Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 44493 

treatment code and its corresponding 

meaning). 

(2) The issuer must provide to 

participants and beneficiaries, as soon 

as practicable, upon request, the 

diagnosis code and its corresponding 

meaning, and the treatment code and its 

corresponding meaning, associated with 

any adverse benefit determination or 

final internal adverse benefit 

determination. The issuer must not 

consider a request for such diagnosis 

and treatment information, in itself, to 

be a request for an internal appeal under 

this paragraph (b) or an external review 

under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(F) Deemed exhaustion of internal 

claims and appeals processes—(1) In 

the case of an issuer that fails to adhere 

to all the requirements of this paragraph 

(b)(3) with respect to a claim, the 

claimant is deemed to have exhausted 

the internal claims and appeals process 

of this paragraph (b), except as provided 

in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(F)(2) of this 

section. Accordingly, the claimant may 

initiate an external review under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as 

applicable. The claimant is also entitled 

to pursue any available remedies under 

State law, as applicable, on the basis 

that the issuer has failed to provide a 

reasonable internal claims and appeals 

process that would yield a decision on 

the merits of the claim. 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii)(F)(1) of this section, the 

internal claims and appeals process of 

this paragraph (b) will not be deemed 

exhausted based on de minimis 

violations that do not cause, and are not 

likely to cause, prejudice or harm to the 

claimant so long as the issuer 

demonstrates that the violation was for 

good cause or due to matters beyond the 

control of the issuer and that the 

violation occurred in the context of an 

ongoing, good faith exchange of 

information between the issuer and the 

claimant. This exception is not available 

if the violation is part of a pattern or 

practice of violations by the issuer. The 

claimant may request a written 

explanation of the violation from the 

issuer, and the issuer must provide such 

explanation within 10 days, including a 

specific description of its bases, if any, 

for asserting that the violation should 

not cause the internal claims and 

appeals process of this paragraph (b) to 

be deemed exhausted. If an external 

reviewer or a court rejects the claimant’s 

request for immediate review under 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(F)(1) of this section 

on the basis that the issuer met the 

standards for the exception under this 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(F)(2), the claimant 

has the right to resubmit and pursue the 

internal appeal of the claim. In such a 

case, within a reasonable time after the 

external reviewer or court rejects the 

claim for immediate review (not to 

exceed 10 days), the issuer shall provide 

the claimant with notice of the 

opportunity to resubmit and pursue the 

internal appeal of the claim. Time 

periods for re-filing the claim shall 

begin to run upon claimant’s receipt of 

such notice. 

Signed this 15th day of July 2011. 

Diane O. Williams, 

Federal Register Liaison, Internal Revenue 

Service, Department of the Treasury. 

Signed this 20th day of July 2011. 

Daniel J. Maguire, 

Director, Office of Health Plan Standards and 

Compliance Assistance, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, Department of 

Labor. 

Signed this 20th day of July 2011. 

Dawn Smalls, 

Executive Secretary to the Department, 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18820 Filed 7–22–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4820–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0042;FRL–9279–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra 

Air Quality Management District, 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District, and South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Northern Sierra Air Quality 

Management District (NSAQMD), 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD), and 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from gasoline dispensing facilities, 

polyester resin operations, and spray 

booth facilities. We are approving local 

rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 26, 2011 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 25, 2011. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0198, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http: 

//www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES
44494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

NSAQMD ..... 215 Phase II Vapor Recovery .................................................................................. 02/22/10 07/20/10 

SMAQMD ..... 465 Polyester Resin Operations .............................................................................. 09/25/08 09/15/09 

SCAQMD ..... 1132 Further Control of VOC Emissions From High-Emitting Spray Booth Facilities 05/05/06 01/10/10 

SCAQMD ..... 1162 Polyester Resin Operations .............................................................................. 07/08/05 04/06/09 

On August 25, 2010, EPA determined 

that the submittal for NSAQMD Rule 

215 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. On 

January 21, 2010, EPA determined that 

the submittal for SMAQMD Rule 465 

met the completeness criteria. On 

February 4, 2010, EPA determined that 

the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1132 

met the completeness criteria. On May 

13, 2009, EPA determined that the 

submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1162 met 

the completeness criteria. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

SCAQMD Rule 1132 into the SIP on 04/ 

26/04 (69 FR 22445). We approved an 

earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 1162 

into the SIP on 02/12/02 (67 FR 6410). 

No earlier versions of NSAQMD Rule 

215 and SMAQMD Rule 465 were 

approved into the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. NSAQMD Rule 215 imposes 

more stringent requirements on VOC 

emissions from gasoline dispensing 

facilities, SCAQMD Rule 1132 imposes 

more stringent requirements on VOC 

emissions from spray booth facilities, 

while SCAQMD Rule 1162 and 

SMAQMD Rule 465 impose more 

stringent requirements on VOC 

emissions from polyester resin 

operations. EPA’s technical support 

documents (TSD) have more 

information about these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The NSAQMD, 

SMAQMD, and SCAQMD all regulate 

ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR 

part 81), so Rule 215, 465, 1132, and 

1162 must fulfill RACT. Guidance and 

policy documents that we use to 

evaluate enforceability and RACT 

requirements consistently include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor 

Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle 

Refueling Emissions at Gasoline 

Dispensing Facilities,’’ (EPA–450/3–91– 

022). 

4. ‘‘Gasoline Dispensing Facilities—Stage II 

Vapor Recovery,’’ EPA’s Draft Model 

Rule, August 17, 1992. 

5. ‘‘Gasoline Vapor Recovery Guidelines,’’ 

EPA Region IX, April 24, 2000. 

6. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents,’’ (EPA– 

453/R–06–001, 9/06). 

7. ‘‘Control of VOC Emissions from 

Manufacture of High-Density 

Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and 

Polystyrene Resins,’’ (EPA–450/3–83– 

008, 11/83). 

8. ‘‘Control of VOC Fugitive Emissions fro 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and 

Resin manufacturing Equipment,’’ (EPA– 

450/3–83–006, 3/84). 

9. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials,’’ (EPA–453/R–08–004, 9/08). 

10. ‘‘Control Techniques for Miscellaneous 

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,’’ (EPA– 

453/R–08–003). 

11. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents,’’ (EPA– 

453/R–06–001, 9/06). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluations. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agencies modify the 

rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by August 25, 2011, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on September 26, 

2011. This will incorporate these rules 

into the Federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 44495 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not interfere with Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)) because EPA lacks the 

discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, these rules do 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 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 September 26, 

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. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(366)(i)(B)(3), 

(377)(i)(A)(4), (378)(i)(A)(2) and 

(381)(i)(D) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(366) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(3) Rule 1162, ‘‘Polyester Resin 

Operations,’’ amended on July 8, 2005. 

* * * * * 

(377) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(4) Rule 465, ‘‘Polyester Resin 

Operations,’’ amended on September 25, 

2008. 

* * * * * 

(378) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Rule 1132, ‘‘Further Control of 

VOC Emissions From High-Emitting 

Spray Booth Facilities,’’ amended on 

May 5, 2006. 

* * * * * 

(381) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) Northern Sierra Air Quality 

Management District 

(1) Rule 215, ‘‘Phase II Vapor 

Recovery System Requirements,’’ 

amended on February 22, 2010. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–18872 Filed 7–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[WC Docket No. 07–245, GN Docket No. 09– 

51; Report No. 2931] 

A National Broadband Plan for Our 

Future; Petition for Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, Petitions 

for Reconsideration (Petitions) have 

been filed in the Commission’s 

Rulemaking proceeding concerning a 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES