13966 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

provisions at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, 

respectively, as amended by the 

promulgation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule for 

PSD and NNSR. Specifically, South 

Carolina’s December 2, 2010, proposed 

SIP revision addresses the following 

NSR PM2.5 provisions: (1) Requirement 

for NSR permits to address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; 

(2) significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (SO2 and 

NOX); and (3) requirement of states to 

address condensable PM in establishing 

enforceable emission limits for PM10 or 

PM2.5. In light of EPA’s February 11, 

2010, proposed rulemaking to repeal the 

PM10 ‘‘grandfathering’’ provision, as 

noted in Section II.C above, South 

Carolina’s December 2, 2010, SIP 

revision does not address 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(ix) promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule. Even if EPA’s proposed 

repeal of the PM10 ‘‘grandfathering’’ 

provision is not finalized before today’s 

action, South Carolina’s SIP revision is 

approvable because it is at least as 

stringent as current federal law, and is 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

In addition, South Carolina’s SIP 

revision does not incorporate optional 

provisions set forth at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(11) authorizing the use of 

interpollutant trading for the purpose of 

offsets under the PM2.5 NNSR program. 

Because the NSR PM2.5 Rule gives states 

discretion regarding whether to include 

interpollutant trading provisions in 

their PM2.5 NNSR programs, South 

Carolina’s decision not to adopt such 

provisions does not affect the 

approvability of South Carolina’s 

December 2, 2010, draft SIP revision. 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

South Carolina’s December 2, 2010, 

draft SIP revision is consistent with the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD and NNSR and 

with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., 

NSR PM2.5 Rule, 75 FR 31514. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of South Carolina’s 

NSR Rule Revision To Adopt the Phase 

II Rule Requirement for NOX as an 

Ozone Precursor 

South Carolina’s December 2, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision also updates its 

PSD permitting regulations at 61–62–5 

Standard No. 7. The submittal adds the 

requirement related to NOX as an ozone 

precursor provision as amended in the 

Phase II Rule. Specifically, the change 

addresses the inclusion of ‘‘nitrogen 

oxides’’ in the footnote at 61–62.5(i)(5)(i) 

(as amended at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(e)) 

to recognize NOX as an ozone precursor. 

The provision at 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) requires sources with a 

net increase of 100 tons per year or more 

of NOX to perform an ambient impact 

analysis. 

As mentioned above in Section III, 

South Carolina submitted a SIP revision 

on July 1, 2005, to update its PSD and 

NNSR Regulations (at Regulation 61– 

62.5, Standards No. 7 and 7.1) to adopt 

the 2002 NSR Reform permitting 

requirements as well as incorporate 

provisions recognizing NOX as an ozone 

precursor. The SIP revision became 

state-effective on June 24, 2005 and EPA 

took final action to approve the SIP 

revision on June 2, 2008. 73 FR 31368. 

Together, South Carolina’s July 1, 2005, 

SIP revision (73 FR 31368, June 2, 2008) 

and the December 2, 2010, SIP revision 

(the subject of today’s action), 

incorporate into South Carolina’s SIP (at 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standards No. 7 

and 7.1) all of the requirements for 

permitting pertaining to NOX as an 

ozone precursor as required by the 

Phase II Rule, 70 FR 71612 (November 

29, 2005). EPA is proposing to 

determine that South Carolina’s 

December 2, 2010, SIP revision is 

consistent with the federal requirements 

of the Phase II Rule and the CAA. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve South 

Carolina’s December 2, 2010, SIP 

revision adopting federal regulations 

amended in the NSR PM2.5 Rule and the 

Phase II Rule (recognizing NOX as an 

ozone precursor) into the South 

Carolina SIP. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is approvable because it is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 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 F43255, 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 proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 7, 2011 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6009 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 11–33, RM–11623; DA 11– 

406] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Topeka, KS 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13967 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by KSQA, 

LLC, permittee of station KSQA(TV), 

channel 12, Topeka, Kansas, requesting 

the substitution of channel 22 for 

channel 12 at Topeka. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 14, 2011, and reply 

comments on or before April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

James L. Winston, Esq., Rubin, Winston, 

Diercks, Harris & Cooke, LLP, 1201 

Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 

Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Denysyk, 

adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media 

Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

11–33, adopted February 22, 2011, and 

released March 2, 2011. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts (other than 

ex parte presentations exempt under 47 

CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing 

restricted proceedings. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Kansas, is amended by adding 

channel 22 and removing channel 12 at 

Topeka. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6007 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS