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

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

6 Executive 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 (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 :** 


### 56131 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

I. Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856) and a new PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS established a health-based PM 2.5 standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ( μg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a twenty-four hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS from 65 μg/m 3 to 35 μg/m 3 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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) E LEMENTS



### , OR 

### P ORTIONS 

### T HEREOF 

### , EPA I S 

### P ROPOSING TO 

### A PPROVE FOR THE 

### 1997 O ZONE AND 

### PM 2.5 

### NAAQS AND THE 

### 2006 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS FOR 

### M ARYLAND

Submittal date 1997 8-Hour ozone 1997 PM 2.5 2006 PM 2.5
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 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM 2.5 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);


### 56132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules

1 Under 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM 2.5 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 thebody 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.



### T ABLE 

### 1—R ULE 

### S UBMITTED BY 

### C ALI



### FORNIA FOR 

### P ARALLEL 

### P ROCESSING

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