Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 23637 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort 

Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321– 

7716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2010–0403/Airspace 

Docket No. 10–ACE–4.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ 

air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76137. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking 

202–267–9677, to request a copy of 

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 

System, which describes the application 

procedure. 

The Proposal 

This action proposes to amend Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), part 71 by adding additional Class 

E airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface for SIAPs at 

Perryville Municipal Airport, Perryville, 

MO. Controlled airspace is needed for 

the safety and management of IFR 

operations at the airport. 

Class E airspace areas are published 

in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 

7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and 

effective September 15, 2009, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document would be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart 

I, section 40103. Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations to assign the use of airspace 

necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft 

and the efficient use of airspace. This 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority as it would add additional 

controlled airspace at Perryville 

Municipal Airport, Perryville, MO. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, signed August 27, 2009, and 

effective September 15, 2009, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ACE MO E5 Perryville, MO [Amended] 

Perryville Municipal Airport, MO 

(Lat. 37°52′07′′ N., long. 89°51′44′′ W.) 

Farmington VORTAC, MO 

(Lat. 37°40′24′′ N., long. 90°14′03′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile 

radius of Perryville Municipal Airport and 

within 1.8 miles each side of the 057° radial 

of the Farmington VORTAC extending from 

the 6.6-mile radius to 8.2 miles southwest of 

the airport, and within 3.9 miles each side of 

the 197° bearing from the airport extending 

from the 6.6-mile radius to 11 miles south of 

the airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on April 23, 

2010. 

Anthony D. Roetzel, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10323 Filed 5–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

Injury and Illness Prevention Program 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of stakeholder meetings. 

SUMMARY: OSHA invites interested 

parties to participate in informal 

stakeholder meetings on Injury and 

Illness Prevention Programs, referred to 

as ‘‘I2P2.’’ OSHA plans to use the 

information gathered at these meetings 

in developing an Injury and Illness 

Prevention Program proposed rule. The 

discussions will be informal and will 

provide the Agency with the necessary 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
23638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

information to develop a rule that will 

help employers reduce workplace 

injuries and illnesses through a 

systematic process that proactively 

addresses workplace safety and health 

hazards. 

DATES: Dates and locations for the 

stakeholder meetings are: 

• June 3, 2010, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

in East Brunswick, NJ. 

• June 10, 2010, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., in Dallas, TX. 

• June 29, 2010, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., in Washington, DC. 

The deadlines for confirmed 

registration at each meeting are May 20, 

May 27, and June 15, 2010 respectively. 

ADDRESSES: 

I. Registration 

Submit your notice of intent to 

participate in one of the scheduled 

meetings by one of the following: 

• Electronic. Register at https:// 

www2.ergweb.com/projects/ 

conferences/osha/register-oshaI2P2.htm (follow the instructions 

online). 

• Facsimile. Fax your request to: 

(781) 674–2906, and label it ‘‘Attention: 

OSHA I2P2 Stakeholder Meeting 

Registration.’’ 

• Regular mail, express delivery, 

hand (courier) delivery, and messenger 

service. 

Send your request to: Eastern Research 

Group, Inc., 110 Hartwell Avenue, 

Lexington, MA 02421; Attention: OSHA 

I2P2 Stakeholder Meeting Registration. 

II. Meetings 

Specific information on the location 

of each meeting can be found on the 

I2P2 Web site at https:// 

www2.ergweb.com/projects/ 

conferences/osha/register-oshaI2P2.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding this notice is 

available from the following sources: 

• Press inquiries. Contact Jennifer 

Ashley, Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–1999. 

• General and technical information. 

Contact Michael Seymour, OSHA 

Directorate of Standards and Guidance, 

Room N–3718, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 

693–1950. 

• Copies of this Federal Register 

notice. Electronic copies are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

Federal Register notice, as well as news 

releases and other relevant information, 

also are available on the OSHA Web 

page at http://www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Over the past 30 years, the 

occupational safety and health 

community has used various names to 

describe systematic approaches to 

reducing injuries and illnesses in the 

workplace. OSHA has voluntary Safety 

and Health Management Program 

guidelines, consensus and international 

standards use the term ‘‘Safety and 

Health Management Systems,’’ and 

OSHA’s state plan states use terms such 

as ‘‘Injury and Illness Prevention 

Programs’’ and ‘‘Accident Prevention 

Programs.’’ In this notice, OSHA uses 

the term ‘‘Injury and Illness Prevention 

Programs.’’ Regardless of the title, the 

common goal of these approaches is to 

help employers reduce workplace 

injuries and illnesses through a 

systematic process that proactively 

addresses workplace safety and health 

hazards. 

OSHA’s History With Safety and Health 

Programs 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) (the Act) in 

Section 17, paragraph (j), provides the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission (OSHRC) the authority to 

assess civil penalties giving due 

consideration to the good faith of the 

employer. Based on this paragraph of 

the Act, OSHA has also had a policy of 

reducing penalties for employers who 

have violated OSHA standards but who 

have demonstrated a good faith effort to 

provide a safe and healthy workplace to 

their employees. The Agency has long 

recognized the implementation of a 

safety and health program as a way of 

demonstrating good faith. Similarly, in 

its first decision, the OSHRC held that 

good faith compliance efforts are gauged 

primarily by the presence of effective 

safety and health programs (Nacirema 

Operating Co., 1 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1001 

(Rev. Comm’n 1972)). 

Over the years, OSHA has established 

a number of initiatives to encourage 

employers to develop and implement 

employee safety and health programs. 

OSHA’s Small Business Consultation 

Program, which offers small businesses 

with exemplary safety and health 

programs an opportunity for recognition 

under their Safety and Health 

Achievement Recognition Program 

(SHARP) and the Agency’s Voluntary 

Protection Program (VPP) are two 

examples of such initiatives. The 

Agency established the VPP to recognize 

companies in the private sector with 

outstanding records in the area of 

employee safety and health. It became 

apparent that many of these worksites, 

which had higher levels of compliance, 

fewer serious hazards, and injury and 

illness rates markedly below industry 

averages, were relying on safety and 

health programs to produce these 

results. 

Based on the growing support for 

safety and health programs, OSHA 

issued the Safety and Health Program 

Management Guidelines in 1989 (54 FR 

3908). These guidelines reflect the best 

management practices of successful 

companies and encourage employers to 

institute and maintain a program which 

provides systematic policies, 

procedures, and practices that are 

adequate to recognize and protect their 

employees from occupational safety and 

health hazards. The guidelines identify 

four major elements of an effective 

program: Management commitment and 

employee involvement; worksite 

analysis; hazard prevention and 

controls; and safety and health training. 

OSHA’s Previous Rulemaking Effort 

In October of 1995, OSHA held the 

first series of stakeholder meetings to 

discuss preliminary ideas for a safety 

and health program rule and the 

significant issues that would be raised 

by such a rule. Many small businesses 

and organizations representing small 

businesses attended the stakeholder 

meetings. Staff members from the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) were also present 

at the stakeholder meetings. 

In all, OSHA interacted with 

hundreds of stakeholders, including 

employers, employees, employee 

representatives, trade associations, State 

and local government personnel, safety 

and health professionals, Advisory 

Committees, and other interested 

parties. 

In 1998, OSHA developed a draft 

proposed rule that would have required 

employers in general industry and 

maritime workplaces to establish safety 

and health programs. The program in 

the draft proposed rule had five core 

elements, including: Management 

leadership and employee participation; 

hazard identification and assessment; 

hazard prevention and control; 

information and training; and 

evaluation of the program’s 

effectiveness. In developing the draft 

proposed rule, OSHA worked 

extensively with stakeholders from 

labor, industry, safety and health 

organizations, State governments, trade 

associations, insurance companies, and 

small businesses. 

On October 20, 1998, OSHA convened 

a Small Business Regulatory 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 23639 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

Panel for the draft Safety and Health 

Programs proposed rule. The Panel 

provided small entity representatives 

(SERs) with initial drafts of the rule, a 

summary of the rule, the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a 

summary of the benefits and costs of the 

rule as it affected firms in the small 

entity representative’s industry, OSHA’s 

draft enforcement policy for the rule, 

and a list of issues of interest to panel 

members. 

The SBREFA Panel held 

teleconferences and received written 

comments from the SERs. The 

comments, and the Panel’s responses to 

them, formed the principal basis for the 

Panel’s report. The Panel’s report 

provided background information on 

the draft proposed rule and the types of 

small entities that would be subject to 

the proposed rule, described the Panel’s 

efforts to obtain the advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

those small entities, summarized the 

comments that had been received from 

those representatives, and presented the 

findings and recommendations of the 

Panel. 

A proposed Safety and Health 

Program rule was never published, and 

the rulemaking effort was removed from 

the Regulatory Agenda on August 15, 

2002. However, the effort in the 1990s 

showed the interest of OSHA, the States, 

employers, employees, OSHA’s advisory 

committees, and others in a systematic 

process that proactively addresses 

workplace safety and health hazards. It 

demonstrated that OSHA was not alone 

in believing that these processes work to 

save lives and to prevent injuries and 

illnesses in the workplace. 

Safety and Health Management System 

Consensus Standards 

Recently, consensus standards have 

been developed that address safety and 

health management systems. The 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association published a voluntary 

consensus standard, ANSI/AIHA Z10— 

2005 Occupational Safety and Health 

Management Systems, based on the 

‘‘Plan-Do-Check-Act’’ cycle. The Z10 

standard places an emphasis on 

continual improvement and 

systematically eliminating the 

underlying root cause of hazards. In 

addition, the Occupational Health and 

Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) 

Project Group, which is an international 

association of government agencies, 

private industries, and consulting 

organizations, developed OHSAS 

18001—2007 Occupational Health and 

Safety Management Systems in response 

to customer demand for a recognized 

occupational health and safety 

management system standard against 

which their management systems could 

be assessed and certified. The OHSAS 

18001 is published by the British 

Standards Institute. 

II. Stakeholder Meetings 

Stakeholder meetings will provide 

OSHA with current information and 

appreciation of the views of a wide 

range of interests. The meetings will be 

conducted as a group discussion. To 

facilitate as much group interaction as 

possible, formal presentations will not 

be permitted. OSHA believes the 

stakeholder meeting discussion should 

center on major issues such as: 

• Possible regulatory approaches. 

• Scope and application of a rule. 

—Covered industries. 

—Covered employers (size, high/low 

injury rates). 

—Covered hazards. 

—Relationship to existing OSHA 

requirements. 

• Organization of a rule. 

—Regulatory text. 

—Mandatory or voluntary appendices. 

—Other standards incorporated by 

reference. 

• The role of consensus standards. 

• Economic impacts. 

• Any additional topics as time 

permits. 

In addition, OSHA is interested in 

receiving feedback on the following 

specific questions: 

• In light of the ANSI Z10 standard, 

the OHSAS 18001 standard, and 

OSHA’s 1989 guidelines, what are the 

advantages and disadvantages of 

addressing through rulemaking a 

systematic process that proactively 

addresses workplace safety and health 

hazards? 

• Based on OSHA’s experience, the 

agency believes that an I2P2 rule would 

include the following elements: 

1. Management duties (including 

items such as establishing a policy, 

setting goals, planning and allocating 

resources, and assigning and 

communicating roles and 

responsibilities); 

2. Employee participation (including 

items such as involving employees in 

establishing, maintaining and evaluating 

the program, employee access to safety 

and health information, and employee 

role in incident investigations); 

3. Hazard identification and 

assessment (including items such as 

what hazards must be identified, 

information gathering, workplace 

inspections, incident investigations, 

hazards associated with changes in the 

workplace, emergency hazards, hazard 

assessment and prioritization, and 

hazard identification tools); 

4. Hazard prevention and control 

(including items such as what hazards 

must be controlled, hazard control 

priorities, and the effectiveness of the 

controls); 

5. Education and training (including 

items such as content of training, 

relationship to other OSHA training 

requirements, and periodic training); 

and 

6. Program evaluation and 

improvement (including items such as 

monitoring performance, correcting 

program deficiencies, and improving 

program performance). 

Are these the appropriate elements? 

Which elements are essential for an 

effective approach? Should additional 

elements be included? 

• How can OSHA ensure that small 

business employers are able to 

implement and maintain an effective 

I2P2? 

• Should an OSHA I2P2 rule apply to 

every business or should it be limited in 

some way based on an employer’s size, 

industry, incident rates, and/or hazard 

indices? 

• To what extent should OSHA rely 

on existing consensus standards in 

developing a rule? 

• How can OSHA use state 

experience with injury and illness 

prevention in developing a rule? 

• What mechanisms have been found 

to be effective for enabling employees to 

participate in safety and health in the 

workplace? 

• Given the variety of names used to 

describe processes to reduce injuries 

and illnesses in the workplace, what is 

the most appropriate name for OSHA to 

describe this topic? 

III. Public Participation 

Approximately 50 participants will be 

accommodated in each meeting, and 

eight hours will be allotted for each 

meeting. Members of the general public 

may observe, but not participate in, the 

meetings on a first-come, first-served 

basis as space permits. OSHA staff will 

be present to take part in the 

discussions. Logistics for the meetings 

are being managed by Eastern Research 

Group (ERG), which will provide a 

facilitator and compile notes 

summarizing the discussion; these notes 

will not identify individual speakers. 

ERG also will make an audio recording 

of each session to ensure that the 

summary notes are accurate; these 

recordings will not be transcribed. The 

summary notes will be available on 

OSHA’s Web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
23640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Specific information on the location 

of each meeting can be found on the 

I2P2 Web site at https:// 

www2.ergweb.com/projects/ 

conferences/osha/register-oshaI2P2.htm. 

To participate in one of the 

stakeholder meetings, or be a 

nonparticipating observer, you may 

submit notice of intent electronically, by 

facsimile, or by hard copy. In order to 

encourage as wide a range of viewpoints 

as possible, OSHA will confirm 

participants as necessary to ensure a fair 

representation of interests and to 

facilitate gathering diverse viewpoints. 

To receive a confirmation of your 

participation 1 week before the meeting, 

register by the date listed in the DATES

section of this notice. However, 

registration will remain open until the 

meetings are full. Additional 

nonparticipating observers that do not 

register for the meeting will be 

accommodated as space permits. See the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice for the 

registration Web site, facsimile number, 

and address. To register electronically, 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site. To register by mail or 

facsimile, please indicate the following: 

• Name, address, phone, fax, and email. 

• Meeting location you would like to 

attend. 

• Organization for which you work. 

• Organization you represent (if 

different). 

• Stakeholder category: Government, 

industry, standards-developing 

organization, research or testing agency, 

union, trade association, insurance, 

consultant, or other (if other, please 

specify). 

• Industry sector (if applicable). 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice, as well as news releases 

and other relevant documents, are 

available on the OSHA Web page at: 

http://www.osha.gov. 

IV. Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of David Michaels, PhD, 

MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, pursuant to 

sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 

653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part 1911, and 

Secretary’s Order 5–2007 (72 FR 31160). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on April 12, 

2010. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10138 Filed 5–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2009–0462, FRL–9144–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology and Reasonably Available 

Control Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 25, 2009, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove portions of a 

proposed revision to the New York State 

Implementation Plan, submitted on 

February 8, 2008, that was intended to 

meet specific Clean Air Act 

requirements for attaining the 0.08 parts 

per million 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to 

disapprove New York’s reasonably 

available control measure analysis and 

New York’s efforts to meet the 

reasonably available control technology 

requirements. Subsequent to that action, 

New York passed two additional rules 

and submitted them for review and 

inclusion in the State Implementation 

Plan and made additional commitments 

to meet the remaining reasonably 

available control technology and 

reasonably available control measure 

requirements. Therefore, in this action 

EPA is proposing a conditional approval 

of the reasonably available control 

technology requirement which applies 

to the entire State of New York, 

including the New York portion of the 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT and the 

Poughkeepsie 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment areas. In addition, EPA is 

proposing a conditional approval of the 

reasonably available control measure 

analysis which applies to the New York 

portion of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour 

ozone moderate nonattainment area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2009–0462, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2009–0462. 

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 or 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. 

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:// 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS