70656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

proposals. The Commission will not 

require reporting of time to fulfillment 

on a daily basis at this point. The 

Commission first would like to review 

the ability of the Postal Service to meet 

its service standards as proposed before 

suggesting any changes. A Commission 

review of this service could be initiated 

if future demonstration that customer 

needs or expectations are not being met. 

As noted by the Postal Service, if in the 

future the Commission does not believe 

SFS service performance reporting is 

providing meaningful data, the 

Commission has the authority to direct 

changes in measurement systems and 

standards. 

Popkin contends that orders received 

during system downtime or catastrophic 

system failure, and pre-orders should 

not be excluded from service standard 

reporting. The Commission currently is 

willing to accept excluding planned 

downtimes so long as customers are 

notified of these occurrences as 

indicated by the Postal Service. 

However, the Commission believes that 

system failures (unscheduled events) 

should be included in the reporting of 

service performance. Infrequent events 

can be explained within the data 

reports. Frequent events might indicate 

a systemic problem that requires 

immediate attention. The Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service 

revisit the decision to exclude system 

failures. 

The Postal Service states that preorders may be received well in advance 

of fulfillment. This creates a problem for 

determining when to start-the-clock on 

measurement. The Commission agrees 

that pre-orders create a start-the-clock 

issue and that it need not be addressed 

at this time. 

The Public Representative and Popkin 

contend that the reporting categories 

should be clarified and better defined. 

The Commission reminds the Postal 

Service that it must provide a 

description of what is being measured 

with each annual report to the 

Commission. See 39 CFR 3055.2(e)(1). 

The Postal Service is directed to ensure 

that accurate descriptions of the 

reporting categories are provided at that 

time. 

VIII. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission amends its rules 

of practice and procedure by modifying 

the periodic reporting of service 

performance achievements for special 

services found in 39 CFR 3055.65. The 

changes to 39 CFR 3055.65 appear 

following the signature of this order. 

2. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3055 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Postal service; Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Postal Regulatory 

Commission amends chapter III of title 

39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 3055—SERVICE 

PERFORMANCE AND CUSTOMER 

SATISFACTION REPORTING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3055 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503, 3622(a), 3652(d) 

and (e), 3657(c). 

■ 2. In § 3055.65, add paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 3055.65 Special Services. 

* * * * * 

(d) Additional reporting for Stamp 

Fulfillment Service. For Stamp 

Fulfillment Service, report: 

(1) The on-time service performance 

(as a percentage rounded to one decimal 

place), disaggregated by customer order 

entry method; and 

(2) The service variance (as a 

percentage rounded to one decimal 

place) for orders fulfilled within +1 day, 

+2 days, and +3 days of their applicable 

service standard, disaggregated by 

customer order entry method. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29391 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0029–201103; FRL– 

9490–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, NC and SC; 

Determination of Attainment of the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, North Carolina-South 

Carolina nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte 

Area’’) is composed of Cabarrus, Gaston, 

Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union 

and a portion of Iredell (Davidson and 

Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in 

North Carolina; and a portion of York 

County in South Carolina. This 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality assured, quality controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the years 2008–2010 showing that the 

bi-state Charlotte Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Under the provisions of EPA’s 

ozone implementation rule the 

requirements for the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina to submit 

an attainment demonstration and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) analyses, reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plans, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning state implementation plans 

(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, shall be suspended for 

as long as the Area continues to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, EPA is responding to 

comments received on EPA’s April 12, 

2011, proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on December 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0029. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information 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 through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Spann or Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70657 

1EPA notes that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

as published in a July 18, 1997, (62 FR 38856) is 

0.08 parts per million (ppm), which is effectively 

0.084 ppm or 84 ppb (due to the rounding 

convention) and not 85 ppb as the Commenter 

stated. 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029 or via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. Mr. Farngalo may 

be reached by phone at (404) 562–9152 

or via electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

III. What is EPA’s response to comments? 

IV. What is EPA’s final action? 

V. What are the statutory and Executive 

Order reviews? 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is determining that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. This determination 

is based upon complete, qualityassured, quality-controlled and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that shows 

the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

the 2008–2010 data. Preliminary data 

available for 2011 are consistent with 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

Other specific requirements of the 

determination and the rationale for 

EPA’s final action are explained in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on April 12, 2011, (76 FR 

20293) and will not be restated here. 

The comment period closed on May 12, 

2011. EPA received one set of adverse 

comments. In this action, EPA is 

responding to those adverse comments. 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, 

this final determination suspends the 

requirements for North Carolina and 

South Carolina to submit attainment 

demonstrations, associated RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

bi-state Charlotte area, as long as the 

Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Finalizing this action 

does not constitute a redesignation of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act), nor is it a 

determination that the States have met 

all requirements for redesignation of the 

Area. 

III. What is EPA’s response to 

comments? 

EPA received one set of comments 

from Robert Ukeiley on the April 12, 

2011, proposed determination of 

attainment for the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

A summary of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter cites 

CAA section 110(l) and asserts that 

EPA’s proposed determination is not in 

compliance with CAA section 110(l). 

Specifically, the Commenter states: 

‘‘Clean Air Act § 110(l) provides that the 

‘Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with an applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress * * * or any other 

applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’ ’’ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). The 

Commenter argues that EPA may not 

make the determination without 

providing an analysis under section 

110(l). 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that a section 110(l) analysis 

is required. This action is not approving 

a SIP revision, and thus CAA section 

110(l) is not applicable. CAA section 

110(l) applies explicitly and only to a 

‘‘revision to an implementation plan.’’ 

EPA’s rulemaking here is restricted to 

EPA’s determination, based on ambient 

air quality, that the Area is attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. It is not a 

SIP revision, and thus section 110(l) is 

by its own terms not applicable to this 

rulemaking. It is not this determination 

of attainment, but rather EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule, 40 CFR 51.918, 

that specifies the consequence of the 

determination as suspension of the 

area’s obligations to submit an 

attainment demonstration, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures and other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment as SIP revisions for as long 

as the area continues to attain. In any 

case, the requirements that are 

suspended by the regulation are related 

solely to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. EPA is determining, 

and the Commenter does not contest, 

that the area is attaining that standard 

and the suspension of attainment 

planning SIP submissions lasts only as 

long as the area is meeting that 

standard. No other requirements are 

suspended. The Commenter is incorrect 

in arguing that the determination of 

attainment would delay implementation 

of measures needed for attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and 

that it would relax SIP control 

measures. This action has no effect on 

control measures, or air quality, in the 

area. For example, contrary to 

Commenter’s contention, reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard (or for any other standard), are 

not suspended or delayed by this 

determination, nor by 40 CFR 51.918. In 

sum, no evaluation under section 110(l) 

is required by law, and even if such an 

evaluation were required, EPA would 

conclude that this determination of 

attainment would not interfere with 

attainment, reasonable further progress 

towards attainment, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Comment 2: The Commenter claims 

that the attainment determination 

‘‘effectively relax[es] the SIP by staying 

its implementation,’’ and goes on to say 

that ‘‘the Federal Register notice as well 

as the docket are devoid of any analysis 

of how delaying implementation of the 

attainment demonstration, RACM, 

[RFP], contingency measures and other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment of the 85 [parts per billion 

(ppb)] ozone NAAQS will interfere with 

attaining, making reasonable further 

progress on attaining and maintaining 

the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS as well as the 

1-hour 100 ppb nitrogen oxides [NO2] 

NAAQS.’’ Further, the Commenter 

states that ‘‘[t]he notice and docket are 

also devoid of any analysis of how 

delaying implementation of the various 

85 ppb ozone nonattainment SIP 

provisions will interfere with attaining, 

making reasonable further progress, and 

maintaining the other NAAQS through 

co-benefits. For example, transportation 

control measures should have the cobenefit of reduced carbon monoxide 

[CO] and sulfur dioxide [SO2] emissions 

from mobile sources.’’ 

Response 2: The sole question 

addressed by EPA’s rulemaking is 

whether the monitored ambient air 

quality in the Area shows that the Area 

has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard.1 The Commenter does not 

contest EPA’s finding that the bi-State 

Charlotte Area meets this NAAQS. 

Upon EPA’s final determination that the 

Area has attained the standard, 40 CFR 

51.918 provides that the CAA 

requirement to submit planning SIPs 

associated with attainment of that 

standard are suspended for as long as 

the Area continues to have ambient air 

quality data that meets that NAAQS. 

This regulation, which was upheld by 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Cir.) in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 

(D.C. Cir. 2009), is based on the 

principle that when an area is already 

attaining a standard, and continues in 

attainment, there is no basis for 

requiring planning SIPs to attain that 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
70658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

standard. In other words, if an area is 

meeting the NAAQS, it does not need a 

plan to meet the NAAQS. No additional 

measures are required for the area to 

attain the standard, since the area is 

already in attainment. In any event, 

EPA’s determination of attainment is 

based solely on quality-assured ambient 

air quality monitoring. It is 40 CFR 

51.918 that directs the suspension of 

planning requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. This suspension 

lasts only for so long as the area 

continues in attainment. Contrary to the 

Commenter’s contention, under these 

circumstances there are no adverse 

impacts from the suspension. Moreover, 

this action concerns only the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, and is not relevant 

to the revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 

0.075 ppm (75 ppb) that EPA 

promulgated on March 12, 2008. 

Further, EPA’s determination of 

attainment for the bi-state Charlotte 

Area does not revise or remove any 

existing emissions limit for any 

NAAQS, or any other existing 

substantive SIP provisions relevant to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 

new NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. Nor does 

this determination revise or remove any 

existing emissions limit, or any existing 

substantive SIP provisions related to the 

CO NAAQS. As a result, this action does 

not relax any existing requirements or 

alter the status quo air quality. 

The Commenter expresses concerns 

that this action ‘‘will interfere with 

attaining, making reasonable further 

progress, and maintaining the other 

NAAQS through co-benefits.’’ To 

support this claim, the Commenter 

mentions that transportation control 

measures should have the co-benefit of 

reduced CO and SO2 emissions from 

mobile sources. EPA does not 

understand the concern the Commenter 

is expressing with regard to 

transportation control measures. There 

are no mandatory or statutory 

requirements for this Area to implement 

transportation control measures even 

without EPA’s action to suspend the 

requirements to submit attainment 

demonstrations, associated RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Comment 3: The Commenter asserts 

that ‘‘EPA’s analysis must conclude that 

this proposed action would [violate] 

§ 110(l) if finalized.’’ To support this 

statement, the Commenter gives the 

example ‘‘42 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2)(A) & (B) 

provides that the attainment date for 

nonattainment areas ‘shall be the date 

by which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable[.]’ ’’ The 

Commenter goes on to contend that 

‘‘delaying implementing the 

nonattainment SIP [measures] for the 85 

ppb NAAQS will delay the date by 

which the area can achieve the 75 ppb 

NAAQS, or a more protective NAAQS 

that EPA may promulgate.’’ 

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assertion that a final 

determination of attainment for the bistate Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS would violate section 

110(l). First, as noted above, this action 

is not approving a SIP revision and thus 

section 110(l) is not applicable. Second, 

EPA’s implementing regulation, 40 CFR 

51.918, provides that as a result of the 

determination that the Area is attaining, 

the nonattainment planning measures— 

which are designed to bring the Area 

into attainment—are no longer 

necessary so long as the Area continues 

to have attaining data for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.918. 

These logical consequences are 

articulated by regulation, and EPA’s 

determination of attainment does not 

make any substantive revision that 

could result in any change in emissions. 

This action does not relax any existing 

requirements, delay implementation of 

measures, or alter the status quo air 

quality. 

Comment 4: The Commenter 

expresses concerns regarding the 

sources’ compliance with RACT and 

control techniques guidelines (CTG), 

and cites to 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1) 

explaining ‘‘that nonattainment SIPs 

shall provide for RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable.’’ 

Specifically, the Commenter states 

‘‘[d]elay in implementing the 

nonattainment SIP for the 85 ppb 

NAAQS will interfere with the 

expeditious implementation of RACM 

for the 75 ppb NAAQS.’’ The 

Commenter goes on to explain that ‘‘if 

a source has already installed pollution 

controls to comply with RACT for the 

85 ppb NAAQS, then the source can 

expeditiously comply with RACT for 

the 75 ppb NAAQS. However, delaying 

compliance with RACT for the 85 ppb 

NAAQS will interfere with the 

expeditious compliance with RACT for 

the 75 ppb NAAQS. This is especially 

true for sources that comply with RACT 

set forth in the Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG).’’ 

Response 4: EPA believes that the 

Commenter’s concerns regarding 

compliance of RACT and meeting the 

requirements for CTG are misplaced 

because this action does not relieve 

North Carolina or South Carolina of 

meeting these requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Both North 

Carolina and South Carolina have 

provided EPA with SIP revisions to 

comply with the RACT and CTG 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

(EPA is taking action on these SIP 

revisions in rulemakings separate from 

today’s action. In any event, a 

determination of attainment does not 

result in the suspension of any 

obligation to submit 8-hour ozone RACT 

requirements). The Commenter’s 

concern regarding ‘‘expeditious 

compliance with RACT for the 75 ppb 

NAAQS,’’ is misplaced. No designations 

have been made for the revised NAAQS, 

and thus no RACT requirements for that 

NAAQS are in place. Should the bi-state 

Charlotte Area (or any part thereof) be 

designated nonattainment for the 75 ppb 

ozone NAAQS or another revised 

NAAQS, the States will be subject to the 

applicable CAA requirements for that 

area based on the area’s classification 

after EPA’s nonattainment designation 

process is complete. 

Comment 5: The Commenter states 

that: 

‘‘some nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions 

which should be controlled by the 85 ppb 

nonattainment SIP provisions will become 

fine particulate matter. Allowing these NOX

emission[s] will interfere with the national 

goal of remedying existing impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I [F]ederal areas 

which impairment results from manmade air 

pollution as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1) 

as well as making reasonable progress 

towards that goal as required by 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7491(a)(4) and its implementing 

regulations.’’ 

The Commenter goes on to state that 

‘‘[d]elay in requiring implementation of 

the 85 ppb nonattainment SIP 

provisions will also interfere with the 

requirement to procure, install and 

operate, as expeditiously as practicable 

best available retrofit technology as 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A) 

and its implementing regulations.’’ 

Response 5: The Commenter provides 

no basis for their assertion that 

determination of attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area will delay 

implementation of controls and thus 

allow NOX emissions to interfere with 

‘‘the national goal of remedying existing 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I [F]ederal areas’’ or ‘‘the 

requirement to procure, install and 

operate, as expeditiously as practicable 

best available retrofit technology.’’ As 

previously described, EPA’s 

determination of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area’s attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS does not make 

substantive revisions that could result 

in or delay required controls. Today’s 

action, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918 

merely suspends the requirements for 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70659 

the bi-state Charlotte Area to submit 

attainment demonstrations, associated 

RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (when the Area has already 

attained that standard). It does not, in 

and of itself, relax any existing 

requirements or alter the status quo air 

quality. 

This action also does not relieve 

North Carolina and South Carolina of 

the requirements related to improving 

visibility impairment, including 

meeting reasonable progress goals and 

the consideration of best available 

control technology for Class I areas in 

North Carolina and South Carolina. 

Both North Carolina and South Carolina 

have submitted SIP revisions to address 

requirements related to improving 

visibility impairment including meeting 

reasonable progress goals and the 

consideration of best available control 

technology for their respective Class I 

areas. EPA will address these SIP 

submissions in a rulemaking separate 

from today’s action. 

IV. What is EPA’s final action? 

EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This determination is based 

upon complete, quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the bistate Charlotte Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS during the period 2008–2010. 

This final action, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.918, will suspend the 

requirements for the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina to submit 

attainment demonstrations, associated 

RACM, RFP plans, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs for 

the bi-State Charlotte Area related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, for as long as the Area 

continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

V. What are statutory and Executive 

Order reviews? 

This action makes a determination of 

attainment based on air quality, and will 

result in the suspension of certain 

federal requirements, and it will 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 

NAAQS determination of attainment for 

the bi-state Charlotte Area does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

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 Area. 

EPA notes that the proposal for this rule 

incorrectly stated that the South 

Carolina SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the State. 

While this statement is generally true 

with regard to Indian country 

throughout the United States, for 

purposes of the Catawba Indian Nation 

Reservation in Rock Hill, the 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.’’ However, because today’s 

action will not result in any direct 

effects on the Catawba, EPA’s initial 

assessment that Executive Order 13175 

does not apply remains valid. 

Furthermore, EPA notes today’s action 

also 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 17, 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 

such rule or action. 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, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 2, 2011. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

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 II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1779 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1779 Control strategy: Ozone. 

(a) Determination of attaining data. 

EPA has determined, as of November 

15, 2011, the bi-state Charlotte-GastoniaRockhill, North Carolina-South Carolina 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
70660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

nonattainment area has attaining data 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

determination, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.918, suspends the requirements 

for this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standards 

for as long as this area continues to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 3. Section 52.2125 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2125 Control strategy: Ozone. 

(a) Determination of attaining data. 

EPA has determined, as of November 

15, 2011, the bi-state Charlotte-GastoniaRockhill, North Carolina-South Carolina 

nonattainment area has attaining data 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

determination, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.918, suspends the requirements 

for this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standards 

for as long as this area continues to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2011–29184 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 

[MB Docket No. 03–185; Report No. 2935] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

of Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, Petitions 

for Reconsideration (Petitions) have 

been filed in the Commission’s 

Rulemaking proceeding concerning the 

Commission’s Second Report and 

Order. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed by November 30, 2011. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

December 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, (202) 418– 

2324. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

document, Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding 

concerning the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order, FCC 11–110, in MB 

Docket No. 03–185 and published 

pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 

1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47 

CFR 1.4(b)(1)). 

This is a summary of Commission’s 

document, Report No. 2935, released 

October 25, 2011. The full text of this 

document is available for viewing and 

copying in Room CY–B402, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC or may be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. 

(BCPI) (1-(800) 378–3160). The 

Commission will not send a copy of this 

Notice pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), 

because this Notice does not have an 

impact on any rules of particular 

applicability. 

Subject: 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). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 7. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29437 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

48 CFR Parts 3009 and 3052 

[Docket No. DHS–2010–0017] 

RIN 1601–AA55 

Prohibition on Federal Protective 

Service Guard Services Contracts With 

Business Concerns Owned, 

Controlled, or Operated by an 

Individual Convicted of a Felony 

[HSAR Case 2009–001]; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement 

Officer, DHS. 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

internal citations within the Homeland 

Security Acquisition Regulation to 

reflect previous redesignation of 

sections related to contracting with 

corporate expatriates and the 

recodification of certain public 

contracting laws in title 41, United 

States Code. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Van Houten, Procurement Analyst, at 

(202) 447–5285, for clarification of 

content. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This document corrects internal 

citations within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland 

Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) 

at parts 3009 and 3052 to reflect a prior 

redesignation of related sections and the 

recodification of certain public 

contracting laws in title 41, United 

States Code, by Public Law 111–350, 

124 Stat. 367 (Jan. 4, 2011). 

On November 16, 2009, DHS 

published a final rule entitled 

Prohibition on Federal Protective 

Service Guard Services Contracts With 

Business Concerns Owned, Controlled, 

or Operated by an Individual Convicted 

of a Felony [HSAR Case 2009–001], 74 

FR 58851 (Nov. 16, 2009), implementing 

prohibitions related to contracting with 

guard services owned, controlled or 

operated by an individual who has been 

convicted of a serious felony. This final 

rule resulted in the resdesignation of 

multiple sections within the HSAR. On 

December 16, 2009, DHS corrected the 

final rule by redesignating section 

3009.104–70 as section 3009.108–70, 

and subsections 3009.104–71 through 

3009.104–75 as subsections 3009.108– 

7001 through 3009.108–7005. 74 FR 

66584 (Dec. 16, 2009). This amendment 

corrects internal references within 

subsections 3009.108–7001, 3009.108– 

7004 and 3052.209–70 to reflect the 

previous redesignations. 

The amendment also corrects the 

authority citation for Parts 3009 and 

3052 resulting from the recodification of 

certain public contracting laws in title 

41 by Public Law 111–350, 124 Stat. 367 

(Jan. 4, 2011). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 3009 

and 3052 

Government procurement. 

Correcting Amendments 

Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 3009 and 

3052 are corrected by making the 

following amendments: 

PART 3009—CONTRACTOR 

QUALIFICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3009 

is revised to read as follows: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES