68378 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3Available at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/samm/. 

based on a ‘‘cost pool’’ as defined in 

§ 165.3 of this part. For a system that 

includes more than one component, a 

‘‘building block’’ approach (i.e., the sum 

of NC recoupment charges for 

individual components) shall be used to 

determine the NC recoupment charge 

for the sale of the entire system. 

(b) The NC recoupment charge shall 

not apply when a waiver for the specific 

customer/case has been approved by 

USD(P), in accordance with § 165.7 of 

this part, or when sales are financed 

with U.S. Government funds made 

available on a non-repayable basis. 

Approved revised NC recoupment 

charges shall not be applied 

retroactively to accepted foreign 

military sales agreements. 

(c) When major defense equipment is 

sold at a reduced price due to age or 

condition, the NC recoupment charge 

shall be reduced by the same percentage 

reduction. 

(d) The full amount of ‘‘special’’ 

research, development, test, and 

evaluation and nonrecurring production 

costs incurred for the benefit of 

particular customers shall be paid by 

those customers. However, when a 

subsequent purchaser requests the same 

specialized features that resulted from 

the added ‘‘special’’ research, 

development, test, and evaluation and 

nonrecurring production costs, a pro 

rata share of those costs may be paid by 

the subsequent purchaser and 

transferred to the original customer if 

those special NCs exceed 50 million 

dollars. The pro rata share may be a unit 

charge determined by the DoD 

Component as a result of distribution of 

the total costs divided by the total 

production. Such reimbursements shall 

not be collected after 10 years have 

elapsed since acceptance of the ‘‘Letter 

of Offer and Acceptance’’ DoD 5105.38– 

M,3 by the original customer, unless 

otherwise authorized by USD(P). The 

U.S. Government shall not be charged 

any NC recoupment charges if it adopts 

the features for its own use or provides 

equipment with such features under a 

U.S. grant aid or similar program. 

(e) For co-production, codevelopment and cooperative 

development, or cooperative production 

DoD agreements, the policy in this part 

shall determine the allocation basis for 

recouping from the third-party 

purchasers the investment costs of the 

participants. Such DoD agreements shall 

provide for the application of the 

policies in this part to sales to third 

parties by any of the parties to the 

agreement and for the distribution of 

recoupment among the parties to the 

agreement. 

§ 165.7 Waivers (including reductions). 

(a) Section 21(e)(10)(B) of Public Law 

90–629, as amended, requires the 

recoupment of a proportionate amount 

of NCs of major defense equipment from 

foreign military sales customers but 

Section 21(e)(2) authorizes 

consideration of reductions or waivers 

for particular sales which, if made, 

significantly advance U.S. Government 

interests and the furtherance of mutual 

defense treaties between the United 

States and certain countries. Waivers 

may also be authorized if imposition of 

a NC recoupment charge likely would 

result in the loss of the sale; or, in the 

case of a sale of major defense 

equipment that is also being procured 

for the use of the Armed Forces, result 

in savings to the United States on the 

cost of the equipment procured for the 

Armed Forces, through a resulting 

increase in the total quantity of 

equipment purchased from the source of 

the equipment causing a reduction in 

the unit cost of the equipment, 

substantially offsetting the revenue 

foregone by reason of waiving the 

charge. Any increase in a NC 

recoupment charge previously 

considered appropriate under Section 

21(e)(1)(B) may be waived if the 

increase results from a correction of an 

estimate (reasonable when made) of the 

production quantity base that was used 

for calculating the charge. 

(b) Requests for waivers should 

originate with the foreign government 

and shall provide information on the 

extent of standardization to be derived 

as a result of the waiver. 

(1) Blanket waiver requests should not 

be submitted and shall not be 

considered. The term ‘‘blanket waiver’’ 

refers to a NC recoupment charge waiver 

that is not related to a particular sale; for 

example, waivers for all sales to a 

country or all sales of a weapon system. 

(2) A waiver request shall not be 

considered for a sale that was accepted 

without a NC recoupment charge 

waiver, unless the acceptance was 

conditional on consideration of the 

waiver request. 

(3) Requests for waivers shall be 

processed expeditiously, and a decision 

normally made to either approve or 

disapprove the request within 60 days 

after receipt. A waiver in whole or in 

part of the recoupment charge or a 

denial of the request shall be provided 

in writing to the appropriate DoD 

Component. 

Dated: October 31, 2011. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28601 Filed 11–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0801; FRL–9487–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and 

West Virginia; Determinations of 

Attainment of the 1997 Fine Particle 

Standard for the Metropolitan 

Washington and MartinsburgHagerstown Nonattainment Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Metropolitan 

Washington, District of ColumbiaMaryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA) and 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, West VirginiaMaryland (WV-MD) fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment areas (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘Areas’’) have attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. These determinations are based 

upon complete, quality-assured, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2007–2009 monitoring period. EPA 

is finding these Areas to be in 

attainment, in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0801 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0801, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Quality 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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 68379 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0801. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background of these actions? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

IV. What are the effects of these actions? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

In accordance with section 179(c)(1) 

of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5

nonattainment area and the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD PM2.5

nonattainment area have attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. The proposal is based upon 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data for the 

2007–2009 monitoring period. 

II. What is the background for these 

actions? 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established a health-based PM2.5

NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS’’ or ‘‘the annual 

standard’’). At that time, EPA also 

established a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 (the ‘‘1997 24-hour standard’’). See 

40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 

944), EPA published its air quality 

designations and classifications for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air 

quality monitoring data from those 

monitors for calendar years 2001–2003. 

These designations became effective on 

April 5, 2005. The Metropolitan 

Washington, DC-MD-VA and the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 

nonattainment areas were designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS during this designations 

process. See 40 CFR part 81.309 (the 

District), 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland), 40 

CFR 81.347 (Virginia), and 40 CFR 

81.349 (West Virginia). 

The Metropolitan Washington 1997 

annual PM2.5 nonattainment area 

consists of the District of Columbia (the 

District), a Northern Virginia portion 

(Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and 

Prince William Counties and the cities 

of Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax, 

Manassas, and Manassas Park), and 

Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and 

Prince George’s Counties in Maryland. 

The Martinsburg-Hagerstown 1997 

annual PM2.5 nonattainment area 

consists of Washington County in 

Maryland and Berkley County in West 

Virginia. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS at 15 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and promulgated a 24- 

hour standard of 35 mg/m3 based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations (the ‘‘2006 24- 

hour standard’’). On November 13, 

2009, EPA designated the MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD and Metropolitan 

Washington, DC-MD-VA areas as 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

standard (74 FR 58688). In that action, 

EPA also clarified the designations for 

the NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 

stating that these geographical Areas 

were designated as nonattainment for 

the annual standard, but attainment for 

the 1997 24-hour standard (40 CFR part 

81.309 for the District, 40 CFR part 

81.321 for Maryland, 40 CFR part 81.347 

for Virginia, and 40 CFR part 81.349 for 

West Virginia). Today’s action, however, 

does not address attainment 

designations of either the 1997 or the 

2006 24-hour standard. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

annual standard promulgated in 2006, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

remanded this standard to EPA for 

further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual 

standards are essentially identical, 

attainment of the 1997 annual standard 

would also indicate attainment of the 

remanded 2006 annual standard. 

EPA previously made clean data 

determinations related to the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for each of these 

Areas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

Determinations were made for the 

Metropolitan Washington Area on 

January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146) and for 

the Martinsburg-Hagerstown Area on 

November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199). 

These clean data determinations remain 

in effect. 

Under CAA section 179(c), EPA is 

required to make a determination that a 

nonattainment area has attained by its 

attainment date, and publish that 

determination in the Federal Register. 

The determination of attainment is not 

equivalent to a redesignation, and the 

states must still meet the statutory 

requirements for redesignation in order 

for the Areas to be redesignated to 

attainment. 

Complete, quality-assured, and 

certified PM2.5 air quality monitoring 

data recorded in the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS) database for 2007 through 

2009, show that the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC-MD-VA and the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by their 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 50 and recorded in the data in 

the EPA AQS database for the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA 

and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WVMD nonattainment areas for the 

monitoring period from 2007 through 

2009. On the basis of that review, EPA 

has concluded that the Areas attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

data for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.7, the annual primary and secondary 

PM2.5 standards are met when the 

annual arithmetic mean concentrations, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or 

equal to 15.0 mg/m3, at all relevant 

monitoring sites. The values calculated 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, are referred to as design 

values, and these values are used to 

determine if an area is attaining the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. According to the PM2.5

implementation rule, the attainment 

date for these Areas is April 5, 2010 and 

the monitoring data from 2007 through 

2009 is used to determine if the Areas 

attained by April 5, 2010. 

Table 1 shows the annual PM2.5

design values for each monitor in the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA 

and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WVMD areas for the years 2007–2009. All 

2007–2009 design values are below 15.0 

mg/m3. Based on these data, the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA 

and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WVMD areas have attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date. A 

detailed summary of EPA’s rationale for 

proposing these determinations may be 

found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this action which is 

available on line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0801. 

TABLE 1—1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AND MARTINSBURGHAGERSTOWN, WV-MD AREAS * 

State County Monitor ID 2007 

Annual mean 

2008 

Annual mean 

2009 

Annual mean 

Certified 

design value 

2007–2009 

(μg/m3) 

Metropolitan Washington, DC-VA-MD 

DC ........................................ District of Columbia ............. 110010041 ... 13.6 12.0 10.5 12.0 

District of Columbia ............. 110010042 ... 13.7 12.3 10.1 12.1 

District of Columbia ............. 110010043 ... 13.0 11.6 10.2 11.6 

VA ........................................ Alexandria ........................... No monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Arlington .............................. 510130020 ... 13.8 12.0 10.1 11.9 

Fairfax ................................. 510590030 ... 12.5 11.1 9.8 11.1 

Farifax County ..................... 510591005 ... 13.3 11.2 9.5 11.3 

Fairfax ................................. 510595001 ... 13.5 11.8 9.7 11.7 

Falls Church ........................ No monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Loudoun .............................. 511071005 ... 12.8 11.5 9.2 11.2 

Manassas ............................ No monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Manassas Park ................... No monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

MD ....................................... Charles ................................ No monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Frederick ............................. No monitor ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Montgomery ........................ 240313001 ... 11.7 10.8 9.4 10.7 

Prince George’s .................. 240330025 ... 14.1 12.4 10.7 12.4 

Prince George’s .................. 240330030 ... 11.8 10.9 8.7 10.5 

Prince George’s .................. 240338003 ... 12.4 11.2 8.8 10.8 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 

WV ....................................... Berkley ................................ 240430009 ... 12.9 11.8 9.7 11.5 

MD ....................................... Washington ......................... 540030003 ... 15.6 14.2 12.1 14.0 

* The data presented in Table 1 are available at http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html. 

IV. What are the effects of these 

actions? 

If EPA’s proposed determination that 

the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MDVA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, 

WV-MD nonattainment areas have 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

by the applicable attainment date (April 

5, 2010) is finalized, EPA will have met 

its requirement pursuant to section 

179(c) of the CAA to make a 

determination based on the Areas’ air 

quality data as of the attainment date 

that the Areas attained the standard by 

that date. The action described above is 

a proposed determination regarding the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA 

and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WVMD Areas’ attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Finalizing this proposed action would 

not constitute a redesignation of the 

Areas to attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of 

the CAA. Further, finalizing this 

proposed action does not involve 

approving maintenance plans for the 

Areas as required under section 175A of 

the CAA, nor would it find that the 

Areas have met all other requirements 

for redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes 

the proposed action, the designation 

status of the Metropolitan Washington, 

DC-MD-VA and the MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD areas would 

remain nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as 

EPA determines that the Areas meet the 

CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment and take action to 

redesignate the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC-MD-VA and the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD areas. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 68381 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

action discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before EPA takes final action. Please 

note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on either of the proposed 

determinations described above and if 

that determination may be severed from 

the remainder of the final agency action, 

EPA may adopt as final these provisions 

of the final agency action that are not 

the subject of an adverse comment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make 

attainment determinations based on air 

quality data and would not, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

Federal requirements and would not 

impose any additional requirements. 

For that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these proposed PM2.5

NAAQS attainment determinations for 

the Metropolitan Washington and 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown Areas, do not 

have Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28648 Filed 11–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0605; FRL–9487–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Clean 

Vehicles Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This 

SIP revision contains Pennsylvania’s 

Clean Vehicle Program, which adopts 

California’s second generation low 

emission vehicle program for light-duty 

vehicles (LEV II). The Clean Air Act 

(CAA) contains specific authority 

allowing any state to adopt new motor 

vehicle emissions standards that are 

identical to California’s standards in 

lieu of applicable Federal standards. 

Pennsylvania has adopted a Clean 

Vehicle Program that incorporates by 

reference provisions of California’s LEV 

II rules and specifies a transition 

mechanism for compliance with these 

clean vehicle standards in 

Pennsylvania. The intended effect of 

this action is to approve, consistent with 

the CAA, a control strategy that will 

help Pennsylvania to achieve and 

maintain attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0605 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0605, 

Cristina Fernandez, 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–2011– 

0605. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS