the State of 

Delaware, DNREC submitted a 

supplement to its September 16, 2009 

submittal dated December 9, 2010 

which consists of a technical analysis to 

support the September 16, 2009 

submittal. The DNREC’s December 9, 

2010 supplement uses the comments, 

data, and information submitted by 

Delaware on the proposed Transport 

Rule to form the basis of a technical 

analysis in support of its September 16, 

2009 SIP revision to comply with EPA’s 

September 25, 2009 Guidance. In its 

September 16, 2009 and December 9, 

2010 submissions, DNREC indicates that 

the State of Delaware has complied with 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements of the CAA, addressing 

interstate transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, through promulgation of: 

A. 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, Electric 

Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant 

Regulation, 

B. 7 DE Admin. Code 1142, Section 2, 

Control of NOX Emissions from 

Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at 

Petroleum Refineries, and 

C. 7 DE Admin. Code 1148, Control of 

Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric 

Generating Unit Emissions. 

Each of the above regulations imposes 

a level of control based upon Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT), 

and significantly reduces emissions 

from Delaware’s largest Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs), industrial 

boilers, and peaking units. These 

regulations have been approved by the 

EPA as revisions to Delaware’s SIP.3

Both Delaware’s entire September 16, 

2009 SIP submittal and the entire 

December 9, 2010 supplement to the 

September 16, 2009 submittal are 

included in the rulemaking docket for 

today’s proposed action (see Docket ID 

No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1027). As 

previously stated, it is Delaware’s 

position that its SIP-approved rules in 

conjunction with applicable Federal 

rules (not including CAIR) achieve 

emission reductions in PM2.5 precursors 

such that emissions from the State of 

Delaware neither significantly 

contribute to any other State’s 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS nor interfere with the ability of 

any other State to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Further, Delaware contends 

that these emission reductions keep 

Delaware’s emissions below the caps 

EPA proposed to set for the State of 

Delaware in the proposed Transport 

Rule. 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

State’s submittals? 

On September 16, 2009, the State of 

Delaware submitted a SIP revision to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) 

of the CAA, pursuant to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA subsequently published a 

Federal Register notice on June 3, 2010 

(75 FR 31340) proposing approval of 

certain elements, or portions thereof, of 

Delaware’s SIP submittals for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. At that time, EPA did 

not take any proposed action on any 

portion of Delaware’s SIP submittals to 

address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 1997 ozone or the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s 

action is proposing approval and, in the 

alternative, proposing disapproval of 

that portion of Delaware’s September 

16, 2009 submittal, as supplemented on 

December 9, 2010, pertaining to the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements 

relating to significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Delaware has determined that it has 

complied with the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, through the 

promulgation of its SIP-approved 

regulations to reduce PM2.5 precursor 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs, 

industrial boilers, and peaking units. 

Delaware started with the assumption 

that it did significantly impact 

downwind areas and moved forward 

and regulated NOX and SO2 emissions 

from its large EGU and industrial boilers 

including EGUs with small annual 

emissions, but high daily emissions 

(typically referred to as high energy 

demand day units) with BACT level 

controls. Because of this, Delaware 

believes it has clearly mitigated 

transport and has adequately addressed 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

On August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45210), 

EPA proposed a Transport Rule FIP that 

would, if finalized as proposed, identify 

the emission reductions needed in 32 

States in the eastern United States to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

sources within a State from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment in or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other State. The 

proposed Transport Rule would replace 

CAIR and would address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The modeling and 

analyses conducted by EPA for the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP indicated 

that emissions from Delaware 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in downwind areas. Therefore, Delaware 

is among those States identified in the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP as 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2857 

maintenance in downwind States. EPA 

received significant comments on this 

rulemaking from the State of Delaware 

and others, and is in the process of 

reviewing those comments. As noted 

previously, DNREC submitted extensive 

comments and technical data to support 

its contention that the State of Delaware 

has been inappropriately named as a 

State that needs to be covered by the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP. EPA will 

be considering and responding to the 

comments submitted by Delaware on 

the proposed Transport Rule in the 

context of that rulemaking. 

Delaware’s December 9, 2010 

supplemental technical analysis in 

support of its September 16, 2009 SIP 

revision includes information and data 

to support its assertion that the 2005 

base year emission inventories that EPA 

used in its analysis of Delaware’s 

contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

were flawed. Delaware asserts that the 

emissions inventories used by EPA were 

significantly higher than those Delaware 

submitted to EPA in its 2005 PEI. 

Delaware also asserts that EPA failed to 

consider emission reductions required 

by a number of Delaware rules that have 

been approved by EPA into the State 

SIP. In its supplemental technical 

analysis, Delaware contends, therefore, 

that EPA’s projections of Delaware’s 

2012 emissions are inflated. If correct 

data had been used, Delaware asserts, 

the methodology used by EPA in the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP to identify 

States with emissions that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in other States would 

demonstrate that Delaware has no such 

emissions. The DNREC also contends 

that if correct data were used, EPA’s 

2012 base case EGU SO2 emissions 

projections would be lower than the SO2

budgets EPA proposed to establish for 

EGUs in Delaware in the proposed 

Transport Rule FIP. In addition, DNREC 

contends EPA’s Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM) 2012 EGU NOX emission 

projections for Delaware are less than 

the NOX budgets EPA proposed to 

establish for Delaware in the proposed 

Transport Rule FIP. For these additional 

reasons, DNREC argues EPA should not 

have proposed to include Delaware in 

the proposed Transport Rule FIP and 

should not include Delaware in the final 

Transport Rule FIP. 

As stated previously, DNREC’s 

October 1, 2010 comments on the 

proposed Transport Rule FIP, including 

its documentation of the corrections that 

it contends should be made to the 2005 

emission inventories and the 2012 

projection inventories for all sectors of 

PM2.5 precursors, are in the docket for 

that proposed rulemaking (see Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491) and 

form the basis for Delaware’s conclusion 

that it should not be among the States 

covered by the final Transport Rule FIP. 

Copies of Delaware’s September 16, 

2009 SIP submittal and the entire 

technical analysis submitted by DNREC 

as a supplement to that SIP on 

December 9, 2010 are included in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking 

(see Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR– 

2010–1027). That technical analysis also 

includes Delaware’s documentation of 

the corrections that it contends should 

be made to the 2005 emission 

inventories and the 2012 projection 

inventories for all sectors of PM2.5

precursors in support of its conclusion 

that it should not be among the States 

covered by the final Transport Rule FIP 

and that its September 16, 2009 SIP 

revision, as supplemented on December 

9, 2010, should be approved as 

satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

infrastructure SIP requirement for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is considering the comments it 

received on the August 2, 2010 

proposed Transport Rule FIP including 

those from the State of Delaware. EPA 

is in the process performing additional 

modeling and making technical 

adjustments to its analyses pursuant to 

the comments received before 

promulgating the final Transport Rule 

FIP. Final determinations regarding 

which States are covered by the 

Transport Rule FIP and what reductions 

are necessary in the covered States will 

be made in the final Transport Rule FIP. 

Today’s rulemaking proposes to approve 

and, in the alternative, proposes to 

disapprove Delaware’s September 16, 

2009 SIP submittal as supplemented on 

December 9, 2010. The final action on 

this SIP revision will take into 

consideration the results of the 

additional modeling performed and 

technical adjustments made by EPA 

pursuant to the comments received on 

the proposed Transport Rule FIP. 

Should EPA’s updated modeling and 

the technical adjustments to our 

analyses lead us to conclude that the 

State of Delaware should not be subject 

to or covered by the final Transport Rule 

FIP, it is our intention to take final 

action to approve Delaware’s September 

16, 2009 SIP as supplemented on 

December 9, 2010. Should EPA’s 

updated modeling and technical 

adjustments to our analyses for the 

Transport Rule lead us to conclude that 

even after consideration of all comments 

submitted by DNREC, the State of 

Delaware significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other State, it is EPA’s intention 

to disapprove the September 16, 2009 

SIP as supplemented on December 9, 

2010. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. Comments 

may be submitted as explained in the 

ADDRESSES portion of this proposed 

rulemaking notice. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve and, in 

the alternative, proposing to disapprove 

the portion of Delaware’s SIP revision 

submitted on September 16, 2009 as 

supplemented on December 9, 2010 

pursuant to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The December 9, 2010 

supplemental submittal is being 

considered under a procedure called 

parallel processing, whereby EPA 

proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the State’s procedures 

for amending its SIP. The final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision supplement 

has been formally submitted to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP. 

As stated previously, if in the course 

of reviewing and preparing responses to 

the comments submitted on the 

proposed Transport Rule including 

those from DNREC, EPA’s additional 

modeling and the adjustments made to 

its technical analyses indicate that the 

State of Delaware should not be subject 

to or covered by the final Transport Rule 

FIP, it is EPA’s intention to take final 

action to approve DNREC’s September 

16, 2009 SIP submission for 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as 

supplemented on December 9, 2010. 

Alternatively, if in the course of 

reviewing and preparing responses to 

the comments submitted on the 

proposed Transport Rule including 

those from DNREC, EPA’s additional 

modeling and the adjustments made to 

its technical analyses indicate that 

Delaware should be subject to and 

covered by the final Transport Rule FIP, 

it is EPA’s intention to take final action 

to disapprove Delaware’s September 16, 

2009 SIP submission for infrastructure 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS as supplemented on 

December 9, 2010. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

addresses a requirement of a part D plan 

(42 U.S.C.A. sections 7501–7515) or is 

required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a 

sanctions clock. The provisions in the 

submittal were not submitted to meet 

either of those requirements. Therefore, 

any final EPA action to disapprove 

Delaware’s September 16, 2009 section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submittal and the 

accompanying technical analysis, would 

not trigger any sanctions. 

Any full or partial disapproval of a 

SIP revision triggers the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the date of the disapproval unless 

the State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. If EPA were to 

conclude that the Delaware SIP revision 

discussed in this notice should be 

disapproved, the Transport Rule, when 

final, would be the FIP that EPA would 

intend to implement for the State. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 act on State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the 

Executive Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed action under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA will not in-and-of itself create 

any new information collection burdens 

but simply proposes to approve and, in 

the alternative, proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. After considering 

the economic impacts of today’s 

proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

that this proposed action will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

or create impacts on small entities. This 

proposed action under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply proposes to 

approve and, in the alternative, 

proposes to disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this proposed action does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this proposed action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of this proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed action 

does not include a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs of $100 

million or more to either State, local, or 

Tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector. This action 

proposes to approve and, in the 

alternative, proposes to disapprove preexisting requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects 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.’’ This 

proposed action does not have 

Federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve and, in the 

alternative, proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this proposed action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA 

is proposing to approve and, in the 

alternative, proposing to disapprove 

would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2859 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed action 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

proposes to approve and, in the 

alternative, proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. EPA 

believes that this proposed action is not 

subject to the requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

lacks the discretionary authority to 

address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

proposed action on Delaware’s 

September 16, 2009 SIP submission, as 

supplemented on December 9, 2010, to 

address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS merely proposes to 

approve and, in the alternative, 

proposes to disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA and will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA 

with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: January 6, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–907 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0881; FRL–9252–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Adoption of 8-hour Ozone Standard 

and Related Reference Conditions, and 

Update of Appendices 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia for the 

purpose of adding the 2008 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm), related reference 

conditions, and updating the list of 

appendices under ‘‘Documents 

Incorporated by Reference.’’ In the Final 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the Commonwealth’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by February 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0881 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0881, 

Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

0881. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1