56130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5See http://www.sec.gov/rules/ 

submitcomments.htm. 

6Executive Order 13579 states that an agency’s 

plan should reflect ‘‘its resources and regulatory 

priorities and processes.’’ 

reviewing financial economic literature 

or conducting empirical studies? How 

can our review processes obtain and 

consider data and analyses that address 

the benefits of our rules in preventing 

fraud or other harms to our financial 

markets and in otherwise protecting 

investors? 

5. What can the Commission do to 

modify, streamline, or expand its 

regulatory review processes? 

6. How should the Commission 

improve public outreach and increase 

public participation in the rulemaking 

process? 

7. Is there any other information that 

the Commission should consider in 

developing and implementing a 

preliminary plan for retrospective 

review of regulations? 

Please note that the Commission is 

not soliciting comment in this notice on 

specific existing Commission rules to be 

considered for review. Any comments 

regarding a currently pending 

Commission rule proposal, including 

proposed amendments to existing rules, 

should be directed to the comment file 

for the relevant rule proposal.5

We anticipate that any processes set 

forth in a Commission plan will reflect 

constraints imposed by limits on 

resources and competing priorities.6

Accordingly, the Commission 

encourages commenters to consider 

what additional steps, if any, beyond 

the Commission’s current review 

processes could be implemented 

effectively and efficiently in light of the 

Commission’s overall resource 

constraints and responsibilities. 

The Commission is issuing this 

request for information solely for 

information and program-planning 

purposes. The Commission will 

consider the comments submitted and 

may use them as appropriate in the 

preparation of a retrospective review 

plan but does not anticipate responding 

to each comment submitted. While 

responses to this request do not bind the 

Commission to any further actions, all 

submissions will be made publicly 

available on [sec.gov or regulations.gov]. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23179 Filed 9–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0476; FRL–9462–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submittals from the State of Maryland 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

sections 110(k)(2) and (3). These 

submittals address the infrastructure 

elements specified in CAA section 

110(a)(2), necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This proposed action is limited to the 

following infrastructure elements which 

were subject to EPA’s completeness 

findings pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(1) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS dated March 27, 2008 and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS dated October 22, 

2008: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or 

portions thereof; and the following 

infrastructure elements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M), or portions thereof. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0476 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–2010–0476, 

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– 

0476. 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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2380, or by 

e-mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56131 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 

38856) and a new PM2.5 NAAQS (62 FR 

38652). The revised ozone NAAQS is 

based on 8-hour average concentrations. 

The 8-hour averaging period replaced 

the previous 1-hour averaging period, 

and the level of the NAAQS was 

changed from 0.12 parts per million 

(ppm) to 0.08 ppm. The new PM2.5

NAAQS established a health-based 

PM2.5 standard of 15.0 micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and a twenty-four hour 

standard of 65 μg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. EPA strengthened the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 μg/m3 to 

35 μg/m3 on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) that provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of new or revised NAAQS 

within three years following the 

promulgation of such NAAQS. In March 

of 2004, Earthjustice initiated a lawsuit 

against EPA for failure to take action 

against states that had not made SIP 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, i.e., 

failure to make a ‘‘finding of failure to 

submit the required SIP 110(a) SIP 

elements.’’ On March 10, 2005, EPA 

entered into a Consent Decree with 

Earthjustice that obligated EPA to make 

official findings in accordance with 

section 110(k)(1) of the CAA as to 

whether states have made required 

complete SIP submissions, pursuant to 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2), by December 

15, 2007 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and by October 5, 2008 for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made such 

findings for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16205) and on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 

62902) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These completeness findings did not 

include findings relating to: (1) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that such 

subsection refers to a permit program as 

required by part D Title I of the CAA; 

(2) section 110(a)(2)(I); and (3) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which had been 

addressed by a separate finding issued 

by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147). 

Therefore, this action does not cover 

these specific elements. 

This action also does not include the 

portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they pertain to the 

PSD permit program, and the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it pertains to 

visibility. These portions of these 

elements will be addressed by separate 

actions. 

II. Summary of State Submittal 

Maryland provided multiple 

submittals to satisfy the section 

110(a)(2) requirements that are the 

subject of this proposed action for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submittals shown in Table 1 address the 

infrastructure elements, or portions 

thereof, identified in section 110(a)(2) 

that EPA is proposing to approve. 

TABLE 1—110(a)(2) ELEMENTS, OR PORTIONS THEREOF, EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE FOR THE 1997 OZONE AND

PM2.5 NAAQS AND THE 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS FOR MARYLAND

Submittal date 1997 8-Hour ozone 1997 PM2.5 2006 PM2.5

July 27, 2007 ........................ A, B, C, D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M 

November 30, 2007 .............. G 

April 3, 2008 ......................... .......................................................... A, B, C, D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M 

April 16, 2010 ....................... .......................................................... G ...................................................... G 

July 21, 2010 ........................ .......................................................... .......................................................... A, B, C, D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M 

July 21, 2010 ........................ .......................................................... .......................................................... Documentation showing public process was met. 

EPA analyzed the above identified 

submissions and other related 

submissions. Based upon this analysis, 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that such submittals meet 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M), or portions thereof, for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A detailed 

summary of EPA’s review of and 

rationale for approving Maryland’s 

submittals may be found in the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

this action, which is available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0476. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Maryland’s submittals that provide the 

basic program elements specified in the 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M), or portions thereof, necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this notice and the 

related TSD. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 proposes to approve 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); 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, 

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

the State’s proposed rulemaking. If the State’s 

proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that 

subsequent change and may publish another notice 

of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the 

rule after responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 

after the rule has been fully adopted by California 

and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation 

into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

• 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 proposed rule, 

pertaining to Maryland’s section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 11, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23280 Filed 9–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0733; FRL–9462–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

polyester resin operations. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. In a separate interim final action 

published in the Rules section in 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

deferring related CAA sanctions that 

would otherwise apply to the 

SJVUAPCD. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0733, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3019, grounds.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

By letter dated July 22, 2011, CARB 

submitted to EPA on behalf of 

SJVUAPCD a proposed rule, with 

request for parallel processing.1 See 

June 22, 2011 letter to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB. 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the rule title. 

TABLE 1—RULE SUBMITTED BY CALIFORNIA FOR PARALLEL PROCESSING

Local 

agency 

Rule 

No. Rule title 

SJVUAPCD 4684 Polyester Resin Operations. 

CARB’s July 22, 2011 parallel 

processing request includes the District 

Notice of Public Hearing to be held on 

August 18, 2011 and the amended 

District Rule 4684. SJVUAPCD amended 

Rule 4684 on June 16, 2011. Due to 

procedural issues with the local public 

notification process, SJVUAPCD 

readopted these amendments on August 

18, 2011 and expects CARB to submit 

them to EPA soon. 

EPA is granting CARB’s request that 

EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ our review and 

propose action on the rule. All of the 

relevant documents are available for 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS