[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44314-44318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15778]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0397; FRL-10011-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: New Source Review Updates
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (hereinafter referred to
as SC DHEC or South Carolina) via a letter dated February 3, 2022. The
SIP revisions include updates to South Carolina's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) regulations. Specifically, the updates incorporate recent
changes to the federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations, consisting
of a clarification to the Project Emissions Accounting provisions,
updates promulgated in the recent NSR Corrections Rule, and updates to
reflect the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) pursuant to the
Tailoring Rule. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and implementing federal regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0397 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8966. Mr. Febres can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The PSD program is a preconstruction permitting program that
requires ``major'' stationary sources of air pollution to obtain a PSD
permit prior to beginning construction in areas classified as either in
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or
unclassifiable. See CAA section 165. EPA requires PSD SIPs to meet or
exceed the minimum requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.166.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Related rules setting forth the federal PSD program for
areas without an approved PSD permitting program are codified at 40
CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NNSR permitting program is a preconstruction permitting program
that requires ``major'' stationary sources of air pollution to obtain
an NNSR permit prior to beginning construction in areas classified as
being in nonattainment with the NAAQS. See CAA section 173. EPA
requires NNSR SIPs to meet the minimum requirements codified at 40 CFR
51.165.
Over the years, EPA has updated its rules implementing NNSR and PSD
permitting at 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166, respectively, and as a
result of these amendments, states and localities similarly are
required to update their SIP-approved rules to ensure consistency with
the minimum requirements in federal PSD and NNSR rules. Collectively,
EPA commonly refers to its PSD and NNSR permitting programs as major
``new source review'' permitting programs.
On February 3, 2022, SC DHEC submitted SIP revisions to EPA for
approval that include changes to South Carolina's major NSR permitting
regulations to make them more closely align with federal requirements
for PSD and NNSR permitting based on recent updates to the federal NSR
regulations.\2\ Specifically, these changes update South Carolina's
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Standard No. 7.1--Nonattainment New Source Review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA notes that the February 3, 2022, submittal was received
by EPA on February 4, 2022. For clarity, EPA will refer to this
submittal based on the date of the letter.
\3\ EPA notes that under the February 3, 2022, cover letter, SC
DHEC also submitted updates to the following State Regulations: 61-
62.60, South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and New Source
Performance Standards; Regulation 61-62.63, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source
Categories; and Regulation 61-62.70, Title V Operating Permit
Program. However, South Carolina explains in the February 3, 2022,
cover letter that these regulations are not part of the SIP, and
they are not being requested for approval by EPA into the South
Carolina SIP at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA last approved updates to South Carolina's SIP-approved major
NSR regulations on October 28, 2021 by acting on an April 24, 2020
submittal from South Carolina. See 86 FR 59646. Since the time of South
Carolina's previous April 24, 2020 submittal to revise its major NSR
rules, EPA has updated the federal major NSR regulations to clarify the
Project Emissions Accounting provisions and to correct certain errors
in the NSR
[[Page 44315]]
regulations that have accumulated over time.\4\ South Carolina's
February 3, 2022, SIP submittal seeks to incorporate these updates to
the federal rules into the EPA-approved major NSR regulations in the
South Carolina SIP. Additionally, as discussed in detail below, South
Carolina's SIP submittal seeks to incorporate into the South Carolina
SIP updated PSD provisions related to the regulation of GHGs pursuant
to the Tailoring Rule,\5\ which was previously implemented in South
Carolina through legislative action pursuant to South Carolina Joint
Resolution H4888 (2010). EPA is proposing to approve these changes as
meeting the requirements of the federal PSD and NNSR programs and as
being consistent with the CAA. Additional details on South Carolina's
February 3, 2022, revisions and EPA's analysis of the changes can be
found below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Project Emissions
Accounting'' Rule was finalized on November 24, 2020. See 85 FR
74890 (hereinafter ``Project Emissions Accounting Rule''). The ``New
Source Review Regulations; Correction'' Rule was finalized on July
19, 2021. See 86 FR 37918 (hereinafter ``NSR Corrections Rule'').
\5\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (hereinafter referred to as the
``GHG Tailoring Rule''). See 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Analysis of the State's Submittal
As previously mentioned, the February 3, 2022, SIP submittal
includes changes to South Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations. Many of
these changes are minor and are being proposed to align South
Carolina's SIP-approved NSR rules with changes made by EPA in the
federal PSD and NNSR regulations. More details on key updates included
in the State's proposed changes to the South Carolina SIP are found in
sections II.A and II.B below.
A. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration
The February 3, 2022, SIP submittal includes the following key
changes to South Carolina's PSD regulations contained within Regulation
61-62.5, Standard No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as ``Standard No. 7'')
in order to more closely align them with the federal PSD regulations:
(1) Added a definition for the ``sum of the difference'' along with
updated wording throughout Standard No. 7 to include this new
definition, based on EPA's Project Emissions Accounting Rule; (2) added
a definition for ``subject to regulation''; and (3) made several
changes throughout the rule based on EPA's recent NSR Corrections Rule.
More details on these changes to Standard No. 7 are included below. All
other changes to Standard No. 7 are minor edits, such as adding
brackets where needed, correcting grammatical errors, and renumbering
sections based on added or deleted paragraphs throughout the rule.
i. Revisions To Reflect the Project Emissions Accounting Rule
Under paragraph (A)(2)(d)(vii), South Carolina adds a new
definition for the ``sum of the difference,'' which is used for other
definitions under paragraphs (A)(2)(d)(iii), (iv), and (vi).
Subsequently, the definition for ``hydrid test for projects that
involve multiple types of emissions units,'' under paragraph
(A)(2)(d)(vi), was updated to include a reference to the new definition
of the sum of the difference. These changes match those made to the
federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f) and (g), through
EPA's November 24, 2020, Project Emissions Accounting Rule.
ii. Added Definition of ``Subject to Regulation''
GHG emissions were covered for the first time by the PSD and title
V operating permit programs effective on January 2, 2011 pursuant to
the GHG Tailoring Rule. See 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). In the June 3,
2010, notice, EPA described the implementation of the GHG Tailoring
Rule, which consisted of the implementation of two steps (known as Step
1 and Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule) and a commitment to establish a
third step no later than July 1, 2012. Among the changes established in
rulemaking for Step 1 and Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring tule, EPA added
the definition for ``Subject to regulation'' to the federal PSD
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48).
In the implementation of Step 3, EPA decided against further phase-
in of the GHG Tailoring Rule. Thus, the thresholds for determining PSD
applicability based on emissions of GHGs remained the same as
established in Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule. See 77 FR 41051
(July 12, 2012). However, as part of Step 3 of the GHG Tailoring Rule,
EPA revised the regulations under 40 CFR 52.21 to establish Plantwide
Applicability Limits (PALs) for GHG emissions. Id. Prior to that, PALs
were only available for GHGs on a mass basis. EPA's July 12, 2012, rule
revised the PAL regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 to allow for GHG PALs to be
established on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) \6\ basis,
as well as a mass basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CO2e emissions refers to emissions of six
recognized GHGs which are scaled to equivalent CO2
emissions by relative global warming potential values and are then
summed together to determine a total equivalent emissions value. See
40 CFR 51.166 (b)(48)(ii) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed GHG Tailoring
Rule permitting requirements in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v.
EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014). The Supreme Court upheld EPA's regulation of
GHGs under the PSD program as applied to Step 1 sources (i.e., sources
that are ``major'' for purposes of PSD permitting based on non-GHG
pollutants) but further held that EPA may not treat GHGs as air
pollutants for the purpose of determining whether a source is a major
source (or is undergoing a major modification). Thus, the Court
invalidated the PSD and title V permitting requirements for GHG Step 2
sources. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) vacated the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the
GHG Tailoring Rule, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(v). Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606
Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Subsequently, EPA promulgated a good cause final rule on August 19,
2015, entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements''
that removed from the federal regulations the portions of the PSD
permitting provisions related to the GHG Step 2 sources that were
vacated by the D.C. Circuit earlier that year. See 80 FR 50199.
In SC DHEC's February 3, 2022, SIP submittal, South Carolina adds a
new definition for ``Subject to regulation'' under paragraph (B)(52) of
Standard No. 7, which mostly matches the current federal PSD definition
for ``[s]ubject to regulation'' found at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48). The new
definition in paragraph (B)(52) correctly excludes the vacated language
mentioned above but adds language related to the implementation of GHG
PALs in South Carolina's PSD program under subparagraph (B)(52)(a),
which is not found under 51.166(b)(48). Although the language regarding
GHG PALs is not found in the federal definition for ``subject to
regulation'' under 40 CFR 51.166, the rulemaking for Step 3 of the GHG
Tailoring Rule does add the GHG PAL language as part of the definition
of ``subject to regulations'' under 40 CFR 52.21. See 77 FR 41051 at
41072. In that rulemaking, EPA notes that although the Agency is not
adopting the GHG PAL
[[Page 44316]]
language into the existing PSD PAL provisions under 40 CFR 51.166,
``nothing in th[at] action is intended to restrict states from adopting
th[ose], or similar, changes into their SIP-approved PAL program[s] if
they choose to do so.'' See id. at 41070.
EPA additionally notes that although South Carolina appears to be
adding provisions of the GHG Tailoring Rule to its PSD program for the
first time, the State has been implementing these provisions through a
joint resolution that became effective on July 1, 2010.\7\ Adding the
definition for ``subject to regulation'' into South Carolina's PSD
rules merely streamlines the State's rules to current federal PSD
standards in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. However, this change has no
practical effect because GHG provisions for PSD were already authorized
on an interim basis by legislative action in South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor signed Joint
Resolution H4888, which stated in relevant part that ``[i]n the
event that the United States Environmental Protection Agency adopts
rules that raise the threshold levels of GHG emissions that will
trigger a requirement for emitters of greenhouse gases in South
Carolina, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the rules
shall be immediately effective in this State on an interim basis and
implemented by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control pursuant to this joint resolution.'' See
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/4888.htm (last
accessed on June 10, 2022). Subsequently, on March 4, 2011, SC DHEC
submitted a letter to EPA confirming that the State has the
authority to implement the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their PSD
and title V programs. This letter to EPA can be found in the docket
for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, following the addition of this new definition, South
Carolina renumbers the paragraphs that follow in order to accommodate
the new entry. For the reasons described above, EPA believes that South
Carolina's new definition is appropriate for incorporation into the SIP
and is consistent with the federal PSD regulations.
iii. Revisions To Reflect Updates Contained in the NSR Corrections Rule
Additionally, based on EPA's July 19, 2021, NSR Corrections Rule,
South Carolina makes several edits and deletions to Standard No. 7 to
match the federal PSD regulations, and these are detailed below.
First, in paragraph (B)(8), which defines Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), as well as in paragraph (J)(1), which includes
provisions related to the Control Technology Review Provisions of 40
CFR 51.166(j), SC DHEC adds a reference to 40 CFR part 63 in accordance
with updates contained in the NSR Corrections Rule.
Second, in paragraphs (B)(30)(c)(v)(1) and (B)(30)(c)(vi), SC DHEC
removes references to 40 CFR 51.166 in accordance with the NSR
Corrections Rule. These references are unnecessary because these
paragraphs already referenced 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, which houses
the federal PSD regulations contained within 40 CFR 51.166.
Third, under paragraphs (B)(32)(a)(i), (B)(32)(c)(viii), and
(I)(1)(g)(viii), SC DHEC lowers the applicability threshold regarding
consideration of fugitive emissions for municipal incinerators from the
capacity to charge more than two-hundred and fifty (250) tons of refuse
per day to the capacity to charge more than fifty (50) tons of refuse
per day. This change broadens the applicability of the State's PSD rule
for these types of sources and matches changes made to the federal PSD
rule at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a), (b)(1)(iii)(h), and (i)(1)(ii)(h)
through the NSR Corrections Rule.
Fourth, SC DHEC deletes language within subparagraphs (I)(1)(a)
through (e), (I)(1)(i), (I)(1)(j), (I)(6) through (11), (M)(1)(e),
(M)(1)(g) and (M)(1)(h), from Standard No. 7 and inserts ``[Reserved]''
in their place. This deleted language matches the deletion of
corresponding paragraphs in the federal PSD rules through the NSR
Corrections Rule. Specifically, EPA removed paragraphs 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(i) through (v), (i)(1)(ix), (i)(1)(x), (i)(6) through (11),
(m)(1)(v), (m)(1)(vii) and (m)(1)(viii).\8\ In addition, South Carolina
adds a new ``[Reserved]'' paragraph under (I)(12), which also matches
the federal rules at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(12).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Although these provisions are contained in 40 CFR 52.21
(which contains federal PSD plan rules rather than minimum
requirements for state PSD plans), South Carolina previously adopted
these provisions into its PSD plan.
\9\ Although this provision is contained in 40 CFR 52.21 (which
contains federal PSD plan rules rather than minimum requirements for
state PSD plans), South Carolina previously adopted this provision
into its PSD plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, throughout several paragraphs in Standard No. 7, South
Carolina updates internal references. Specifically, SC DHEC updates
references in paragraphs (N)(1), (P)(6), (P)(7) and (P)(8) to align its
rules with changes to the federal rules at 40 CFR 52.21(n)(1), (p)(6),
(p)(7) and (p)(8), respectively.
iv. Other Minor Revisions
Additionally, SC DHEC makes a correction to one of the references
in paragraph (AA)(12)(b), which incorrectly listed the requirements of
the paragraph as being under ``(AA)(12)(c) through (AA)(12)(b)(i).''
The changes correct the reference to say ``(AA)(12)(c) through
(AA)(12)(i)'' instead.
As previously mentioned, all the changes detailed above are either
minor edits and corrections or updates to align South Carolina's rules
with the minimum requirements for PSD plans (including updates
responsive to EPA's Project Emissions Rule, the NSR Corrections Rule,
and the Tailoring Rule). For these reasons, EPA is proposing to approve
and incorporate into the South Carolina SIP the changes to Standard No.
7.
B. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1--Nonattainment New Source
Review
The February 3, 2022, SIP submittal includes the following key
changes to South Carolina's NNSR regulations contained within
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 (hereinafter referred to as
``Standard No. 7.1'') to more closely align with the federal NNSR
regulations: (1) added a definition for the ``sum of the difference''
based on EPA's Project Emissions Accounting rule; (2) incorporated the
federal interpollutant trading provisions for NNSR; and (3) made
several changes throughout the rule based on EPA's NSR Corrections
Rule. More details on these changes to Standard No. 7.1 are included
below.
All other changes to South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard
No. 7.1, are minor edits, such as grammatical corrections, and
renumbering sections based on added or deleted paragraphs throughout
the rule.
i. Revisions To Reflect the Project Emissions Accounting Rule
Under paragraph (A)(9), SC DHEC adds a new definition for the ``sum
of the difference,'' which is used within other definitions in
paragraphs (A)(6), (7) and (8). Subsequently, the definition for
``hydrid test for projects that involve multiple types of emissions
units,'' under paragraph (A)(8) was updated to include a reference to
the new definition of the sum of the difference. These changes match
those made to the federal NNSR regulations at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(2)(ii)(F) and (G), through EPA's Project Emissions Accounting
Rule.
ii. Revisions To Reflect Updates Contained in the NSR Corrections Rule
Similar to the changes to South Carolina's PSD regulations
explained in Section II.A., SC DHEC makes several edits and deletions
to Standard No. 7.1 to align this rule with updates to 40 CFR 51.165
resulting from the NSR Corrections Rule. These changes are detailed
further below.
[[Page 44317]]
First, under paragraphs (A)(11) \10\ and (B)(22), SC DHEC lowers
the applicability threshold regarding consideration of fugitive
emissions from for municipal incinerators from the capacity to charge
more than two-hundred and fifty (250) tons of refuse per day to the
capacity to charge more than fifty (50) tons of refuse per day. This
change broadens the applicability of South Carolina's Standard No. 7.1
for these types of sources and matches changes made to the federal NNSR
rules at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C)(8) and (a)(4)(viii) through the NSR
Corrections Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Paragraph (A)(10) is being renumbered to (A)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although most of paragraphs (A)(11) and (B)(22) are appropriate for
incorporation into the South Carolina SIP and match the current federal
rules, the State-effective version includes a portion of the definition
for ``Chemical process plants'' under (A)(11)(t) and (B)(22)(c)(xx)
that has never been approved into the SIP. In particular, the language
contained after ``Chemical process plant,'' which states that ``[t]he
term chemical processing plants shall not include ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in
NAICS codes 325193 or 312140,'' is not currently in the SIP.\11\ Due to
the ongoing review of the 2007 Ethanol Rule in regards to the federal
NNSR regulations, SC DHEC notes in its February 3, 2022, cover letter
that it is not requesting EPA to approve these portions of paragraphs
(A)(11) and (B)(22) into the SIP at this time.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ On May 1, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register the
2007 Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060), which amended EPA's PSD and NNSR
regulations to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that produce
ethanol by natural fermentation processes from the ``chemical
process plants'' category under the regulatory definition of ``major
stationary source.'' Shortly thereafter, EPA received a petition for
reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule provisions from Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which petition EPA initially
denied on March 27, 2008. See 73 FR 24174 (March 27, 2008). In 2009,
EPA received a second petition for reconsideration from NRDC, and
NRDC also filed a petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging EPA's 2008
denial of its first petition for reconsideration. The court granted
a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance, and the case has
remained in abeyance. On October 21, 2019, EPA partially granted and
partially denied the second petition for reconsideration. See 84 FR
59743 (November 6, 2019). Specifically, EPA granted the request for
reconsideration with regard to the claim that the 2007 Ethanol Rule
did not appropriately address the CAA section 193 anti-backsliding
requirements for nonattainment areas. Concurrently, EPA denied the
remainder of the requests for reconsideration. This means that
states are now able to adopt the Ethanol Rule provisions for their
PSD programs but are generally not choosing to do the same for their
NNSR programs at this time.
\12\ South Carolina's February 3, 2022, cover letter,
additionally references a June 21, 2021, withdrawal letter, which
was sent to EPA while the Agency was in the process of approving the
State's last update to the NSR regulations into the SIP. In the
February 3, 2020, letter, SC DHEC confirms that the intention of the
June 21, 2021, withdrawal letter remains the same and that it is not
requesting EPA to approve the Ethanol Rule provisions, found in
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in paragraph (B)(5), South Carolina adds a reference to 40
CFR part 63 in accordance with updates contained in the NSR Corrections
Rule. This paragraph already contains references to Parts 60 and 61 but
based on changes to the federal NNSR rules at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xl),
South Carolina adds the reference to Part 63 as well.
Third, in paragraphs (B)(21)(c)(v)(1) and (B)(21)(c)(vi), South
Carolina removes the references to 40 CFR 51.166 in accordance with
revisions arising from the NSR Corrections Rule. These references were
incorrect to use in Standard No. 7.1 because 40 CFR 51.166 contains the
Federal PSD regulations, rather than the federal NNSR regulations.
Additionally, these references were unnecessary because these
paragraphs already referenced 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, which house
the federal NNSR regulations, found in 40 CFR 51.165.
Fourth, under paragraph (D)(6), which contains NNSR offset
provisions, SC DHEC deletes an outdated reference to EPA's
``Recommended Policy on the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (42
FR 35314, July 8, 1977).'' Instead, South Carolina points to 40 CFR
51.100(s), where a list of compounds with negligible photochemical
reactivity can be found. According to the State's rule, emissions
credit may be allowed only for hydrocarbons substituted with one of
these compounds. This updated reference matches changes made to the
federal NNSR rules at 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D) through the NSR Corrections
Rule.
Finally, under Section (H), specifically in paragraph (H)(1), South
Carolina adopts corrections to the federal interprecursor offsetting
rules, found at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11), in order to delete vacated
language regarding ozone interprecursor offsetting. Originally, the
State-effective version of Section (H) contained language from the
December 6, 2018, rule ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (2018 Implementation Rule). See 83
FR 62998. These federal provisions were later vacated by the D.C.
Circuit through a January 29, 2021, court decision. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, on June 22, 2021, EPA
removed this vacated language from 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11) through the NSR
Corrections Rule.
South Carolina's previous proposed SIP revision addressing Standard
No. 7.1, which was submitted to EPA on April 24, 2020, sought to
incorporate Section (H), including the vacated language mentioned
above, under paragraph (H)(1), into the SIP. Because of the court
decision and vacatur, South Carolina later withdrew its request for EPA
to incorporate Section (H) in its entirety into the SIP, through an
April 20, 2021, withdrawal letter, and so this section is not currently
found in the SIP-approved version of Standard No. 7.1. The February 3,
2022, SIP revision now submits a corrected version of Section (H), with
the removal of the vacated language from paragraph (H)(1), for
incorporation into the SIP. EPA has evaluated the revised provision and
found that the language matches that of the federal NNSR regulation,
found at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11), and is proposing to incorporate it into
the South Carolina SIP.
As previously mentioned, all the changes detailed above are either
minor edits and corrections or are updates to align South Carolina's
rules with minimum requirements in the federal NNSR rule found at 40
CFR 51.165, based on changes made through EPA's Project Emissions Rule
and the NSR Corrections Rule. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to
approve and incorporate into the South Carolina SIP the changes to
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, except for the parts of
subparagraphs (A)(11)(t) and (B)(22)(c)(xx) noted above, as they relate
to the Ethanol Rule Provisions of the federal NNSR regulations,
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II
of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference South
Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, and Standard No. 7.1--Nonattainment New
Source Review, both state effective on November 26, 2021, except for a
portion of paragraphs (A)(11)(t) and (B)(22)(c)(xx) related to the
Ethanol Rule Provisions, found in Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
[[Page 44318]]
and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).
IV. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing to approve, with the
exceptions noted above, the changes to the South Carolina Regulation
61-62.5, Standards No. 7--Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and
Standard No. 7.1--Nonattainment New Source Review, both state effective
on November 26, 2021. These changes were submitted by South Carolina on
February 3, 2022.
V. 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. See 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. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
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).
Because this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this proposed action
for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian
Nation (CIN) Reservation is located within the boundary of York County,
South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act,
S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to impose regulations
applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those
imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the
Settlement Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
Dated: July 19, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-15778 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P