Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32819 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If we cannot read your 

comment because of technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, we may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic 

comments should avoid the use of any 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Olson, Headquarters, Operations 

and Regulatory Community of Practice, 

Washington, DC at 202–761–4922 or Ms. 

Kari Coler, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Los Angeles District, 

Regulatory Division, at 760–602–4834 or 

Ms. Therese O’Rourke, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 

Regulatory Division, at 760–602–4830. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

response to a request from the 

Department of the Navy and pursuant to 

its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 

33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the 

Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 

Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is 

proposing to amend the regulations at 

33 CFR part 334 to establish a new 

danger zone. The proposed danger zone 

will prohibit access to waters adjacent 

to the SAR located on NASNI without 

prior written permission from the 

Commander, Navy Region Southwest or 

a designee, thereby ensuring that no 

threat is posed to passing water traffic 

due to ricochet rounds. 

Procedural Requirements 

a. Review Under Executive Order 

12866. The proposed rule is issued with 

respect to a military function of the 

Defense Department and the provisions 

of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. 

b. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. This proposed rule has 

been reviewed under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354) which 

requires the preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any regulation 

that will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities (i.e., small businesses and small 

governments). Unless information is 

obtained to the contrary during the 

public notice comment period, the 

Corps expects that this danger zone 

would have practically no economic 

impact on the public, and minimal 

anticipated navigational hazard or 

interference with existing waterway 

traffic. This proposed rule, if adopted, 

will have no significant economic 

impact on small entities. 

c. Review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Due to the 

administrative nature of this action and 

because the proposed site for the danger 

zone is located in the Pacific Ocean and 

vessels may navigate around the 

prohibited area, the Corps expects that 

this regulation, if adopted, will not have 

a significant impact to the quality of the 

human environment and, therefore, 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement will not be required. An 

environmental assessment will be 

prepared after the public notice period 

is closed and all comments have been 

received and considered. It may be 

reviewed at the District office listed at 

the end of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, above. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Act. This 

proposed rule does not impose an 

enforceable duty among the private 

sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal 

private section mandate and it is not 

subject to the requirements of either 

section 202 or Section 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also 

found under Section 203 of the Act, that 

small governments will not be 

significantly and uniquely affected by 

this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 

Danger zones, Marine safety, 

Navigation (water), Restricted areas, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 

33 CFR part 334 as follows: 

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND 

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for 33 CFR 

part 334 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 

40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 

2. Add § 334.866 to read as follows: 

§ 334.866 Pacific Ocean, at the Naval Air 

Station North Island, San Diego, California; 

Naval Danger Zone. 

(a) The area. The danger zone shall 

encompass all navigable waters of the 

United States, as defined at 33 CFR part 

329, in the Pacific Ocean contiguous to 

the existing small arms range located on 

Naval Air Station North Island, 

delineated as a 206.1 acre trapezium 

(quadrilateral with no parallel sides) 

beginning at latitude 32°41′13′′ N., 

longitude 117°′12′45′′ W.; thence 

easterly, along mean high water, to 

latitude 32°41′14′′ N., longitude 

117°12′32′′ W.; thence southerly to 

latitude 32°40′31′′ N., longitude 

117°12′12′′ W.; thence westerly to 

latitude 32°40′25′′ N., longitude 

117°12′43′′ W.; thence northerly, 

landward, to the point of origin. 

(b) The regulations. No person, vessel, 

craft, article, or thing, except those 

under the supervision of the military or 

naval authority, shall enter the area 

without the permission of the enforcing 

agency or his/her designee. The 

restriction shall apply at all times. 

(c) Enforcement. The regulation in 

this section shall be enforced by the 

Commander, Navy Region Southwest, 

and such agencies and persons as he/ 

she may designate. 

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

Approved. 

Michael G. Ensch, 

Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. 

[FR Doc. E9–16235 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–92–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN15 

Charges Billed to Third Parties for 

Prescription Drugs Furnished by VA to 

a Veteran for a Nonservice-Connected 

Disability 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

medical regulations concerning 

‘‘reasonable charges’’ for medical care or 

services provided or furnished by VA to 

a veteran for a nonservice-connected 

disability. More specifically, VA 

proposes to amend the regulations 

regarding charges billed for prescription 

drugs not administered during treatment 

by changing the billing formula to 

reflect VA’s actual drug costs for each 

drug rather than our current practice of 

using a national average drug cost for all 

prescriptions dispensed. The revised 

formula for calculating ‘‘reasonable 

charges’’ for prescription drug costs 

would also continue to include an 

average administrative cost for each 

prescription. The purpose is to provide 

VA with a more accurate billing 

methodology for prescription drugs. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

VA on or before August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AN15 ‘‘Charges Billed to Third Parties 

for Prescription Drugs Furnished by VA 

to a Veteran for a Nonservice-Connected 

Disability.’’ Copies of comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1063B, 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. Monday through Friday (except 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for 

an appointment. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) In addition, during the 

comment period, comments may be 

viewed online through the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Romona Greene, Manager of Rates and 

Charges, VHA Chief Business Office 

(168), Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–1595. (This is not a 

toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. 1729, VA has the right to recover 

or collect reasonable charges for medical 

care or services (including the provision 

of prescription drugs) from a third party 

to the extent that the veteran or the 

provider of the care or services would 

be eligible to receive payment from the 

third party for: 

• A nonservice-connected disability 

for which the veteran is entitled to care 

(or the payment of expenses of care) 

under a health plan contract, 38 U.S.C. 

1729(a)(2)(D), 38 CFR 17.101(a)(1)(i); 

• A nonservice-connected disability 

incurred incident to the veteran’s 

employment and covered under a 

worker’s compensation law or plan that 

provides reimbursement or 

indemnification for such care and 

services, 38 U.S.C. 1729(a)(2)(A), 38 

CFR 17.101(a)(1)(ii); or 

• A nonservice-connected disability 

incurred as a result of a motor vehicle 

accident in a State that requires 

automobile accident reparations (nofault) insurance, 38 U.S.C. 1729(a)(2)(B), 

38 CFR 17.101(a)(1)(iii). 

However, under current 38 CFR 

17.101(a)(4), which implements 38 

U.S.C. 1729(c)(2)(B), a third-party payer 

liable for such medical care and services 

under a health plan contract has the 

option of paying, to the extent of its 

coverage, either the billed charges or the 

amount the third-party payer 

demonstrates it would pay for care or 

services furnished by providers other 

than entities of the United States for the 

same care or services in the same 

geographic area. 

In general, current regulations set 

forth a methodology to establish VA 

charges that replicate, insofar as 

possible, the 80th percentile of 

community charges, adjusted to the 

market areas in which VA facilities are 

located, and trended forward to the time 

period during which the charges will be 

used (see 68 FR 56876, October 2, 2003). 

To avoid a windfall, the regulations do 

not apply this methodology to 

prescription drugs because, under 

authority of 38 U.S.C. 8126, VA 

purchases drugs at discounted prices. 

Instead, VA currently bills for 

prescription drugs based on the sum of 

two components: (1) The national 

average of VA’s drug costs for all 

prescriptions, and (2) the national 

average of VA’s administrative costs 

associated with furnishing prescription 

drugs. Further, in accordance with 

§ 17.102(h), VA currently bills $51 for 

each prescription filled (see 70 FR 

66866, November 3, 2005). 

We propose to change the billing 

methodology for prescription drugs. 

With respect to the portion of the billing 

concerning VA’s cost for prescription 

drugs, we propose to bill based on the 

actual cost to VA of each prescription 

drug rather than the $51 national 

average. Under the current 

methodology, VA bills more than the 

actual cost for some prescription drugs 

and less than the actual cost for others. 

(For the purpose of the following two 

examples, VA’s ‘‘actual average cost’’ is 

based upon the total cost incurred by 

VA for filling the prescription drug 

during calendar year 2008 and divided 

by the sum of the total number of such 

prescriptions filled nationally.) For 

example, in 2008 VA’s average actual 

cost for a 30-day supply of 

immunological agent was $297.73 (not 

including administrative cost). Also, in 

2008 VA’s average actual cost for a 30- 

day supply of antihistamine was $7.46 

(also not including administrative 

costs). However, under the current 

methodology, VA billed $51.00 for each 

of these prescriptions (including 

administrative costs), regardless of 

whether the prescription was for 30, 60, 

or 90 days. 

Instead of billing based on a national 

average, it is more accurate to bill as 

close to the actual costs as possible. 

Consistent with this conclusion, we 

propose to change the methodology for 

billing for prescription drugs not 

administered during treatment. In this 

regard, we propose to bill the total of: 

• The actual cost to VA for 

prescription drugs (i.e., the cost to the 

facility that purchased the drugs); and 

• The average national administrative 

cost associated with dispensing the 

drugs for each prescription. 

We created the current national 

average for prescription drug costs at a 

time when it was not feasible to bill for 

the actual cost of the drugs. However, 

we now have the capability to bill VA’s 

actual local cost for each specific drug 

(i.e., the cost to the facility that 

purchased the drugs). The cost will be 

obtained from the Outpatient Pharmacy 

Prescription file or the Drug file at each 

VA facility. 

We would still use VA’s national 

average for the administrative costs 

associated with the dispensing of the 

drugs. The formula that VA would use 

to determine the average for the 

administrative costs is set forth in 

proposed § 17.101(m). This formula 

considers the sum of the indirect costs 

(such as utilities and financial service) 

and the national drug dispensing costs 

(such as labor and packaging) and then 

divides the total by the actual number 

of VA prescriptions filled nationally. 

The national average is the most 

administratively feasible methodology 

to utilize to determine this cost. We 

know of no other practical manner in 

which to determine the actual 

administrative costs associated with 

each prescription. 

Further, we propose to calculate the 

administrative cost annually for the 

prior Fiscal Year (FY) (October through 

September) and then apply any changes 

at the beginning of the next calendar 

year. Based on the FY 2008 national VA 

average for the administrative costs 

associated with the provision of 

prescription drugs, the administrative 

cost to be used for calendar year 2009 

is $11.17. 

In FY 2008, we billed health care 

plans approximately $350.3 million 

(based upon VA’s average actual cost for 

each prescription) but due to lesser 

amounts payable under the terms of the 

health care plans, we collected 

approximately $127.5 million. Had the 

proposed rule been in effect, we would 

have billed approximately $303.4 

million (VA’s actual cost plus an 

administrative cost for each 

prescription), and we believe we would 

have collected approximately $186.6 

million (based on our model regarding 

projected payments under the proposed 

rule). This reflects a substantial increase 

in the percentage of payment compared 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32821 

to the billed amounts. Accordingly, had 

the proposed billing methodology been 

in effect in FY 2008, we believe that the 

VA collections for prescription drugs 

would have increased by approximately 

$59 million. Based on OMB’s Medical 

Consumer Price Index, when we 

compare FY 2008 with 2019 (ten year 

period after projected publication of 

final rule) we would expect the VA 

collections amount to increase by 

almost $87.2 million (an annual 

increase of slightly more than 3 

percent). Based on the amount of time 

in FY 2010 that the proposed rule is in 

effect, we project that VA will realize a 

proportional amount of $62,570,965 in 

additional collections. We project that 

in FY 2011 VA will realize $64,760,949 

million in additional VA collections 

(first full year of implementation). We 

expect that this amount will increase by 

the projection for the Medical Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) which is 

approximately 3 percent each year as 

shown in the table below. We welcome 

any comments regarding VA’s projected 

collections and projected payments. 

1st ................. FY2010 ........ $62,570,965 

2nd ............... FY2011 ........ 64,760,949 

3rd ................ FY2012 ........ 67,157,104 

4th ................ FY2013 ........ 69,709,074 

5th ................ FY2014 ........ 72,358,019 

6th ................ FY2015 ........ 75,107,623 

7th ................ FY2016 ........ 77,961,713 

8th ................ FY2017 ........ 80,924,258 

9th ................ FY2018 ........ 83,999,380 

10th .............. FY2019 ........ 87,191,356 

As required by 38 U.S.C. 

1729(c)(2)(A), we will consult with the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to promulgating a final rule. 

Comment Period 

Under the rulemaking guidelines in 

Executive Order 12866, VA ordinarily 

provides a 60-day comment period for 

proposed rules. However, as stated in 

the preamble of this rulemaking notice, 

the methodology for billing health care 

plans for prescription drugs in VA’s 

current regulations is not accurate for 

certain drugs because it results in 

significant underpayments. Under the 

proposed rule, VA would implement an 

actual-cost methodology that ensures 

fair and accurate billing for all 

prescription drugs covered by third 

party payers. The rule would ensure 

that VA satisfies its obligation to seek 

reimbursement for prescription drug 

purchases and maintain all appropriate 

funds for the care of veterans. 

Accordingly, VA has determined that it 

would be in the public interest to 

provide a shorter comment period for 

this proposed rule and has specified 

that comments must be received within 

30 days of the publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

year. This proposed rule would have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521). 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies as a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ 

requiring review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), unless 

OMB waives such review, as any 

regulatory action that is likely to result 

in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

VA has examined the economic, 

interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this proposed rule and 

has concluded that it is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 because it is likely to result in a 

rule that may raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This 

proposed rule would mainly affect large 

insurance companies. This proposed 

rule might have an insignificant impact 

on a few small entities that do an 

inconsequential amount of their 

business with VA. Therefore, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is 

exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.005, Grants to States for Construction 

of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind 

Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans 

Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans 

Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans 

Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans 

Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans 

Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans 

Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans 

State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans 

State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, 

Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, 

Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 

64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol 

and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans 

Home Based Primary Care. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Grant programs—veterans, Health care, 

Health facilities, Health professions, 

Health records, Homeless, Medical and 

dental schools, Medical devices, 

Medical research, Mental health 

programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships, Travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 

Approved: April 17, 2009. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 

CFR part 17 as follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as 

noted in specific sections. 

2. Revise the second sentence of 

paragraph (a)(2) and paragraph (m) of 

§ 17.101 to read as follows: 

§ 17.101 Collection or recovery by VA for 

medical care or services provided or 

furnished to a veteran for a nonserviceconnected disability. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * In addition, the charges 

billed for prescription drugs not 

administered during treatment will be 

the amount determined under paragraph 

(m) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(m) Charges for prescription drugs not 

administered during treatment. 

Notwithstanding other provisions of this 

section, when VA provides or furnishes 

prescription drugs not administered 

during treatment, within the scope of 

care referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section, charges billed separately 

for such prescription drugs will consist 

of the amount that equals the total of the 

actual cost to VA for the drugs and the 

national average of VA administrative 

costs associated with dispensing the 

drugs for each prescription. The actual 

VA cost of a drug will be the actual 

amount expended by the VA facility for 

the purchase of the specific drug. The 

administrative cost will be determined 

annually using VA’s managerial cost 

accounting system. Under this 

accounting system, the average 

administrative cost is determined by 

adding the total VA national drug 

indirect costs (such as utilities and 

financial services) to the total VA 

national drug dispensing costs (such as 

labor and packaging) with the sum 

divided by the actual number of VA 

prescriptions filled nationally. Based on 

this accounting system, VA will 

determine the amount of the average 

administrative cost annually for the 

prior fiscal year (October through 

September) and then apply the charge at 

the start of the next calendar year. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–16294 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027; FRL–8928–3] 

RIN 2060–AO94 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Asphalt Processing and 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emissions standards for the control of 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from the asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing area 

source category. These proposed 

emissions standards for new and 

existing sources are based upon EPA’s 

proposed determination as to what 

constitutes the generally available 

control technology or management 

practices (GACT) for the source 

category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 10, 2009 unless a 

public hearing is requested by July 20, 

2009. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rules, written comments must 

be received by August 24, 2009. Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before August 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0027, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web Site. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0027 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Area Source NESHAP for 

Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 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–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0027. 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 form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Area Source NESHAP for Asphalt 

Roofing Manufacturing Docket, EPA/DC, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS