Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23193 

The individual States of the United 

States are not represented at the IMO as 

that is the role of the Federal 

Government. The U.S. Coast Guard is 

the principal agency responsible for 

advancing the interests of the United 

States at the IMO. In this role, we solicit 

comments from the stakeholders 

through public meetings and develop a 

unified U.S. position prior to attending 

sessions of the IMO Subcommittee on 

Safety of Navigation and the Maritime 

Safety Committee where TSSs are 

discussed. 

F. 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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This 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. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

We have reviewed this rule under 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. Rulemakings that are 

determined to have ‘‘tribal implications’’ 

under that Order (i.e., those that 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) 

require the preparation of a tribal 

summary impact statement. This rule 

will not have implications of the kind 

envisioned under the Order because it 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

preempt tribal law, or substantially 

affect lands or rights held exclusively 

by, or on behalf of, those governments. 

Whether or not the Executive Order 

applies in this case, it is the policy of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

and the U.S. Coast Guard to engage in 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in 

policy decisions that have tribal 

implications under the Presidential 

Memorandum of November 5, 2009, 

(74 FR 57881, November 9, 2009), and 

to seek out and consult with Native 

Americans on all of its rulemakings that 

may affect them. We regularly consulted 

and collaborated with the Tribes 

throughout the PARS and this 

rulemaking. For a complete discussion 

of these consultations see the interim 

rule (75 FR 70818, 70825). 

In the IR, the Coast Guard invited 

comments on how the codification of 

the existing TSSs might impact tribal 

governments, even if that impact may 

not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’ 

under the Order. We received no 

comments to our request. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their regulatory 

activities unless the agency provides 

Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards, nor is the Coast Guard aware 

of the existence of any standards that 

address these TSSs. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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 rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction. 

This rule involves navigational aids, 

which include TSSs. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Waterways. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR part 167, subpart B, 

which was published at 75 FR 70818 on 

November 19, 2010, is adopted as a final 

rule. 

Dated: April 11, 2011. 

Dana A. Goward, 

U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine 

Transportation Systems Management. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9895 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 167 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0718] 

RIN 1625–AB55 

Traffic Separation Schemes: In the 

Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston, 

MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and 

Buzzards Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay, 

VA, and Cape Fear River, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

23194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing 

without change its December 13, 2010, 

interim rule codifying traffic separation 

schemes in the approaches to Portland, 

ME; in the approaches to Boston, MA; 

in the approaches to Narragansett Bay, 

RI and Buzzards Bay, MA; and in the 

approaches to the Cape Fear River, NC, 

and updating the then-current 

regulations for the traffic separation 

scheme in the approaches to 

Chesapeake Bay, VA. The Coast Guard 

established these traffic separation 

schemes under authority of the Ports 

and Waterways Safety Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2010–0718 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0718 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, contact 

Mr. George Detweiler, U.S. Coast Guard 

Office of Navigation Systems, telephone 

202–372–1566, or e-mail 

George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Background 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

2004 Act Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004 

ATBA Area to be Avoided 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

PARS Port Access Route Study 

PAWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Regulatory History 

On December 13, 2010, the Coast 

Guard published an interim rule (75 FR 

77529) that codified existing Traffic 

Separation Schemes (TSSs) in the 

Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston, 

MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and Buzzards 

Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay, VA; and 

Cape Fear River, NC. The Coast Guard 

did not publish a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule under 

the Administrative Procedure Act ‘‘good 

cause’’ exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

The interim rule sought comments on 

the enumerated TSSs. The comment 

period closed December 28, 2010, and 

we received no public comments on the 

interim rule. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. 

The interim rule became effective on 

January 12, 2011. There are no changes 

from the interim rule to this final rule. 

III. Background 

With this rule, the Coast Guard 

finalizes without change the 

codification of the traffic separation 

schemes (TSSs) identified above. The 

Coast Guard created each of these TSSs 

after conducting a Port Access Route 

Study (PARS) in accordance with the 

Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

(PAWSA) 33 U.S.C. 1221–1232. Each 

TSS that is part of this rulemaking is 

shown on nautical charts, is described 

in the United States Coast Pilot, was 

implemented by the International 

Maritime Organization, and is described 

in ‘‘Ships Routeing,’’ Tenth Edition, 

2010. Each TSS has also been codified 

in the CFR since January 12, 2011, when 

the interim rule became effective. For a 

full discussion of the basis and purpose 

of this rulemaking see the interim rule 

(75 FR 77529, 77530). 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

We received no public comments in 

response to our interim rule. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard has made 

no changes in this final rule. A full 

discussion of the provisions of this rule 

may be found in the ‘‘Discussion of 

Interim Rule’’ section of the interim rule. 

(75 FR 77529, at 77531). 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this final rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

We summarize our analyses based on 13 

of these statutes or executive orders in 

the paragraphs that follow. 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

This 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, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

As previously discussed, the TSSs 

finalized by this final rule were codified 

by the interim rule, implemented by 

IMO, and are reflected on current 

nautical charts and in nautical 

publications. We anticipate no 

increased costs for vessels traveling 

within the aforementioned areas. These 

internationally recognized traffic 

separation schemes provide better 

routing order and predictability, 

increase maritime safety, and reduce the 

potential for collisions, groundings, and 

hazardous cargo spills. 

By finalizing the interim rule we 

complete the process of recording the 

latitudes and longitudes of the TSSs’ 

coordinates in the CFR tables and make 

it easier for the public to reference our 

regulations when recommending 

modifications or other operational 

considerations. This rule finalizes 

incorporation of the TSSs in the CFR 

and does not impact mariner actions or 

expectations. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this final rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises 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. 

As this rule serves to finalize in the 

CFR TSSs that have already been 

implemented, we estimate that there 

will be no increased costs due to this 

rule. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23195 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on it, please submit a 

comment to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. 

In your comment, explain why you 

think it qualifies and how and to what 

degree this rule would economically 

affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If you 

believe this rule affects your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mr. George 

Detweiler, Office of Navigation Systems, 

telephone 202–372–1566. The U.S. 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. 

We have analyzed this rule under that 

Order and have determined that it has 

federalism implications. Conflict 

preemption principles apply to PWSA 

Title I, and the TSSs in this rule are 

issued under the authority of PWSA 

Title I. These TSSs are specifically 

intended to have preemptive impact 

over State law covering the same subject 

matter in the same geographic area. 

Title I of PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1221 et 

seq.) authorizes the Secretary to issue 

regulations to designate TSSs to provide 

safe access routes for the movement of 

vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports 

or places subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States. In enacting the PWSA 

in 1972, Congress found that advance 

planning and consultation with the 

affected States and other stakeholders 

was necessary in the development and 

implementation of a TSS. Throughout 

the history of the development of the 

TSSs that are the subject of this rule, we 

have sought input from the public and 

consulted with the affected State and 

Federal pilots’ associations, vessel 

operators, users, environmental 

advocacy groups, and all affected 

stakeholders. 

Presently, there are no state laws or 

regulations in the States affected by this 

rule concerning the same subjects as 

those contained in this rule. We 

understand that the affected States do 

not contemplate issuing any such 

regulations. It should be noted that, by 

virtue of the PWSA authority, the TSSs 

in this rule preempt any State rule on 

the same subject. 

Foreign vessel owners and operators 

usually become aware of TSSs when the 

TSSs are added to the United States 

Coast Pilot and the nautical charts that 

are required by 33 CFR 164.33 to be on 

each ship operating in U.S. waters. 

Foreign vessel owners and operators 

also become aware of TSSs through 

their national IMO delegation and IMO 

publications. 

The individual States of the United 

States are not represented at the IMO as 

that is the role of the Federal 

Government. The U.S. Coast Guard is 

the principal agency responsible for 

advancing the interests of the United 

States at the IMO. In this role, we solicit 

comments from the stakeholders 

through public meetings and develop a 

unified U.S. position prior to attending 

sessions of the IMO Subcommittee on 

Safety of Navigation and the Maritime 

Safety Committee where TSSs are 

discussed. 

F. 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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This 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. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

We have reviewed this rule under 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. Rulemakings that are 

determined to have ‘‘tribal implications’’ 

under that Order (i.e., those that 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) 

require the preparation of a tribal 

summary impact statement. This rule 

will not have implications of the kind 

envisioned under the Order because it 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

preempt tribal law, or substantially 

affect lands or rights held exclusively 

by, or on behalf of, those governments. 

Whether or not the Executive Order 

applies in this case, it is the policy of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

and the U.S. Coast Guard to engage in 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in 

policy decisions that have tribal 

implications under the Presidential 

Memorandum of November 5, 2009, 

(74 FR 57881, November 9, 2009), and 

to seek out and consult with Native 

Americans on all of its rulemakings that 

may affect them. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

23196 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their regulatory 

activities unless the agency provides 

Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards, nor is the Coast Guard aware 

of the existence of any standards that 

address these TSSs. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction. 

This rule involves navigational aids, 

which include TSSs. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Waterways. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR part 167, subpart B, 

which was published at 75 FR 77529 on 

December 13, 2010, is adopted as a final 

rule. 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Dana A. Goward, 

U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine 

Transportation Systems Management. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9892 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0946; FRL–9294–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; IL 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Illinois State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for ozone. The State is revising its 

definition of volatile organic compound 

(VOC) to add two chemical compounds 

to the list of compounds that are exempt 

from being considered a VOC. This 

revision is based on EPA’s 2009 

determination that these two 

compounds do not significantly 

contribute to ozone formation. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 27, 2011, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 26, 

2011. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0946, 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) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0946. 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 docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Charles 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, (312) 

886–6031 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES