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, 72844-72849 [2011-30303]

Download as PDF 72844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Energy Effects List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 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. 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: 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. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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. 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. https://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– pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https://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 https:// 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 https://www. epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the https://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 https:// 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 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 72845 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 1 Prior 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. E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1 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: Federal Register published SIP due I ................... pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Group 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).). September 15, 2006 (40 CFR 51.912, RACT SIPs due for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). II .................. III ................. IV ................. 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)). 71 FR 58745, October 5, 2006 ............................... 72 FR 57215, October 9, 2007 ............................... 73 FR 58481, October 7, 2008 ............................... II. Analysis of the State’s Submittals Following the April 2004 designation of the bi-state Charlotte Area as a VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 October 5, 2007. October 9, 2008. October 7, 2009. moderate ozone nonattainment area, South Carolina had until June 15, 2007, to submit an attainment demonstration, PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 RACT submission (addressing the applicable CTG), and a reasonable further progress plan for the Rock Hill- E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 72847 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 E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1 72848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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).) 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 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, 2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding new entries at the end of the table for ‘‘Applicability of Reasonably ■ 72849 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 State effective date Provision * * * 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. 8/31/2007 8/31/2007 EPA approval date Explanation * * 11/28/11 ........................ [Insert citation of publication]. 11/28/11 ........................ [Insert citation of publication]. * * Demonstration for Bowater Coated Paper Division; for Cytec Carbon Fibers; and for Georgia-Pacific—Catawba Hardboard Plant. Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Area). Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Area). Applicable to the 1997 8-hour Ozone boundary in York County only (Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Area). 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]. 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]. 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]. [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] pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations and To Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date. AGENCY: In this document, the Commission announces that the Office SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Nov 25, 2011 Jkt 226001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM 28NOR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72844-72849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30303]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72845]]

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 bi-state
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. https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email, information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Prior 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72846]]

(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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Group published SIP due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................ Pre-CAA CTG.......... Pre-CAA Amendment CTG
As of January 1978 The first 25 CTG categories
the first 15 CTG were due to be adopted by the
categories were states by 1980. EPA initially
established. Ten approved most of these rules
additional CTG were into the state SIPs.
issued in 1978 (1 of Subsequently, EPA reviewed
those (vegetable these state rules to see if
oil) was rescinded). 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......... September 15, 2006 (40 CFR
The group of CTG 51.912, RACT SIPs due for the
established in 60 FR 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS).
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)).
II............... 71 FR 58745, October October 5, 2007.
5, 2006.
III.............. 72 FR 57215, October October 9, 2008.
9, 2007.
IV............... 73 FR 58481, October October 7, 2009.
7, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Hill-

[[Page 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 Fort-Mill 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

[[Page 72848]]

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 Hill-Fort Mill Area which is the portion
of York County, South Carolina that is included in the bi-state
Charlotte-Gastonia-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

[[Page 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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
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:

Sec. 52.2120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(e) * * *

EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Provision effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Applicability of Reasonably Available 8/31/2007 11/28/11................. Demonstration for Bowater
Control Technology for the Portion of [Insert citation of Coated Paper Division; for
York County, South Carolina. publication]. Cytec Carbon Fibers; and for
Georgia-Pacific--Catawba
Hardboard Plant.
Negative Declaration for Applicability 8/31/2007 11/28/11................. Applicable to the 1997 8-hour
of Groups I Control Techniques [Insert citation of Ozone boundary in York
Guidelines for York County, South publication]. County only (Rock Hill-Fort
Carolina. Mill Area Transportation
Study Metropolitan Planning
Organization Area).
Negative Declaration for Applicability 8/31/2007 11/28/11................. Applicable to the 1997 8-hour
of Group II Control Techniques [Insert citation of Ozone boundary in York
Guidelines for York County, South publication]. County only (Rock Hill-Fort
Carolina. Mill Area Transportation
Study Metropolitan Planning
Organization Area).
Negative Declaration for Applicability 2/23/2009 11/28/11................. Applicable to the 1997 8-hour
of Group III Control Techniques [Insert citation of Ozone boundary in York
Guidelines for York County, South publication]. County only (Rock Hill-Fort
Carolina. Mill Area Transportation
Study Metropolitan Planning
Organization Area).
Negative Declaration for Applicability 7/7/2009 11/28/11................. Applicable to the 1997 8-hour
of Group IV Control Techniques [Insert citation of Ozone boundary in York
Guidelines for York County, South publication]. County only (Rock Hill-Fort
Carolina. Mill Area Transportation
Study Metropolitan Planning
Organization Area).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-30303 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.