Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16593 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2005–0004–201109; FRL– 

9285–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to convert a 

conditional approval of a revision to the 

South Carolina State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to a full approval. South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environment 

Control (SC DHEC), Bureau of Air 

Quality, submitted a SIP revision on 

April 14, 2009, in response to the 

conditional approval of its New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting program. 

South Carolina’s April 14, 2009, SIP 

revision consists of adopting 

requirements of the Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) construction 

permit program under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). This program affects 

major stationary sources in South 

Carolina that are subject to or 

potentially subject to the NNSR 

construction permit program. As 

required by the conditional approval, 

South Carolina’s April 14, 2009, SIP 

revision includes requirements for 

calculating emissions reductions that 

will be used for offsets and ensures 

those reductions are surplus to other 

Federal requirements. EPA is proposing 

approval of the April 14, 2009, SIP 

revision because the Agency has 

determined that South Carolina 

addresses the conditions identified in 

the conditional approval, and is in 

accordance with the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2005–0004, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2005–0004, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2005– 

0004. 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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the South 

Carolina SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala 

Bradley, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; e-mail address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Ms. Adams’ 

telephone number is (404) 562–9241; email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. Why is EPA proposing this action? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On April 14, 2009, the State of South 

Carolina, through SC DHEC, submitted 

a revision to the South Carolina SIP, 

which consists of changes to the South 

Carolina Air Pollution Control 

Regulations and Standards (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘South Carolina 

Regulations’’). Specifically, the proposed 

SIP revision includes changes to South 

Carolina Regulation 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 7.1 entitled ‘‘Nonattainment New 

Source Review.’’ SC DHEC submitted 

this SIP revision in response to EPA’s 

June 2, 2008 (73 FR 31368), rule which 

conditionally approved South Carolina’s 

NNSR program. 

South Carolina’s April 14, 2009, SIP 

revision also includes the removal of 

provisions which existed in South 

Carolina regulations that relate to 

requirements that were vacated from the 

Federal program by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court) on 

June 24, 2005. The provisions vacated 

from the Federal rules pertain to 

pollution control projects (PCPs) and 

clean units (CUs). Since these 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1On June 2, 2008 (73 FR 31368), EPA 

disapproved provisions in South Carolina’s PSD 

and NNSR programs relating to PCP and CUs. 

Therefore, these provisions were not approved into 

South Carolina’s SIP. 

provisions were not approved into 

South Carolina’s SIP, no action is 

required by EPA.1 As a result of the 

removal of the CU and PCP provisions, 

the SIP revision also includes minor 

administrative reference changes at 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Standard No. 7.1 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

which are now being proposed for 

inclusion in the SIP. 

In addition to changes to address the 

conditional approval of South Carolina’s 

NNSR program and the aforementioned 

administrative changes, South 

Carolina’s April 14, 2009, SIP revision 

also includes provisions in Regulation 

61–62.5, Standards No. 7 and 7.1 to 

exclude facilities that produce ethanol 

through a natural fermentation process 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Ethanol 

Rule’’) from the definition of ‘‘chemical 

process plants’’ in the major NSR 

permitting program. See 72 FR 24060 

(May 1, 2007). At this time, EPA is not 

proposing to take action on South 

Carolina’s changes to its NSR program 

to incorporate the provisions of the 

Ethanol Rule. 

II. Why is EPA proposing this action? 

South Carolina Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 7.1 was submitted to EPA 

by SC DHEC on July 1, 2005, for 

inclusion in the South Carolina SIP. 

This regulation relates to the South 

Carolina’s NNSR permit program. 

Revisions to Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 7.1 became State-effective 

on June 24, 2005. EPA proposed to 

conditionally approve South Carolina’s 

NNSR rules on September 12, 2007 (72 

FR 52031). EPA did not receive any 

comments on the proposal. EPA 

finalized its conditional approval of 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standards No. 7.1 

into the South Carolina SIP on June 2, 

2008 (73 FR 31368). As part of the 

conditional approval, South Carolina 

had twelve months from the June 2, 

2008, final conditional approval to 

submit changes to its NNSR program as 

described herein to be consistent with 

EPA Federal regulations. 

On April 14, 2009, SC DHEC 

submitted a revision to the SIP, 

incorporating the corrections required 

by EPA in the conditional approval. 

Specifically, South Carolina revised 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7.1 to 

include a methodology for calculating 

emission reductions to be used as offsets 

that include a baseline for determining 

credit for emissions offsets that meet the 

requirements set out in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(i) and Appendix S, section 

IV.C. This particular issue was 

highlighted as a basis for the conditional 

approval in the June 2, 2008 Federal 

Register. See 73 FR 31369–31370. The 

emission offsets provisions also specify 

that the reductions must be surplus and 

cannot be used for offsets if they are 

otherwise required by the South 

Carolina SIP or other Federal standards, 

such as New Source Performance 

Standards and National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 

including the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology standards. EPA has 

determined that South Carolina’s April 

14, 2009, SIP revision satisfies the 

conditions listed in EPA’s June 2, 2008, 

conditional approval, and today is 

proposing to convert its prior 

conditional approval to full approval. 

See 73 FR 31368. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to convert a 

conditional approval of a July 1, 2005, 

revision to the South Carolina SIP 

regarding requirements for the State’s 

NNSR construction permit program to a 

full approval. South Carolina’s April 14, 

2009, SIP revision consists of changes to 

South Carolina Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 7.1 entitled 

‘‘Nonattainment New Source Review.’’ 

SC DHEC submitted the April 14, 2009, 

SIP revision in response to EPA’s June 

2, 2008 (73 FR 31368), rule, which 

conditionally approved South Carolina’s 

NNSR program as provided in the 

State’s July 1, 2005, SIP revision. SC 

DHEC has satisfied the conditions listed 

in EPA’s conditional approval. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to convert 

its conditional approval of South 

Carolina’s July 1, 2005, SIP revision to 

a full approval. The April 14, 2009, SIP 

revision satisfies the conditions of 

EPA’s conditional approval of South 

Carolina’s July 1, 2005 SIP revision, and 

is are consistent with Federal 

regulations and in accordance with the 

CAA. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve minor administrative reference 

changes at South Carolina Regulation 

61–62.5 Standards No. 7 and 7.1 as a 

result of the removal of CU and PCP 

provisions. 

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 

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 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 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16595 

Dated: March 16, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6975 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

RIN 0648–XV30 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Extension of Public Comment Period 

on Proposed Range Extension for 

Coho Salmon South of San Francisco 

Bay 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are extending the 

date by which public comments are due 

concerning the proposed rule to extend 

the southern boundary of the 

endangered Central California Coast 

(CCC) coho salmon Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit (ESU) southward from 

its current boundary at the San Lorenzo 

River to include Soquel and Aptos 

Creeks in Santa Cruz County, California. 

On February 4, 2011, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register to 

extend the southern boundary of this 

ESU and announced a public comment 

period to end on April 5, 2011. Today 

we extend the public comment period to 

June 6, 2011. 

DATES: The deadline for receipt of 

comments on the proposed rule 

published on February 4, 2011, (76 FR 

6383), is extended from April 5, 2011, 

to June 6, 2011, at 5 p.m. Pacific 

Daylight Time. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed range extension, 

identified by the RIN 0648–XV30, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

the Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Protected Resources Division, Attn: 

Craig Wingert, Southwest Region, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 

W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long 

Beach, CA 90802–4213. 

• Fax: (562) 980–4027; Attn: Craig 

Wingert. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record. Comments will 

generally be posted without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter N/A in the 

required fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

A copy of our 12-month finding and 

proposed range extension and other 

relevant information may be obtained by 

submitting a request to the Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Protected 

Resources Division, Attn: Craig Wingert, 

Southwest Region, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213 

or from the Internet at http:// 

swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Wingert, NMFS Southwest Region, 

(562) 980–4021; or Dwayne Meadows, 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 

Silver Spring, MD, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6383), we 

published a proposed rule to extend the 

boundary of the endangered CCC coho 

salmon ESU from its current boundary 

at the San Lorenzo River southward to 

include Soquel and Aptos Creeks which 

are located in Santa Cruz County, CA. 

The proposed rule also concluded that 

this redefined ESU continues to be 

endangered. 

We received one request to extend the 

current public comment period on the 

rule to accommodate review of the 

proposed rule and all the supporting 

documentation. We have considered 

this request and conclude that a 60-day 

extension is appropriate and will not 

delay this rulemaking process. 

Accordingly, we are extending the 

public comment period to June 6, 2011, 

to allow additional time for public 

comment. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq. 

Dated: March 18, 2011. 

Helen Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7019 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–BA71 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Atlantic 

Sea Scallop Fishery; Amendment 15 to 

the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a fishery 

management plan amendment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

New England Fishery Management 

Council (Council) has submitted 

Amendment 15 to the Atlantic Sea 

Scallop Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) (Amendment 15), incorporating 

the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

for review by the Secretary of 

Commerce. NMFS is requesting 

comments from the public on 

Amendment 15, which was developed 

primarily to implement annual catch 

limits (ACLs) and accountability 

measures (AMs) to bring the Scallop 

FMP into compliance with new 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA). Amendment 15 includes 

additional measures recommended by 

the Council, including an adjustment to 

the overfishing definition, modification 

of the essential fish habitat (EFH) closed 

areas under the Scallop FMP, 

adjustments to measures for the Limited 

Access General Category fishery, 

adjustments to the scallop research set 

aside program, and additions to the list 

of measures that can be adjusted by 

framework adjustments. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on May 

23, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: An FEIS was prepared for 

Amendment 15 that describes the 

proposed action and its alternatives and 

provides a thorough analysis of the 

impacts of proposed measures and their 

alternatives. Copies of Amendment 15, 

including the FEIS and the IRFA, are 

available from Paul J. Howard, 

Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1