[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17317-17321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8685]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SC-037; 040-200217; FRL-7169-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: South 
Carolina: Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of South Carolina on October 30, 2000, 
and revised on July 30, 2001. This revision responds to the EPA's 
regulation entitled, ``Finding of Significant Contribution and 
Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group 
Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' 
otherwise known as the ``NOX SIP Call.'' This revision 
establishes and requires a nitrogen oxides (NOX) allowance 
trading program for large electric generating and industrial units, and 
reductions for cement kilns, beginning in 2004. The revision includes a 
budget demonstration and initial source allocations that clearly 
demonstrate that South Carolina will achieve the required 
NOX emission reductions in accordance with the timelines set 
forth in EPA's NOX SIP Call. The intended effect of this SIP 
revision is to reduce emissions of NOX in order to help 
attain the national

[[Page 17318]]

ambient air quality standard for ozone. EPA is proposing to approve 
South Carolina's NOX Reduction and Trading Program because 
it meets the requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP Call that 
will significantly reduce ozone transport in the eastern United States. 
South Carolina has requested that EPA parallel process this revision 
because the revision is not yet state-effective.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Sean Lakeman; 
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.
    Copies of documents relative to this action are available at the 
following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau 
of Air Quality Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 
29201.

    The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should 
make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day and 
reference file SC-037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 30, 2000, the South Carolina 
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) submitted a draft 
NOX emission control rule to the EPA for pre-adoption 
review. Also, DHEC requested that EPA parallel process the submittal 
concurrent with the development of the final State rule and included a 
schedule for development and adoption of the rule by the State. On July 
30, 2001, DHEC submitted adopted revisions to its SIP to meet the 
requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP Call. After the rules 
are adopted by the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental 
Control, the revisions must be reviewed and approved by the South 
Carolina General Assembly. After approval by the General Assembly, the 
rules will become state-effective upon publication in the South 
Carolina State Register. EPA will take final action on South Carolina's 
revisions when the State submits state-effective rule revisions, 
including their emission budgets and initial allocations.
    The revisions submitted comply with the requirements of the Phase I 
NOX SIP Call. Included in South Carolina's submittal are new 
rules Regulation 61-62.96 NOX Budget Trading Program and 
Regulation 61-62.99 Nitrogen Oxides Budget Program Requirements For 
Stationary Sources Not In the Trading Program. The information in this 
proposal is organized as follows:

I. EPA's Action
    A. What action Is EPA proposing today?
    B. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action?
    C. What Are the NOX SIP Call General Requirements?
    D. What is SPA's NOX budget and allowance trading 
program?
    E. What guidance did EPA use to evaluate South Sarolina's 
submittal?
    What is the result of EPA's evaluation of South Carolina's 
program?
II. South Carolina's Control of NOX Emissions
    A. When did South Carolina submit the SIP revision to EPA in 
response to the NOX SIP Call?
    B. What is the South Carolina NOX Budget Trading 
Program?
    C. What is the Compliance Supplement Pool?
    D. What is the New Source Set-Aside program?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA's Action

A. What Action is EPA Proposing Today?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to South Carolina's SIP 
concerning the adoption of its NOX Reduction and Trading 
Program, submitted for parallel processing on October 30, 2000, and 
revised on July 30, 2001.

B. Why is EPA Proposing This Action?

    EPA is proposing this action because South Carolina's 
NOX Reduction and Trading Program and cement kiln 
regulations meet the requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP 
Call. Therefore, EPA is proposing full approval of South Carolina's 
NOX Reduction and Trading Program.

C. What Are the NOX SIP Call General Requirements?

    The NOX SIP Call requires 22 States and the District 
of Columbia to meet statewide NOX emission budgets during 
the five month period from May 1 to September 30, called the ozone 
season (or control period), in order to reduce the amount of ground 
level ozone that is transported across the eastern United States. 
The D.C. Circuit decision on March 3, 2000, concerning the 
NOX SIP Call (Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 
2000)) reduced the number of States from 22 to 19.
    EPA identified NOX emission reductions by source 
category that could be achieved by using cost-effective controls. 
The source categories included were electric generating units (EGUs) 
and non-electric generating units (non-EGUs), internal combustion 
engines, and cement kilns. EPA determined state-wide NOX 
emission budgets based on the implementation of these cost effective 
controls for each affected jurisdiction to be met by the year 2007. 
Internal combustion engines are not addressed by South Carolina in 
this response to Phase I, but will be in Phase II. In the 
NOX SIP Call notice, EPA suggested that imposing 
statewide NOX emissions caps on large fossil-fuel fired 
industrial boilers and EGUs would provide a highly cost effective 
means for states to meet their NOX budgets. In fact, the 
state-specific budgets were set assuming an emission rate of 0.15 
pounds NOX per million British thermal units (lb. 
NOX/mmBtu) at EGUs, multiplied by the projected heat 
input (mmBtu/hr). The NOX SIP Call state budgets also 
assumed on average a 30 percent NOX reduction from cement 
kilns, and a 60 percent reduction from industrial boilers. The non-
EGU control assumptions were applied at units where the heat input 
capacities were greater than 250 mmBtu per hour, or in cases where 
heat input data were not available or appropriate, at units with 
actual emissions greater than one ton per day. However, the 
NOX SIP Call allowed states the flexibility to decide 
which source categories to regulate in order to meet the statewide 
budgets.
    To assist the states in their efforts to meet the SIP Call, the 
NOX SIP Call final notice included a model NOX 
allowance trading regulation, called ``NOX Budget Trading 
Program for State Implementation Plans,'' (40 CFR part 96), that 
could be used by states to develop their regulations. The 
NOX SIP Call notice explained that if states developed an 
allowance trading regulation consistent with the EPA model rule, 
they could participate in a regional allowance trading program that 
would be administered by the EPA. See 63 FR 57458-57459.
    There were several periods during which EPA received comments on 
various aspects of the NOX SIP Call emissions 
inventories. On March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), EPA published 
additional technical amendments to the NOX SIP. On March 
3, 2000, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on the NOX 
SIP Call that largely upheld EPA's position. (Michigan v. EPA, 213 
F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The DC Circuit Court denied petitioners' 
requests for rehearing or rehearing en banc on July 22, 2000. 
However, the Circuit Court remanded four specific elements to EPA 
for further action: the definition of electric generating unit, the 
level of control for stationary internal combustion engines, the 
geographic extent of the NOX SIP Call for Georgia and 
Missouri, and the inclusion of Wisconsin. On March 5, 2001, the U.S. 
Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by various utilities, 
industry groups, and a number of upwind states from the D.C. 
Circuit's ruling on EPA's NOX SIP Call rule.
    EPA published a proposal that addresses the remanded portion of 
the NOX SIP Call on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8396). Any

[[Page 17319]]

additional emissions reductions required as a result of a final 
rulemaking on that proposal will be reflected in the second phase 
portion (Phase II) of the State's emission budget. On April 11, 
2000, in response to the Court's decision, EPA notified South 
Carolina of the maximum amount of NOX emissions allowed 
for the State during the ozone season. This budget adjusted South 
Carolina's NOX emission budget to reflect the Court's 
decision regarding internal combustion engines and cogeneration 
facilities. Although the Court did not order EPA to modify South 
Carolina's budget, the EPA believes these adjustments are consistent 
with the Court's decision.

D. What is EPA's NO X Budget and Allowance Trading 
Program?

    EPA's model NOX budget and allowance trading rule, 40 
CFR part 96, sets forth an NOX emissions trading program 
for large EGUs and non-EGUs. A state can voluntarily choose to adopt 
EPA's model rule in order to allow sources within its borders to 
participate in regional allowance trading. The October 27, 1998, 
Federal Register notice contains a full description of the EPA's 
model NOX budget trading program. See 63 FR 57514--57538 
and 40 CFR part 96.
    Emissions trading, in general, uses market forces to reduce the 
overall cost of compliance for pollution sources, such as power 
plants, while maintaining emission reductions and environmental 
benefits. One type of market-based program is an emissions budget 
and allowance trading program, commonly referred to as a ``cap and 
trade'' program.
    In a cap and trade program, the state (or EPA) sets a regulatory 
limit in mass emissions (emissions budget) from a specific group of 
sources. The budget limits the total number of allowances for each 
source covered by the program during a particular control period. 
When the budget is set at a level lower than the current emissions, 
the effect is to reduce the total amount of emissions during the 
control period. After setting the budget, the state (or EPA) then 
assigns, or allocates, allowances to the participating entities up 
to the level of the budget. Each allowance authorizes the emission 
of a quantity of pollutant, e.g., one ton of airborne 
NOX.
    At the end of the control period, each source must demonstrate 
that its actual emissions during the control period were less than 
or equal to the number of available allowances it holds. Sources 
that reduce their emissions below their allocated allowance level 
may sell their extra allowances. Sources that emit more than the 
amount of their allocated allowance level may buy allowances from 
the sources with extra reductions. In this way, the budget is met in 
the most cost-effective manner.

E. What Guidance Did EPA Use To Evaluate South Carolina's 
Submittal?

    The final NOX SIP Call rule included a model 
NOX budget trading program regulation. See 40 CFR part 
96. EPA used the model rule in 40 CFR part 96, and 40 CFR 51.121-
51.122 to evaluate South Carolina's NOX reduction and 
trading program and 40 CFR Part 98 subpart B (proposed model rule 
for cement kilns) to evaluate South Carolina's cement kiln rule SIP 
submittal.

F. What Is the Result of EPA's Evaluation of South Carolina's 
Program?

    EPA has evaluated South Carolina's July 30, 2001, SIP submittal 
and finds it approvable. The South Carolina NOX reduction 
and trading program and cement kiln rule are consistent with EPA's 
guidance and meet the requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP 
Call. EPA finds the NOX control measures in South 
Carolina's NOX reduction and trading program approvable. 
Also, EPA finds that the submittal contained the information 
necessary to demonstrate that South Carolina has the legal authority 
to implement and enforce the control measures, and to demonstrate 
their appropriate distribution of the compliance supplement pool. 
Furthermore, EPA proposes to find that the submittal demonstrates 
that the compliance dates and schedules, and the monitoring, 
recordkeeping and emission reporting requirements, will be met.

II. South Carolina's Control of NOX Emissions

A. When Did South Carolina Submit the SIP Revision to EPA in 
Response to the NOX SIP Call?

    On October 30, 2000, the South Carolina DHEC submitted a draft 
NOX emission control rule to the EPA for pre-adoption 
review, requesting parallel processing concurrent with the 
development of the rule at the State level and included a schedule 
for development and adoption of the rule by the State. On July 30, 
2001, DHEC submitted adopted revisions to its SIP to meet the 
requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP Call. Since the rules 
have not completed South Carolina's internal requirements to become 
state-effective, EPA is using the parallel process to propose 
approval of these rules.

B. What Is South Carolina's NOX Budget Trading Program?

    South Carolina proposes, as in the model rule, to allow the 
large EGUs, boilers, and turbines to participate in the multi-state 
cap and trade program. Cement kilns are not included in the trading 
program, but will be required to install low NOX burners, 
mid-kiln system firings or technology that achieves the same 
emission decreases, which achieve overall 30 percent reduction from 
sources in this category. South Carolina's SIP revision to meet the 
requirements of the NOX SIP Call consists of a new rule 
for the ``NOX Budget Trading Program'' (regulation 61-
62.96) and a new rule for ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget 
Program Requirements for Stationary Sources Not in the Trading 
Program'' (regulation 61-62.99). The requirements under 61-62.96 
affect EGUs and non-EGUs. Regulation 61-62.96 ``NOX 
Budget Trading Program'' added nine new subparts: Subpart A--
NOX Budget Trading Program General Provisions; Subpart 
B--Authorized Account Representative for NOX Budget 
Sources; Subpart C--Permits; Subpart D--Compliance Certification; 
Subpart E--NOX Allowance Allocations; Subpart F--
NOX Allowance Tracking System; Subpart G--NOX 
Allowance Transfers; Subpart H--Monitoring and Reporting; Subpart 
I--Individual Unit Opt-ins.
    South Carolina's NOX Budget Trading Program 
establishes and requires a NOX allowance trading program 
for large EGUs and non-EGUs. The regulations under 61-62.96 
establish an NOX cap and allowance trading program for 
the ozone control seasons beginning May 31, 2004, and commencing May 
1 in years thereafter.
    The State of South Carolina voluntarily chose to follow the 
EPA's model NOX budget and allowance trading rule, 40 CFR 
part 96. Since South Carolina's NOX Budget Trading 
Program is based upon EPA's model rule, it is approvable and South 
Carolina sources are allowed to participate in the interstate 
NOX allowance trading program that EPA will administer 
for the participating states.
    The State of South Carolina has adopted regulations that are 
substantively identical to 40 CFR part 96. Therefore, pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.121(p)(1), South Carolina's SIP revision is approved as 
satisfying the State's NOX emission reduction 
obligations. Under 61-62.96, South Carolina allocates NOX 
allowances to the EGU and non-EGU units that are affected by these 
requirements. The NOX trading program, except for one 
source discussed below, applies to fossil fuel fired EGUs with a 
nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW that sell electricity to the 
grid as well as any non-EGUs that have a maximum design heat input 
greater than 250 mmBtu per hour. Each NOX allowance 
permits a source to emit one ton of NOX during the 
seasonal control period. NOX allowances may be bought or 
sold. Unused NOX allowances may also be banked for future 
use, with certain limitations.
    In Section 96.4(a) of their rule, South Carolina deviated from 
the EGU and non-EGU budget under the NOX SIP Call by 
categorizing as a non-EGU an existing co-generating unit at a paper 
mill which produces less than an annual average of one third of its 
potential electrical output capacity for sale. South Carolina moved 
the allowances for this unit from the EGU budget into the non-EGU 
budget. The net effect was to keep the total South Carolina EGU and 
non-EGU budget the same as under the NOX SIP Call. Since 
the effect of this action did not change the State's total 
NOX budget, and will achieve the same amount of 
NOX reductions, it is considered approvable.
    In Section 96.4(b) of their rule, the State allows a unit that 
restricts its fuel use to only natural gas or fuel oil and its 
NOX emissions to 25 tons or less during a control period 
(through a federally enforceable permit) to be exempted from the 
requirements of the trading program. The State has clearly required 
that the unit meet both the fuel use and the NOX 
emissions limitation throughout section 96.4(b). However, in Section 
96.4(b)(iv) the rule indicates that a unit shall lose its exemption 
if the unit fails to comply with the restrictions on fuel use and 
NOX emissions. This section would be clearer if it 
specified that a unit will lose its exemption if the unit fails to 
comply with the restrictions on fuel use or NOX 
emissions. However, the State patterned their rule after the 
verbiage in 40 CFR part 97, in which the

[[Page 17320]]

word ``and'' is used erroneously. This verbiage has been corrected 
to ``or'' in proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 97. EPA believes that 
South Carolina intends for this rule to reflect the correct 
definition and that a unit will lose its exemption if the unit fails 
to meet either the fuel use or the emissions limitation. The State's 
intention is further evidenced by the appropriate inclusion of both 
requirements (fuel use and emissions limitations) throughout section 
96.4(b), therefore the EPA believes this section is approvable.
    Source owners will monitor their NOX emissions by 
using systems that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 75, subpart 
H, and report resulting data to EPA electronically. Each budget 
source complies with the program by demonstrating at the end of each 
control period that actual emissions do not exceed the amount of 
allowances held for that period. However, regardless of the number 
of allowances a source holds, it cannot emit at levels that would 
violate other Federal or State limits, for example, reasonably 
available control technology (RACT), new source performance 
standards, or Title IV (the Federal Acid Rain program). South 
Carolina's regulations require the following in Section 96.6 
Standard requirements: `` (g) Effect on Other Authorities. No 
provision of the NOX Budget Trading Program, a 
NOX Budget permit application, a NOX Budget 
permit, or an exemption under Section 96.5 shall be construed as 
exempting or excluding the owners and operators and, to the extent 
applicable, the NOX authorized account representative of 
a NOX Budget source or NOX Budget unit from 
compliance with any other provision of the applicable, approved 
State implementation plan, a federally enforceable permit, or the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).''
    South Carolina's Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program 
Requirements for Stationary Sources Not In The Trading Program 
(Regulation 61-62.99) establishes requirements for cement 
manufacturing facilities. While these sources are subject to 
NOX reduction requirements, they do not participate in 
the NOX trading program. Cement kilns will be required to 
install low NOX burners, mid-kiln system firings, or 
technology that achieves equivalent emission reductions. For mobile 
and area source categories, South Carolina's submittal does not rely 
on any additional reductions beyond the anticipated federal 
measures.
    South Carolina's submittal demonstrates that the Phase I 
NOX emission budgets established by EPA will be met. The 
final NOX budget for EGUs and non-EGUs in South Carolina 
has been revised from the March 2, 2001, notice (65 FR 11222) that 
revised the NOX statewide emissions budgets for the 
affected states and the District of Columbia. South Carolina's 
submittal provides documentation demonstrating that EPA's 2007 
budget emissions incorrectly omitted numerous small generators (less 
than 25 MW) and a generator with a nameplate capacity of 27 MW that 
were identified in the North American Electric Reliability Council 
Database and did not appear in EPA's original overall EGU budget for 
South Carolina. EPA reviewed South Carolina's corrections and 
concurs with South Carolina's revised list of EGUs, large non-EGUs 
and small non-EGUs, as well as South Carolina's resultant 2007 
NOX budget emissions for the EGU and non-EGU source 
categories. EPA therefore is proposing to approve South Carolina's 
draft NOX emission budgets to meet Phase I of the 
NOX SIP Call as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          South Carolina
                                           EPA 2007 NOX      2007 NOX
             Source category                  budget          budget
                                             emissions       emissions
                                           (tons/season)   (tons/season)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs....................................          16,772          17,837
Non-EGUs................................          27,787          32,141
Area Sources............................           9,415           9,415
Non-road Sources........................          14,637          14,637
Highway Sources.........................          54,494          54,494
Total...................................         123,105         128,524
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Is the Compliance Supplement Pool?

    To provide additional flexibility for complying with emission 
control requirements associated with the NOX SIP Call, 
the final NOX SIP Call rule provided each affected state 
with a ``compliance supplement pool.'' The compliance supplement 
pool is a quantity of NOX allowances that may be used to 
cover excess emissions from sources that are unable to meet control 
requirements during the 2004 and 2005 ozone season. Allowances from 
the compliance supplement pool will not be valid for compliance past 
the 2005 ozone season. The NOX SIP Call included these 
voluntary provisions in order to address commenters' concerns about 
the possible adverse effect that the control requirements might have 
on the reliability of the electricity supply or on other industries 
required to install controls as the result of a state's response to 
the NOX SIP Call.
    A state may issue some or all of the compliance supplement pool 
via two mechanisms. First, a state may issue some or all of the pool 
to sources with credits from implementing NOX reductions 
in an ozone season beyond any applicable requirements of the CAA 
after September 30, 1999, and before May 31, 2004, (i.e., early 
reductions). This will allow sources that cannot install controls 
prior to May 31, 2004, to purchase other sources' early reduction 
credits in order to comply. Note that while South Carolina offers 
the opportunity for sources to earn early reduction credits in the 
2000 ozone season (early reduction credits may only be issued for 
reductions made above and beyond any requirements under the CAA), 
this presumes monitoring according to part 75, subpart H, to 
establish a baseline in the ozone season prior to the year for which 
early reduction credits are requested. Second, a state may issue 
some or all of the pool to sources that demonstrate a need for an 
extension of the May 31, 2004, compliance deadline due to undue risk 
to the supply of electricity or other industrial sectors, and where 
early reductions are not available. See 40 CFR 51.121(e)(3). In 
South Carolina's rule, each NOX Budget unit for which the 
owner or operator requests early reduction credits shall reduce its 
NOX emission rate, for each control period for which 
early reduction credits are requested, to 0.25 lb/mmBtu or less for 
a ``one to one'' credit. For reductions down to but not including 
0.25 lb/mmBtu sources can receive early reduction credits at a rate 
of one-half credit for each ton of NOX reduction. South 
Carolina's regulation reads, ``After the early reduction credits are 
calculated, the credits shall be discounted for units that do not 
reduce down to 0.25 lb/mmBtu so that for each ton of NOX 
reduction achieved down to but not including 0.25 lb/mmBtu, the unit 
shall receive one half credit. For units that reduce their 
NOX emissions beyond and including 0.25 lb/mmBtu, the 
credits will not be discounted and the unit shall receive one credit 
for each ton of NOX reduction.'' Since the net effect of 
South Carolina's rule as it relates to early reduction credit will 
keep the budget at the proper value, this deviation is considered 
approvable.

D. What Is the New Source Set-Aside Program?

    South Carolina's SIP provides for new unit set-asides for EGUs 
and for non-EGUs. DHEC will establish one allocation set-aside pool 
for each control period. The allocation set-aside pool will consist 
of NOX allowances equal to four percent in 2004, 2005, 
and 2006, and three percent thereafter, of the tons of 
NOX allowances in the State trading budget, rounded to 
the nearest whole NOX allowance as appropriate. This 
approach to allocations for new units is acceptable because it falls 
within the flexibility of the NOX SIP Call requirements 
for a state's allocation to new sources.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the South Carolina's SIP revision 
consisting of its draft

[[Page 17321]]

NOX Budget Trading Program and cement kiln rule, which 
was submitted on October 30, 2000, and revised on July 30, 2001. EPA 
finds that South Carolina's submittal will be fully approvable when 
it becomes state-effective because it meets the requirements of the 
Phase I NOX SIP Call.

IV. Administrative Requirements:

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to 
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional 
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not 
contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications 
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications 
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to 
approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for 
the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no 
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It 
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it 
reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 
the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 
apply. This proposed approval of the South Carolina NOX 
Budget Trading Program does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 1, 2002.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 02-8685 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P