Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices 37039 

3.1000(d), this notice of EPA’s decision 

to approve Illinois’ request to revise its 

Part 52—Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans authorized 

program to allow electronic reporting of 

air emissions data under 40 CFR part 51, 

is being published in the Federal 

Register. ILEPA was notified of EPA’s 

determination to approve its application 

with respect to this authorized program. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

Andrew Battin, 

Director, Office of Information Collection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15048 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9690–6] 

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: 

Authorized Program Revision 

Approval, State of Delaware 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

approval of the State of Delaware’s 

request to revise its EPA-authorized 

program under the ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plans’’ requirements in the Code of 

Federal Regulations to allow electronic 

reporting. 

DATES: EPA’s approval is effective 

June 20, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evi 

Huffer, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Environmental 

Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, (202) 566–1697, 

huffer.evi@epa.gov, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of 

Environmental Information, Mail Stop 

2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566–1175, 

seeh.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation 

(CROMERR) was published in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and 

codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. 

CROMERR establishes electronic 

reporting as an acceptable regulatory 

alternative to paper reporting and 

establishes requirements to assure that 

electronic documents are as legally 

dependable as their paper counterparts. 

Subpart D of CROMERR requires that 

state, tribal or local government 

agencies that receive, or wish to begin 

receiving, electronic reports under their 

EPA-authorized programs must apply to 

EPA for a revision or modification of 

those programs and obtain EPA 

approval. Subpart D provides standards 

for such approvals based on 

consideration of the electronic 

document receiving systems that the 

state, tribe, or local government will use 

to implement the electronic reporting. 

Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 

40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides 

special procedures for program 

revisions and modifications to allow 

electronic reporting, to be used at the 

option of the state, tribe or local 

government in place of procedures 

available under existing programspecific authorization regulations. An 

application submitted under the subpart 

D procedures must show that the state, 

tribe or local government has sufficient 

legal authority to implement the 

electronic reporting components of the 

programs covered by the application 

and will use electronic document 

receiving systems that meet the 

applicable subpart D requirements. 

Once an authorized program has EPA’s 

approval to accept electronic documents 

under certain programs, CROMERR 

§ 3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program 

keep EPA apprised of any changes to 

laws, policies, or the electronic 

document receiving systems that have 

the potential to affect the program’s 

compliance with CROMERR § 3.2000. 

On August 19, 2011, the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DE DNREC) 

submitted an amended application 

titled ‘‘Online Reporting System 

Electronic Document Receiving System’’ 

for revision of its EPA-approved 

electronic reporting program under its 

title 40 CFR part 52 authorized program 

to allow new electronic reporting. EPA 

reviewed DE DNREC’s request to revise 

its EPA-authorized program and, based 

on this review, EPA determined that the 

application met the standards for 

approval of authorized program 

revisions set out in 40 CFR part 3, 

subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 

3.1000(d), this notice of EPA’s decision 

to approve Delaware’s request to revise 

its Part 52—Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans authorized 

program to allow electronic reporting of 

permits for minor sources under 40 CFR 

parts 51, is being published in the 

Federal Register. DE DNREC was 

notified of EPA’s determination to 

approve its application with respect to 

this authorized program. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

Andrew Battin, 

Director, Office of Information Collection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15019 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9690–2] 

Delegation of Authority to the State of 

Maryland To Implement and Enforce 

Additional or Revised National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants and New Source 

Performance Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of delegation of 

authority. 

SUMMARY: On April 16, 2012, EPA sent 

the State of Maryland (Maryland) a 

letter acknowledging that Maryland’s 

delegation of authority to implement 

and enforce National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) had been 

updated, as provided for under 

previously approved delegation 

mechanisms. To inform regulated 

facilities and the public of Maryland’s 

updated delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce NESHAP and 

NSPS, EPA is making available a copy 

of EPA’s letter to Maryland through this 

notice. 

DATES: On April 16, 2012, EPA sent 

Maryland a letter acknowledging that 

Maryland’s delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce NESHAP and 

NSPS had been updated. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents 

pertaining to this action are available 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– 

2029. Copies of Maryland’s submittal 

are also available at the Maryland 

Department of the Environment, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Copies of 

Maryland’s notice to EPA that Maryland 

has updated its incorporation by 

reference of Federal NESHAP and 

NSPS, and of EPA’s response, may also 

be found posted on EPA Region III’s 

Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

reg3artd/airregulations/delegate/ 

mddelegation.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Chalmers, (215) 814–2061, or by email 

at chalmers.ray@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

7, 2012, Maryland notified EPA that 

Maryland has updated its incorporation 

by reference of Federal NESHAP under 

40 CFR part 63 and NSPS under 40 CFR 

part 60 to include all current and future 

standards. On April 16, 2012, EPA sent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

37040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices 

1EPA has posted copies of these delegation 

actions at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/ 

airregulations/delegate/mddelegation.htm. 

2Maryland uses brackets to indicate text to be 

deleted. 

Maryland a letter acknowledging that 

Maryland now has the authority to 

implement and enforce the NESHAP 

and NSPS as specified by Maryland in 

its notice to EPA, as provided for under 

previously approved automatic 

delegation mechanisms. All 

notifications, applications, reports and 

other correspondence required pursuant 

to the delegated NESHAP and NSPS 

must be submitted to both the US EPA 

Region III and to the Maryland 

Department of Environment. A copy of 

EPA’s letter to Maryland follows: 

‘‘Mr. George S. Aburn, Jr. 

Director, Air and Radiation Management 

Administration 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

Dear Mr. Aburn: 

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 

2012 informing the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

that the State of Maryland (Maryland) 

has acted to obtain updates of its 

existing delegations of authority to 

implement and enforce federal National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS). 

As you know, EPA’s previous 

delegations to Maryland of the authority 

to implement and enforce various 

NESHAP found at 40 CFR parts 61 and 

63 and of various NSPS found at 40 CFR 

part 60 provide that Maryland may 

obtain automatic delegation of authority 

to implement and enforce updated or 

additional NESHAP and NSPS.1 For 

Maryland to obtain automatic delegation 

of additional standards, the primary 

requirement is that Maryland must have 

included the updated or additional 

standards by reference into Maryland’s 

regulations. In some cases Maryland 

must also have provided notice to EPA 

and/or committed to enforcing the 

standards in accordance with the 

provisions of the applicable previous 

EPA delegation(s) of authority to 

Maryland. 

In your letter you notify EPA that 

Maryland has ‘‘acted to obtain updates 

to its delegations of authority to 

implement and enforce NESHAP and 

NSPS to include all current and future: 

• NESHAP under 40 CFR Part 63; and 

• NSPS under 40 CFR Part 60.’’ 

You note that the Code of Maryland 

Regulations (COMAR) specifies 

Maryland’s requirements pertaining to 

control of NESHAP and NSPS sources. 

You state that ‘‘[i]n accordance with 

COMAR 26.11.15.02, NESHAP sources 

in Maryland may not be constructed, 

modified, or operated in any way which 

will result in violation of any provisions 

of 40 CFR Part 63.’’ You also note that 

‘‘[i]n accordance with COMAR 

26.11.06.12, NSPS sources in Maryland 

may not be constructed, modified, or 

operated in any way which will result 

in violation of any provisions of 40 CFR 

Part 60.’’ 

You explain that Maryland has 

updated the COMAR to specify that 

Maryland has adopted all current and 

future NESHAP found at 40 CFR part 63 

and NSPS found at 40 CFR part 60 by 

reference. You further explain that 

Maryland accomplished this by 

updating its definitions of a NESHAP 

source, found at COMAR 

26.11.01.01B(21), and its definition of a 

NSPS source, found at COMAR 

26.11.01.01B(23). You state that 

Maryland intends to implement all 

delegated current and future NESHAP 

found at 40 CFR part 63 and NSPS 

found at 40 CFR part 60 in conformance 

with the terms of the applicable 

previous EPA delegations of authority to 

Maryland. 

You provided EPA with copies of 

notices Maryland published in the 

Maryland Register proposing and 

finalizing the revised COMAR 

definitions of a NESHAP source and of 

a NSPS source. 

EPA notes that the final action notice 

which Maryland provided, dated 

February 24, 2012, confirms Maryland’s 

revision of Title 26, Department of the 

Environment, Subtitle 11, Air Quality to 

adopt the revised definitions. The notice 

states that: 

‘‘On February 9, 2012, the Secretary of 

the Environment adopted amendments 

to: 

(1) Regulation .01 under COMAR 

26.11.01—General Administrative 

Provisions; and 

(2) Regulation .12 under COMAR 

26.11.06—General Emission Standards, 

Prohibitions, and Restrictions. 

This action, which was proposed for 

adoption in 38:25 Md. R. 1647–1648 

(December 2, 2011) has been adopted as 

proposed. 

Effective Date: March 5, 2012.’’ 

EPA further notes that the proposed 

action notice which Maryland provided, 

dated December 2, 2011, specifies 

Maryland’s proposed updates to the 

NESHAP source and NSPS source 

definitions. 

Maryland states in the proposed 

action notice that it is proposing to 

revise Regulation .01 under COMAR 

26.11.01—General Administrative 

Provisions, as follows: 

‘‘.01 Definitions 

A. (text unchanged) 

B. Terms Defined 

(1)–(20–1) (text unchanged) 

(21) — ‘National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants source 

(NESHAP source)’ means any: 

(a) Source of asbestos, beryllium, 

mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, or 

inorganic arsenic which is subject to the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 61 (excluding 

Subparts B, H, I, K, Q, R, T, and W), as 

amended; or 

(b) [One of the sources listed in § D of 

this regulation] 2 Source which is 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 

63, as amended. 

(22) Reserved 

(23) ‘New Source Performance 

Standard source (NSPS source)’ [(see § C 

of this regulation)] means any source 

which is subject to 40 CFR part 60, as 

amended. 

(24)–(53) (text unchanged) 

[C.]–[D.] (proposed for repeal)’’ 

The notice also proposes a change to 

a reference in COMAR to the NSPS 

definition. That reference is found at 

Regulation .12 under COMAR 

26.11.06—General Emission Standards, 

Prohibitions, and Restrictions. Maryland 

proposed this change in the citation 

because Maryland had also proposed to 

change the COMAR identification of the 

NSPS source definition to identify it as 

definition number 23. 

In response to your submittal, EPA 

acknowledges that Maryland now has 

the delegated authority to implement 

and enforce the current and future 

NESHAP as found in 40 CFR part 63, 

and the current and future NSPS found 

in 40 CFR part 60, except for those 

standards which EPA explicitly 

excluded from its delegations to 

Maryland in EPA’s initial delegation 

actions, as discussed below. EPA also 

acknowledges that Maryland has the 

delegated authority to implement and 

enforce any future amendments to 

delegated standards. EPA would also 

like to note that Maryland continues to 

be delegated the authority to implement 

and enforce the NESHAP standards at 

40 CFR part 61, in accordance with 

EPA’s previous delegation action related 

to these standards, except for those 

subparts in 40 CFR part 61 which 

Maryland has not adopted by reference 

as Maryland indicates by its exclusion 

of them in its definition of NESHAP 

source. 

Please note that when EPA initially 

delegated to Maryland the authority to 

implement and enforce various 

NESHAP and NSPS, EPA specified 

various standards or provisions that it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices 37041 

3Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3rd 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

was specifically excluding from its 

designation, including any standards 

under 40 CFR part 63 that control 

radionuclides, or any provisions 

pertaining to an accidental release 

prevention program. These exclusions 

remain in effect. EPA also specified 

various requirements, limitations and 

restrictions. All of these remain in 

effect. 

Please also note that on December 19, 

2008, in Sierra Club v. EPA,3 the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit vacated certain 

provisions of the General Provisions of 

40 CFR Part 63 relating to exemptions 

for startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM). On October 16, 2009, the Court 

issued a mandate vacating these SSM 

exemption provisions, which are found 

at 40 CFR § 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). 

Accordingly, EPA no longer allows 

sources the SSM exemption as provided 

for in the vacated provisions at 40 CFR 

§ 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), even though EPA 

has not yet formally removed these SSM 

exemption provisions from the General 

Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63. Because 

Maryland incorporated 40 CFR Part 63 

by reference, Maryland should also no 

longer allow sources to use the former 

SSM exemption from the General 

Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 due to the 

Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA. 

EPA appreciates Maryland’s 

continuing NESHAP and NSPS 

enforcement efforts, and also 

Maryland’s decision to take automatic 

delegation of all current and future 

NESHAP and NSPS by adopting them 

by reference. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Esher, 

Director Air Protection Division’’ 

This notice acknowledges the update 

of Maryland’s delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce NESHAP and 

NSPS. 

Dated: June 3, 2012. 

Diana Esher, 

Director, Air Protection Division, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15018 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT–IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S. 

[Public Notice 2012–0111] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Final Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review 

and Comments Request. 

Form Title: EIB 94–07 Exporters 

Certificate for Use with a Short Term 

Export Credit Insurance Policy. 

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of 

the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

invites the general public and other 

Federal Agencies to comment on the 

proposed information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. 

Ex-Im Bank’s financial institution 

policy holders provide this form to U.S. 

exporters, who certify to the eligibility 

of their exports for Ex-Im Bank support. 

The completed forms are held by the 

financial institution policy holders, only 

to be submitted to Ex-Im Bank in the 

event of a claim filing. A requirement of 

Ex-Im Bank’s policies is that the insured 

financial institution policy holder 

obtains a completed Exporter’s 

Certificate at the time it provides 

financing for an export. 

This form will enable Ex-Im Bank to 

identify the specific details of the export 

transaction. These details are necessary 

for determining the eligibility of claims 

for approval. Ex-Im Bank staff and 

contractors review this information to 

assist in determining that an export 

transaction, on which a claim for nonpayment has been submitted, meets all 

of the terms and conditions of the 

insurance coverage. 

The Exporters Certificate for Use with 

a Short Term Export Credit Insurance 

Policy is a requirement of Ex-Im Bank’s 

policies. The form can be viewed at 

www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib94– 

07.pdf 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before July 20, 2012 to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments maybe submitted 

electronically on www.regulations.gov 

or by mail to Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20038 Attn: OMB 

3048–0041. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Titles and Form Number: EIB 94–07 

Exporters Certificate for Use with a 

Short Term Export Credit Insurance 

Policy. 

OMB Number: 3048–xxx. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Need and Use: Ex-Im Bank developed 

the referenced form to obtain exporter 

certification regarding the export 

transaction, U.S. content, non-military 

use, non-nuclear use, compliance with 

Ex-Im Bank’s country cover policy, and 

their eligibility to participate in USG 

programs. These details are necessary to 

determine the legitimacy of claims 

submitted. It also provides the financial 

institution policy holder a check on the 

export transaction’s eligibility, at the 

time it is fulfilling a financing request. 

Affected Public: This form affects 

entities involved in the export of U.S 

goods and services. 

Annual Number of Respondents: 

2,500. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 

minutes. 

Number of forms reviewed by Ex-Im 

Bank: 23. 

Note Ex-Im Bank only reviews this 

form when a claim is submitted. In 

Fiscal Year 2011, 23 claims were filed. 

Government Annual Burden Hours: 2 

hours. 

Government Cost: $77.44. 

Frequency of Reporting or Use: As 

needed. 

Sharon A. Whitt, 

Agency Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14997 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection(s) Being 

Reviewed by the Federal 

Communications Commission for 

Extension Under Delegated Authority, 

Comments Requested 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burden and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s). 

Comments are requested concerning: 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES