36468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

visibility as required by CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this 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 interfere with Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)) because EPA lacks the 

discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, this rule does 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, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15238 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0386–201137; FRL9322–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; North 

Carolina: Clean Smokestacks Act 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of North 

Carolina for the purpose of establishing 

in North Carolina’s SIP the system-wide 

emission limitations from the North 

Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA). 

On August 21, 2009, the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air 

Quality (DAQ), submitted an attainment 

demonstration for the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and GreensboroWinston Salem-High Point 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

areas. That submittal includes a request 

that the system-wide emission 

limitations from the North Carolina CSA 

be incorporated into the State’s 

Federally approved SIP. EPA proposes 

to determine that the SIP revision is 

approvable pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0386, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: spann.jane@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9029. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0386, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Jane 

Spann, Acting Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0386.’’ 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36469 

1EPA’s determination that the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and Greensboro-Winston SalemHigh Point PM2.5 nonattainment areas have attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the 

redesignation of the areas to attainment. The 

designation status of the areas remains 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until 

such time as EPA determines that the areas meet all 

of the CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment. See 75 FR 54 (January 4, 2010) and 75 

FR 230 (January 5, 2010), respectively. 

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 at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that, if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey or Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Huey 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via 

electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. 

Ms. Ward may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9140 or via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background of North 

Carolina’s CSA? 

III. What are the general requirements of 

North Carolina’s CSA? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing this action? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the North Carolina SIP to 

incorporate the system-wide emission 

limitations (or caps) from the State’s 

CSA. The specific provisions being 

incorporated into the SIP are paragraphs 

(a) through (e) of Section 1 of Session 

Law 2002–4, Senate Bill 1078 (hereafter 

‘‘Senate Bill 1078’’) enacted June 20, 

2002. This proposed approval does not 

include incorporation into the North 

Carolina SIP of paragraphs (f) through (j) 

of Section 1 of Senate Bill 1078 nor any 

of Section 2 of Senate Bill 1078. Please 

refer to the docket for this rulemaking 

for the complete text of these 

provisions. 

II. What is the background of North 

Carolina’s CSA? 

In June 2002, the General Assembly of 

North Carolina, Session 2001, passed 

Session Law 2002–4, also known as 

Senate Bill 1078. This legislation, 

entitled ‘‘An Act to Improve Air Quality 

in the State by Imposing Limits on the 

Emission of Certain Pollutants from 

Certain Facilities that Burn Coal to 

Generate Electricity and to Provide for 

Recovery by Electric Utilities of the 

Costs of Achieving Compliance with 

Those Limits,’’ requires significant 

actual emission reductions from coalfired power plants in North Carolina. 

The State expected that emission 

reductions from the CSA would have 

significant health benefits for the 

citizens of North Carolina and other 

states. 

North Carolina’s CSA includes a 

schedule of system-wide caps on 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coal-fired 

power plants in the State, the first of 

which became effective in 2007. The 

State expected the resulting emission 

reductions would serve as a significant 

step towards meeting the 1997 PM2.5

and 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), among 

other NAAQS, improving visibility in 

the mountains and other scenic vistas, 

and reducing acid rain. Reducing NOX

and SO2 emissions, using certain 

technologies, also has the co-benefit of 

reducing mercury emissions. EPA notes 

that all areas in the State that were 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS are 

now attaining the standards. Although 

the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and 

Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS have not yet been redesignated 

to attainment, EPA determined that 

these areas had attaining data based on 

the three-year period 2006–2008.1 Also, 

although the Charlotte 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area is still 

designated nonattainment, EPA has 

issued a proposed determination that 

the Area has attaining data based on the 

2008–2010 design value period. See 76 

FR 20293 (April 12, 2011). North 

Carolina has identified the CSA as part 

of its plan to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. Because North Carolina is 

relying on emissions reductions from 

the CSA to demonstrate attainment and 

maintenance for certain areas in the 

State, North Carolina is now formally 

seeking that the CSA be included in the 

SIP so that the CSA’s requirements may 

be considered ‘‘permanent and 

enforceable.’’ 

III. What are the general requirements 

of North Carolina’s CSA? 

North Carolina’s CSA applies to the 

two investor-owned public utilities in 

North Carolina that own or operate coalfired generating units with the capacity 

to generate 25 or more megawatts of 

electricity: Progress Energy Carolinas, 

Inc. (Progress Energy) and Duke Power, 

a division of Duke Energy Corporation 

(Duke Energy). Although the emission 

caps apply collectively to each investorowned public utility, the CSA has no 

provision for the trading of pollution 

credits from one utility to another. 

Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the 

schedule for implementation of the NOX

and SO2 emission caps required by the 

CSA. 

TABLE 1—NOX EMISSION CAPS FOR INVESTOR-OWNED PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT OWN OR OPERATE COAL-FIRED

GENERATING UNITS

Investor-owned public utilities that collectively emitted in calendar year 

2000 

Collective calendar year emission 

caps beginning January 1, 2007 

Collective calendar year emission 

caps beginning January 1, 2009 

More than 75,000 tons of NOX ............................................................... 35,000 tons of NOX ....................... 31,000 tons of NOX. 

Equal to or less than 75,000 tons of NOX .............................................. 25,000 tons of NOX ....................... Unchanged from 2007 cap. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSION CAPS FOR INVESTOR-OWNED PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT OWN OR OPERATE COAL-FIRED

GENERATING UNITS

Investor-owned public utilities that collectively emitted in calendar year 

2000 

Collective calendar year emission 

caps beginning January 1, 2009 

Collective calendar year emission 

caps beginning January 1, 2013 

More than 225,000 tons of SO2 .............................................................. 150,000 tons of SO2 ...................... 80,000 tons of SO2. 

Equal to or less than 225,000 tons of SO2 ............................................. 100,000 tons of SO2 ...................... 50,000 tons of SO2. 

According to documentation 

submitted by North Carolina, applicable 

utilities in North Carolina subject to the 

CSA must: (1) Reduce actual emissions 

of NOX from 245,000 tons in 1998 to 

56,000 tons by 2009 (a 77 percent 

reduction); and (2) reduce actual SO2

emissions from 489,000 tons in 1998 to 

250,000 tons by 2009 (a 49 percent 

reduction) and to 130,000 tons by 2013 

(a 73 percent reduction). This represents 

about a one-third reduction of the total 

NOX emissions and a one-half reduction 

of the total SO2 emissions from all 

sources in North Carolina. Table 3 

below lists the coal-fired power plants 

in North Carolina subject to the CSA. 

TABLE 3—COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS SUBJECT TO NORTH CAROLINA’S CSA 

Plant Parent company Location 

Allen ...................................................................................... Duke Energy ........................................................................ Belmont. 

Belews Creek ........................................................................ Duke Energy ........................................................................ Walnut Cove. 

Buck ...................................................................................... Duke Energy ........................................................................ Salisbury. 

Cliffside ................................................................................. Duke Energy ........................................................................ Cliffside. 

Dan River .............................................................................. Duke Energy ........................................................................ Eden. 

Marshall ................................................................................. Duke Energy ........................................................................ Terrell. 

Riverbend .............................................................................. Duke Energy ........................................................................ Mount Holly. 

Ashville .................................................................................. Progress Energy .................................................................. Arden. 

Cape Fear ............................................................................. Progress Energy .................................................................. Moncure. 

Lee ........................................................................................ Progress Energy .................................................................. Goldsboro. 

Mayo ..................................................................................... Progress Energy .................................................................. Roxboro. 

Roxborro ............................................................................... Progress Energy .................................................................. Semora. 

L.V. Sutton ............................................................................ Progress Energy .................................................................. Wilmington. 

Weatherspoon ....................................................................... Progress Energy .................................................................. Lumberton. 

As noted above, this proposed 

approval does not include incorporation 

into the North Carolina SIP paragraphs 

(f) through (j) of Section 1 of Senate Bill 

1078. These provisions of the State’s 

law, which North Carolina did not 

request to be incorporated into the 

State’s Federally-approved SIP, stipulate 

requirements regarding several aspects 

of implementation of the CSA. In brief, 

those requirements provide that: (1) 

Affected utilities may determine how 

compliance with the collective 

emissions limitations may be achieved 

and that CSA does not alter obligations 

to comply with any other Federal or 

state law or the authority of the 

Commission to impose specific 

limitations on the emissions of NOX and 

SO2; (2) a subject emission unit shall 

remain subject to the collective 

emissions limitations whether or not it 

continues to be owned or operated by an 

investor-owned public utility; (3) any 

permit or modified permit issued for a 

subject unit shall include conditions 

that provide for testing, monitoring, 

record keeping, and reporting adequate 

to assure compliance with the CSA 

requirements; (4) the Governor may 

enter into an agreement with an 

investor-owned public utility for the 

purpose of transferring to the State any 

trading program emission allowances 

that result from compliance with the 

CSA; and (5) a subject investor-owned 

public utility shall submit to the State 

an annual verified statement providing 

details of activities related to 

compliance with CSA. As also noted 

above, this proposed approval does not 

include incorporation into the North 

Carolina SIP any of Section 2 of Senate 

Bill 1078, which stipulates the 

permitting requirements for all air 

contaminant sources in the State of 

North Carolina. Nonetheless, the 

emission reductions are the key 

component of the CSA, and North 

Carolina relies on the reductions to 

demonstrate attainment and 

maintenance with the NAAQS. Thus, 

inclusion of the emission reductions 

into the SIP serves the purpose of 

making the reductions permanent and 

enforceable as well as providing a 

Federal source of applicable 

requirements for title V permitting and 

other purposes. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing this action? 

The purpose of today’s proposed 

approval is to make the CSA emissions 

reductions Federally enforceable (and 

permanent) because those reductions 

are part of North Carolina’s plan to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. NC 

DENR requested that specific provisions 

of the CSA be formally adopted into the 

North Carolina SIP in support of its 

attainment demonstrations for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS for both the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and GreensboroWinston Salem-High Point 

nonattainment areas. Such inclusion is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA. Under section 110(l) of the CAA, 

EPA may not approve a revision to a SIP 

if it would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning NAAQS 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. In reducing 

system-wide NOX and SO2 emissions 

allowed by coal-fired power plants in 

the State, the CSA is clearly a 

strengthening of the North Carolina’s 

SIP and will not interfere with CAA 

requirements. In addition, Federal 

approval of the CSA will ensure the 

State may take credit for the associated 

NOX and SO2 emission reductions when 

pertinent to SIP submittals for other 

CAA requirements. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of North Carolina’s August 21, 

2009, SIP revision which incorporates 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36471 

the system-wide emission caps from the 

State legislation entitled, ‘‘An Act to 

Improve Air Quality in the State by 

Imposing Limits on the Emission of 

Certain Pollutants from Certain 

Facilities that Burn Coal to Generate 

Electricity and to Provide for Recovery 

by Electric Utilities of the Costs of 

Achieving Compliance with Those 

Limits.’’ The specific provisions being 

proposed for incorporation into the SIP 

are paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section 

1 of Session Law 2002–4, Senate Bill 

1078 enacted June 20, 2002. Once this 

provision is adopted into the SIP, the 

collective emission caps applicable to 

each investor-owned public utility will 

be permanent and Federally 

enforceable. 

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 approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 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 CAA; 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, this rule does 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15636 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0411; FRL–9321–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Adoption of the Revised Nitrogen 

Dioxide Standard 

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 new 1-hour 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard at a 

level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and 

updating the list of Federal 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 July 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0411 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–2011–0411, 

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– 

0411. 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS