72844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves establishing four temporary 

safety zones, as described in paragraph 

34(g) of the Instruction, that will be 

enforced for a total of six hours. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0958 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0958 Safety Zones; New Year’s 

Eve Fireworks Displays within the Captain 

of the Port St. Petersburg, FL Zone. 

(a) Regulated Areas. The following 

regulated areas are safety zones, with 

the specific enforcement period for each 

safety zone. All coordinates are North 

American Datum 1983. 

(1) Naples, FL. All waters within a 

280 yard radius of position 26°07′53′′ N., 

81°48′32′′ W. This regulated area will be 

enforced from 7 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on 

December 31, 2011. 

(2) St. Petersburg, FL. All waters 

within a 375 yard radius of position 

27°46′31′′ N., 82°37′38′′ W. This 

regulated area will be enforced from 

8:30 p.m. on December 31, 2011 until 

12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2012. 

(3) Cape Coral, FL. All waters within 

a 235 yard radius of position 26°32′15′′ 

N., 81°59′57′′ W. This regulated area 

will be enforced from 11:30 p.m. on 

December 31, 2011 until 12:30 a.m. on 

January 1, 2012. 

(4) Sarasota, FL. All waters within a 

235 yard radius of position 27°19′55′′ N., 

82°32′48′′ W. This regulated area will be 

enforced from 11:30 p.m. on December 

31, 2011 until 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 

2012. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) All persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the regulated areas unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within any of the regulated areas 

may contact the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824– 

7524, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within any of the regulated areas is 

granted by the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated areas by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective Date. This rule is 

effective from 7 p.m. on December 31, 

2011 until 1 a.m. on January 1, 2012. 

Dated: November 8, 2011. 

S.L. Dickinson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30509 Filed 11–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0017–201014(a) & 

EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0018–201001(a); 

FRL–9495–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans: South 

Carolina; Negative Declarations for 

Groups I, II, III and IV Control 

Techniques Guidelines; and 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve several State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC). 

These revisions establish reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

requirements for the three major sources 

located in the portion of York County, 

South Carolina that is within the bi-state 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72845 

1Prior to 2004, the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area was 

designated as an attainment area for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and thus South Carolina was not 

required to meet CTG requirements for this Area for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area that either 

emit volatile organic compounds (VOC), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) or both. The bistate Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state 

Charlotte Area.’’ In addition, South 

Carolina’s SIP revisions include 

negative declarations for certain source 

categories for which EPA has control 

technique guidelines (CTG), meaning 

that SC DHEC has concluded that no 

such sources are located in that portion 

of the nonattainment area. EPA has 

evaluated the proposed revisions to 

South Carolina’s SIP, and has concluded 

that they are consistent with statutory 

and regulatory requirements and EPA 

guidance. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

27, 2012 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives relevant adverse comment 

by December 28, 2011. If EPA receives 

such comment, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0017 and EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0018, by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0017’’ 

for comments regarding the RACT 

demonstration and the negative 

declarations for Groups I and I CTG. 

‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0018’’ for 

comments regarding the negative 

declarations for Groups III and IV CTG. 

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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: 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–2010– 

0017’’ and ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0018.’’ 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 

email, 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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: Zuri 

Farngalo, 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. Zuri 

Farngalo may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9152 or by electronic mail 

address farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Analysis of the State’s Submittals 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

the bi-state Charlotte Area as a moderate 

nonattainment area with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). See 69 

FR 23858. In addition to six full 

counties and one partial county in 

North Carolina, the bi-state Charlotte 

Area also includes the portion of York 

County, South Carolina that falls within 

the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area 

Transportation Study Metropolitan 

Planning Organization Area (the ‘‘Rock 

Hill-Fort Mill Area’’).1 As a result of this 

designation, North Carolina and South 

Carolina were required to amend their 

SIPs for their respective portions of the 

bi-state Charlotte area to satisfy the 

requirements of section 182 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act). Today’s action 

specifically addresses the Rock Hill-Fort 

Mill Area in South Carolina. The 

requirements for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 

will be addressed in separate 

rulemaking. 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA 

to: (1) List for regulation those 

categories of products that account for at 

least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, 

on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from 

consumer and commercial products in 

ozone nonattainment areas; and (2) 

divide the list of categories to be 

regulated into four groups. EPA 

published the initial list in the Federal 

Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 

15264), and has revised the list several 

times. See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006), 

70 FR 69759 (November 17, 2005), 64 

FR 13422 (March 18, 1999), 63 FR 48792 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(September 11, 1998). As authorized by 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA chose to 

issue Control Technique Guidelines 

(CTGs) in lieu of regulations for each 

listed product category. See 73 FR 

58481 (October 7, 2008) (Group IV 

CTG); 72 FR 57215 (October 9, 2007) 

(Group III CTG); and 71 FR 58745 

(October 5, 2006) (Group II CTG). 

The primary purpose of the CTGs is 

to satisfy the requirement in CAA 

section 182(b)(2) that states adopt RACT 

rules for all areas designated 

nonattainment for ozone and classified 

as moderate or above. The three parts to 

the section 182(b)(2) RACT requirement 

are: (1) RACT for sources covered by an 

existing CTG (i.e., a CTG issues prior to 

enactment of the 1990 amendments to 

the CAA); (2) RACT for sources covered 

by a post-enactment CTG; and (3) all 

major sources not covered by a CTG 

(i.e., non-CTG sources). 

A CTG is a guidance document issued 

by EPA which, in combination with 

CAA section 182(b)(2), triggers a 

responsibility for states to submit RACT 

rules for stationary sources of VOC that 

are covered by the CTG as part of their 

SIPs. EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest 

emission limit that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility.’’ 44 FR 53761 

(September 17, 1979). Each CTG 

includes a ‘‘presumptive norm’’ or 

‘‘presumptive RACT’’ that EPA believes 

satisfies the definition of RACT. 

If a state submits a RACT rule that is 

consistent with the presumptive RACT, 

the state does not need to submit 

additional support to demonstrate that 

the rule meets the CAA’s RACT 

requirement. However, if the state 

decides to submit an alternative 

emission limit or level of control for a 

source or source category for which 

there is a presumptive RACT, the state 

must submit independent 

documentation as to why the rule meets 

the statutory RACT requirement. 

Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA 

addresses moderate and above areas for 

the 1-hour ozone standard. Further 

clarification of the RACT requirements 

for areas classified as moderate or above 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 

provided in EPA’s regulations. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 51.912, entitled 

‘‘What requirements apply for 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) and reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) under the 8-hour 

NAAQS?’’ provides the pertinent RACT 

requirements for areas classified as 

moderate or above for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, stating: 

(1) For each area subject to subpart 2 in 

accordance with 51.903 of this part and 

classified moderate or higher, the State shall 

submit a SIP revision that meets the nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and VOC RACT requirements 

in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act. 

(2) The State shall submit the RACT SIP for 

each area no later than 27 months after 

designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

except that for a State subject to the 

requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, 

the State shall submit NOX RACT SIPs for 

electrical generating units (EGUs) no later 

than the date by which the areas’ attainment 

demonstration is due (prior to any 

reclassification under section 181(b)(3)) for 

the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard, or July 9, 2007, whichever comes 

later. 

(3) The State shall provide for 

implementation of RACT as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the first ozone 

season or portion thereof which occurs 30 

months after the RACT SIP is due. 

The CTGs established by EPA are 

guidance to the states and provide 

recommendations only. A state can 

develop its own strategy for what 

constitutes RACT for the various CTG 

categories, and EPA will review that 

strategy in the context of the SIP process 

and determine whether it meets the 

RACT requirements of the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. If no major 

sources of VOC or NOX emissions 

(which should be considered separately) 

in a particular source category exist in 

an applicable nonattainment area, a 

state may submit a negative declaration 

for that category. 

B. Regulatory Schedule for 

Implementing CTGs 

CTGs that were established in 1978 

ultimately were required to be adopted 

by the States by 1990 (see schedule 

below for details). CAA Section 

182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued 

after 1990 must specify the date by 

which a state must submit a SIP revision 

in response to the CTG. States were 

required to have the pre-1990 CAA CTG 

categories and post–1990 CAA CTG 

categories for applicable areas addressed 

in their SIPs according to the following 

schedule: 

Group Federal Register published SIP due 

I ................... Pre-CAA CTG .........................................................

As of January 1978 the first 15 CTG categories 

were established. Ten additional CTG were 

issued in 1978 (1 of those (vegetable oil) was 

rescinded).

Pre-CAA Amendment CTG 

The first 25 CTG categories were due to be adopted by the states by 1980. 

EPA initially approved most of these rules into the state SIPs. Subsequently, EPA reviewed these state rules to see if they were technically 

adequate and if they met national standards for national consistency. 

Based on this review, EPA issued the RACT fix-ups in 1987 (see general 

preamble (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)). In 1988, EPA published a technical document to address technical inadequacies found in these state 

adopted rules and to address minimum standards of national consistency. 

States were required to adopt revised rules by 1990. Congress established CTG statutory requirements in the 1990 CAA. Outstanding CTG requirements were due in 1992 (CAA Section 182(b)(2)(C).). 

Post-CAA CTG ........................................................

The group of CTG established in 60 FR 15264, 

March 23, 1995, were broken into subsets 

called ‘‘Group I, II, III and IV’’ (some of these 

CTG are updates of previously established 

CTG)).

September 15, 2006 (40 CFR 51.912, RACT SIPs due for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

II .................. 71 FR 58745, October 5, 2006 ............................... October 5, 2007. 

III ................. 72 FR 57215, October 9, 2007 ............................... October 9, 2008. 

IV ................. 73 FR 58481, October 7, 2008 ............................... October 7, 2009. 

II. Analysis of the State’s Submittals 

Following the April 2004 designation 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area as a 

moderate ozone nonattainment area, 

South Carolina had until June 15, 2007, 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

RACT submission (addressing the 

applicable CTG), and a reasonable 

further progress plan for the Rock HillVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72847 

Fort Mill Area portion of the 

nonattainment area. Subsequently, 

South Carolina was required to provide 

SIP revisions to address Group II CTG 

requirements in the Rock Hill-Fort Mill 

Area by October 5, 2007, and to address 

Group III and Group IV CTG 

requirements by October 9, 2008, and 

October 7, 2009, respectively. 

South Carolina provided SIP revisions 

addressing Groups I and II CTG, on 

August 31, 2007. Subsequent to South 

Carolina’s August 31, 2007, SIP 

revision, South Carolina provided SIP 

revisions to address Group III CTG on 

February 23, 2009, and Group IV CTG 

on July 9, 2009, for the Rock Hill FortMill Area. Today’s action relates to 

South Carolina’s SIP revisions for the 

Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area regarding 

Groups, I, II, III and IV CTG 

requirements, and South Carolina’s 

RACT demonstration for major non-CTG 

sources in the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area. 

As part of its analysis to support the 

negative declarations for Groups I, II, III 

and IV CTG, South Carolina reviewed 

its permits files and emissions inventory 

information. After this review, South 

Carolina determined that there are no 

stationary sources or emitting facilities 

located in Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area that 

are subject to Groups I, II, III and IV 

CTG. In accordance with CAA 

requirements, South Carolina prepared 

SIP revisions with these negative 

declarations and provided the public 

with an opportunity to review and 

provide comment regarding South 

Carolina’s analyses. EPA has reviewed 

South Carolina’s SIP revisions in 

support of the negative declarations for 

Groups I, II, III and IV CTG, and has 

concluded that the Rock Hill-Fort Mill 

Area in York County, South Carolina 

has met all the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for making a negative 

declaration regarding Groups I, II, III 

and IV CTG. Further, EPA has 

determined that South Carolina’s 

August 31, 2007, February 23, 2009, and 

July 7, 2009, SIP revisions meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA regulations. 

With regard to RACT for non-CTG 

sources, South Carolina identified three 

major non-CTG sources within the Rock 

Hill-Fort Mill Area subject to RACT 

requirements. The three sources are 

Bowater, Inc., Cytec Carbon Fibers, LLC, 

and Georgia Pacific Wood Products, 

LLC. South Carolina determined what 

constitutes RACT for these facilities 

using the top-down process used for 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and nonattainment new source review. 

The top-down process provides that all 

available control technologies be ranked 

in descending order of control 

effectiveness. The most stringent 

technology is analyzed based on the 

following criteria: Technical 

considerations, along with energy, 

environmental, and economic impact. 

After this analysis is complete a 

determination is made as to whether the 

technology is achievable. The most 

stringent technology may be eliminated 

in this fashion and then the next most 

stringent alternative is considered, and 

so on. 

A report submitted by the three 

facilities concluded that emission 

control devices would not be 

economically feasible, and thus, that 

RACT for these facilities should consist 

only of work practice requirements. SC 

DHEC evaluated the RACT analyses 

submitted by the three facilities which 

are further discussed below. 

Bowater Coated Paper Division 

(Bowater) produces bleached pulp and 

paper products and is a major source for 

both NOX and VOC. There are fifteen 

types of affected sources at the facility. 

These sources are subject to federal 

regulations that already require strict 

NOX and VOC control. Many Bowater 

sources are currently meeting other 

federal requirements and these types of 

controls meet RACT for these units. 

Bowater has various NOX sources. The 

4110 Paper Mill-Coating unit requires 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) standards and BACT meets 

RACT for this unit. Number 5105 No. 1 

Recover Furnace and Number 2723 No. 

2 Lime Kiln require Lowest Achievable 

Emissions Rate (LAER) standards and 

for these units LAER meets RACT. The 

RACT analysis determined that the 

remaining NOX sources either meet NOX

SIP Call Control or additional controls 

are not feasible. All of the Bowater 

VOCs are Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs.) For the VOC units either the 

Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT) standards satisfy 

RACT or the RACT analysis for those 

units shows that additional controls are 

not feasible. SC DHEC concluded in its 

evaluation of Bowater’s RACT analysis 

for each of the units that either the 

existing MACT standard for the affected 

unit was adequate or that the remaining 

technically feasible emission control 

devices would not be economically 

feasible to apply at the facility. SC 

DHEC noted that in general, good 

combustion results in low VOC 

emissions. Furthermore, SC DHEC noted 

that proper operation and/or good 

combustion practices are the only 

practical control techniques for biomass 

combustion sources identified in the 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. 

Thus, SC DHEC concluded that RACT 

for this facility will consist of work 

practice requirements. See Appendix R 

of the South Carolina RACT submittal 

for details of the RACT assessment 

including technology restrictions. 

Cytec Carbon Fibers LLC (Cytec) is a 

title V facility that operates a carbon 

fiber manufacturing process and is a 

major source for NOX. Therefore, SC 

DHEC completed a RACT analysis for 

their NOX sources. Cytec is not a major 

source for VOC so a VOC RACT 

determination was not performed for 

this facility. Most of Cytec’s NOX

emissions come from the conversion of 

the raw material into carbon fibers. A 

RACT analysis was done for their three 

oxidation ovens, the pre-carbonization 

(pre-carb) oven burner, and the 

carbonization ovens with the associated 

thermal oxidizer. SC DHEC has 

concluded there are no technically and 

economically feasible add-on control 

options for NOX emissions reduction. 

However, Cytec’s operating permit will 

include a work practice standard for 

reduction of NOX emissions during 

product changes. Cytec estimates that 

this work practice could lower actual 

annual NOX emissions. SC DHEC 

concluded that this fully meets RACT. 

See Appendix R of the South Carolina 

RACT submittal for details of the RACT 

assessment including technology 

restrictions. 

Georgia Pacific—Catawba Hardboard 

Plant is a major source for VOC but not 

for NOX. Therefore, SC DHEC completed 

a RACT analysis for VOC emissions 

from the facility from the cooker, dryers, 

and press equipment at the plant. All 

but 3 of the VOCs emitted from the 

plant are HAP VOCs. The non-HAP 

VOCs are Hexanal (1.4184 tons per year 

(tpy)), CFC–11 (0.0005 tpy), and Methyl 

Ethyl Ketone (0.0825 tpy). For GA 

Pacific, the RACT analysis determined 

that the only feasible control options 

(before determining economic 

feasibility) are regenerative thermal 

oxidizer (RTO), regenerative catalytic 

oxidizer (RCO), thermal catalytic 

oxidizer (TCO) and Biofilter. The RACT 

analysis went on to show that it would 

cost $8 million to install RTO, RCO or 

TCO and would cost $3.5 million 

annually to operate. These technologies 

have a cost effectiveness of $14,553 per 

ton. The RACT analysis also showed 

that it would cost $5 million to install 

the Biofilter technology and cost 

$700,000 to operate annually with a cost 

effectiveness of $5,483 per ton. The 

analysis concluded that it is not 

economically feasible to apply add-on 

controls to these units. Furthermore, SC 

DHEC noted that these units are already 

subject to the MACT requirements set 

forth at the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

DDD. South Carolina also stated in its 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

evaluation that Georgia Pacific Wood 

Products LLC, will comply with MACT 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR 63, 

Subpart DDDD. See Appendix R of the 

South Carolina RACT submittal for 

details of the RACT assessment 

including technology restrictions. 

III. Final Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is approving the revision to South 

Carolina’s SIP revisions addressing 

negative declarations for applicability of 

Groups I, II, III and IV CTG for the Rock 

Hill-Fort Mill Area; and concerning the 

RACT requirements related to the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Rock HillFort Mill Area which is the portion of 

York County, South Carolina that is 

included in the bi-state CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. EPA has evaluated 

South Carolina’s August 31, 2007, 

February 23, 2009, and July 9, 2009, SIP 

revisions, and has determined that they 

meet the applicable requirements of the 

CAA and EPA regulations, and are 

consistent with EPA policy for negative 

declarations for Groups I, II, III and IV 

CTG, and for RACT. 

On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 

16436. EPA subsequently announced a 

reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS, 

and proposed new 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in January 2010. See 75 FR 

2938. In September 2011, EPA withdrew 

the proposed reconsidered NAAQS and 

began implementation of the 2008 

NAAQS. The current action, however, is 

being taken to address requirements 

under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Requirements for the bi-state Charlotte 

Area under the 2008 NAAQS will be 

addressed in the future. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a non-controversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comment be filed. This 

rule will be effective on January 27, 

2012 without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comment by 

December 28, 2011. If EPA receives such 

comments, then EPA will publish a 

document withdrawing the final rule 

and informing the public that the rule 

will not take effect. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. If 

no such comments are received, the 

public is advised this rule will be 

effective on January 27, 2012 and no 

further action will be taken on the 

proposed rule. 

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 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 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 1997 8-hour ozone 

RACT SIP direct final approval for the 

South Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67,249, November 

9, 2000), because the determination 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation is located within the 

South Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte nonattainment area. Generally 

SIPs do not apply in Indian country 

throughout the United States. However, 

for purposes of the Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the 

South Carolina SIP does apply within 

the Reservation. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state 

and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and 

the EPA Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, in a 

letter dated October 13, 2011, EPA 

extended the opportunity for 

consultation between EPA and Catawba. 

Consultation with the Catawba Tribe 

began on October 14, 2011, and ended 

on October 31, 2011. The views and 

concerns raised by the Catawba Indian 

Nation during consultation have been 

taken into account in this direct final 

rule. Furthermore, EPA notes today’s 

action 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 27, 2012. 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72849 

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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 8, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 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 PP—South Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by 

adding new entries at the end of the 

table for ‘‘Applicability of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology for the 

Portion of York County, South 

Carolina,’’ ‘‘Negative Declaration for 

Applicability of Groups I Control 

Techniques Guidelines for York County, 

South Carolina,’’ ‘‘Negative Declaration 

for Applicability of Group II Control 

Techniques Guidelines for York County, 

South Carolina,’’ ‘‘Negative Declaration 

for Applicability of Groups III Control 

Techniques Guidelines for York County, 

South Carolina,’’ and ‘‘Negative 

Declaration for Applicability of Group 

IV Control Techniques Guidelines for 

York County, South Carolina’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State 

effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Applicability of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for the Portion of York County, 

South Carolina.

8/31/2007 11/28/11 ........................

[Insert citation of publication].

Demonstration for Bowater Coated Paper Division; for Cytec Carbon Fibers; and for Georgia-Pacific—Catawba Hardboard Plant. 

Negative Declaration for Applicability of Groups I 

Control Techniques Guidelines for York County, South Carolina.

8/31/2007 11/28/11 ........................

[Insert citation of publication].

Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary 

in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area 

Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Area). 

Negative Declaration for Applicability of Group II 

Control Techniques Guidelines for York County, South Carolina.

8/31/2007 11/28/11 ........................

[Insert citation of publication].

Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary 

in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area 

Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Area). 

Negative Declaration for Applicability of Group III 

Control Techniques Guidelines for York County, South Carolina.

2/23/2009 11/28/11 ........................

[Insert citation of publication].

Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary 

in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area 

Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Area). 

Negative Declaration for Applicability of Group IV 

Control Techniques Guidelines for York County, South Carolina.

7/7/2009 11/28/11 ........................

[Insert citation of publication].

Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary 

in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area 

Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Area). 

[FR Doc. 2011–30303 Filed 11–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 

[MB Docket No. 03–185; FCC 11–110] 

Digital Low Power Television, 

Television Translator, and Television 

Booster Stations and To Amend Rules 

for Digital Class A Television Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection requirements 

contained in a final rule published July 

27, 2011. The information collection 

requirements were approved on 

February 7, 2011, and November 17, 

2011, by OMB. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

73.624(g), published at 76 FR 44821, 

July 27, 2011, are effective on November 

28, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information contact Cathy 

Williams on (202) 418–2918 or via email 

to: cathy.williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that on February 

7, 2011 and November 17, 2011, OMB 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection requirements 

contained in 47 CFR 73.624(g). The 

Commission publishes this document to 

announce the effective date of this rule 

section. See, In the Matter of 

Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules 

for Digital Low Power Television, 

Television Translator, and Television 

Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for 

Digital Class A Television Stations, MB 

Docket No. 03–185; FCC 11–110, 76 FR 

44821, July 27, 2011. 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the Commission is notifying the public 

that it received OMB approval on 

February 7, 2011 and November 17, 

2011, for the information collection 

requirements contained in 47 CFR 

73.624(g). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES