9656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law and the 

CAA. For that reason, this action: 

• Is not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 25, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: February 9, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart O—Illinois 

■ 2. Section 52.726 is amended by 

adding paragraph (ii) to read as follows: 

§ 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Approval. EPA is approving a July 

29, 2010, request from the State of 

Illinois for a waiver from the Clean Air 

Act requirement for Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NOx) Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) in the Illinois 

portions of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, Illinois-Indiana (Cook, DuPage, 

Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will 

Counties, and portions of Grundy (Aux 

Sable and Goose Lake Townships) and 

Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties in 

Illinois) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 

(Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair 

Counties in Illinois) 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3612 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0594; FRL–9268–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of the Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions From Industrial 

Solvent Cleaning Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to Maryland’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision 

was submitted by the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

to establish and require reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

industrial solvent cleaning operations 

for sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) covered by control 

techniques guidelines (CTG). This 

amendment reduces VOC emissions 

from industrial solvent cleaning 

operations which will help Maryland 

attain and maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone. EPA is approving 

this revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on March 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0431. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by 

e-mail at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9657 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On September 29, 2010, EPA 

published both a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) (75 FR 60013) and a 

direct final rule (DFR) (75 FR 59973) for 

the State of Maryland. The NPR 

proposed approval of a formal SIP 

revision (#10–03) submitted by 

Maryland on April 22, 2010, to address 

sources of VOC emissions covered by 

EPA’s CTG: Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

(see EPA 453/R–06–001, September 

2006). This SIP revision adds a new 

regulation .09–1 under COMAR 

26.11.19 (Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Specific Processes). An 

explanation of the CAA’s RACT 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS as they apply to Maryland and 

EPA’s rationale for approving this SIP 

revision was provided in the DFR and 

will not be restated here. Timely 

adverse comments were submitted on 

EPA’s September 29, 2010 NPR. A 

summary of the comment and EPA’s 

response is provided in Section II of this 

document. 

II. Summary of Public Comment and 

EPA Response 

Comment: The commenter opposed 

EPA’s approval of this regulation unless 

Maryland specifically exempts coatings, 

ink, resin and adhesive manufacturing 

from their Industrial Solvent Cleaning 

rule. The commenter states that 

Maryland already has regulations that 

limit VOC emissions from these 

manufacturing operations and is 

concerned that this rule would be 

burdensome for these manufacturing 

operations. The commenter notes that 

COMAR 26.11.19.15 regulates coatings, 

ink, resin, and adhesive manufacturing 

operations and these operations should 

not be subject to the general Industrial 

Solvent Cleaning rule. 

Response: As an initial matter, we 

note that EPA cannot disapprove the 

regulations merely because they are 

more stringent than the commenter 

would prefer. The CAA provides the 

States with great discretion in 

determining the controls necessary to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS and 

EPA must approve the State’s choice 

into the SIP so long as they are 

consistent with the CAA. However, we 

note that the commenter misinterprets 

Maryland’s regulations, which we 

believe address the commenter’s 

concerns. Maryland specifically states 

in COMAR 26.11.19.09–1A(6)(b)(ii) that 

this regulation does not include 

cleaning operations at sources subject to 

any other VOC regulation in subtitle 11. 

Further, COMAR 26.11.19.09– 

1A(6)(b)(viii) states that this regulation 

does not include cleaning of resin, 

coating, ink, and adhesive mixing, 

molding, and application equipment. 

Because COMAR 26.11.19.15 applies to 

paints, resin and adhesive 

manufacturing, those cleaning 

operations are not subject to the 

regulation EPA is approving into the SIP 

through this action. Additionally, 

cleaning operations involving coatings 

and inks which are covered under many 

other sections of Subtitle 11 are not 

subject to the regulation EPA is 

approving through this action. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Maryland’s SIP 

revision because it meets the 

requirement for establishing RACT for 

sources of VOC emissions covered by 

EPA’s Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 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 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 25, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. 

This action pertaining to Maryland’s 

adoption of RACT requirements for VOC 

emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 8, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding an entry for 

COMAR 26.11.19.09–1 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland 

administrative regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

*******

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 

*******

26.11.19.09–1 ................ Control of VOC 

Emissions from 

Industrial Solvent 

Cleaning Operations Other Than 

Cold and Vapor 

Degreasing.

4/19/10 .................... 2/22/11 ..........................................

[Insert page number where the 

document begins].

New Regulation. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–3719 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0932; FRL–9268–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kansas: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting 

Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision; 

Withdrawal of Federal GHG 

Implementation Plan for Kansas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Kansas, 

submitted by the Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment (KDHE) to EPA 

on October 4, 2010, for parallel 

processing. KDHE submitted the final 

version of this SIP revision on December 

23, 2010. The SIP revision, which 

incorporates updates to KDHE’s air 

quality regulations, includes two 

significant changes impacting the 

regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

under Kansas’s New Source Review 

(NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the 

SIP revision provides the State of 

Kansas with authority to issue PSD 

permits governing GHGs. Second, the 

SIP revision establishes emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Kansas’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions. The first provision is 

required under the GHG PSD SIP call, 

which EPA published on December 13, 

2010, and which required the state of 

Kansas to apply its PSD program to 

GHG-emitting sources. The second 

provision is consistent with the 

thresholds EPA established in the 

Tailoring Rule, published on June 3, 

2010. EPA is approving this SIP revision 

because this SIP revision meets the 

requirements of the GHG PSD SIP Call. 

In addition, as a result of this approval, 

EPA is rescinding the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP)—as it relates 

to Kansas only—that had previously 

been imposed on December 30, 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective February 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR– 

2010–0932. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information 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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, Air and Waste Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, KS 66101. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for further 

information. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

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

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Kansas SIP, 

contact Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, Air 

and Waste Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Mr. Gonzalez’s 

telephone number is (913) 551–7041; email address: gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES