[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68465-68469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21722]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0397; FRL-10011-03-R4]


Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: New Source Review Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 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 revision 
updates portions of South Carolina's Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) 
regulations that pertain to Project Emissions Accounting (PEA) 
provisions. EPA is approving these changes pursuant to the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) and implementing Federal regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective November 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0397. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the 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. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca can 
also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by South Carolina on 
February 3, 2022,\1\ which updates the State's PSD and NNSR rules. 
Specifically, EPA is incorporating the PEA provisions in paragraphs 
(A)(2)(d)(vi) and (A)(2)(d)(vii) of South Carolina's Regulation 61-
62.5, Standard No. 7--Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and the 
PEA provisions in paragraphs (A)(8) and (A)(9) of South Carolina's 
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1--Nonattainment New Source Review 
into the South Carolina SIP.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
    \2\ 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 (NESHAPs) 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.
    \3\ 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, 2022, 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on July 
26, 2022 (87 FR 44314), EPA proposed to approve the February 3, 2022, 
SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the Federal PSD and NNSR 
programs and as being consistent with the CAA.\4\ Additional details on 
South Carolina's February 3, 2022, revision and EPA's analysis of the 
changes can be found in the July 26, 2022, NPRM. Comments on the July 
26, 2022, NPRM were due on or before August 25, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Following the July 26, 2022, NPRM, EPA approved portions of 
South Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations, including changes to 
reflect the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) pursuant to the 
Tailoring Rule and updates promulgated in the recent NSR Corrections 
Rule, on August 23, 2023. See 88 FR 57358 (August 23, 2023). At that 
time, EPA took no action on the PEA provisions in paragraphs 
(A)(2)(d)(vi) and (A)(2)(d)(vii) of South Carolina's Regulation 61-
62.5, Standard No. 7--Prevention of Significant Deterioration, the 
PEA provisions in paragraphs (A)(8) and (A)(9) of South Carolina's 
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1--Nonattainment New Source 
Review, and the portions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments on the July 26, 2022, NPRM, which are 
included in the docket of this rulemaking. The comments arrived in a 
letter dated August 25, 2022, and originate from one commenter, the 
Center for Biological Diversity. The Commenter provided supplemental 
documentation to support the comments submitted. The comments generally 
oppose approval of the changes in the February 3, 2022, SIP revision 
that incorporate the Federal PEA provisions at 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 
51.166 \5\ into South Carolina's SIP. Below, EPA briefly summarizes the 
PEA Rule, which the Agency finalized on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 
74890), and responds to the comments received on the July 26, 2022, 
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Some States, including South Carolina, choose to meet 
minimum PSD requirements within 40 CFR 51.166 by adopting language 
within the Federal PSD plan codified at 40 CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An existing major stationary source proposing a physical change or 
a change in its method of operation must determine whether that project 
is a major modification subject to new source review (NSR) 
preconstruction permitting requirements by following a two-step test. 
The first step is to determine if there is a ``significant emission 
increase'' of a regulated NSR pollutant from the proposed modification. 
If there is, the second step is to determine if there is a 
``significant net emission increase'' of that pollutant.
    The PEA Rule maintained this two-step test while clarifying that 
emissions increases and decreases for projects that involve new and 
existing emissions units can be considered in the same manner as 
emissions increases and decreases for projects that only involve new 
units or only involve existing units in Step 1 of the NSR major 
modification applicability test.\6\ More specifically, the PEA Rule 
made this clarification in language addressing the ``hybrid test'' for 
projects that involve a combination

[[Page 68466]]

of new and existing units by replacing the phrase ``sum of the 
increases'' with the phrase ``sum of the difference.'' \7\ The Rule 
also explained that the revised term ``sum of the difference,'' would 
apply to ``all emissions units'' instead of ``for each emissions unit'' 
to better account for projects that involve multiple emission units.\8\ 
Finally, the Rule added regulatory text to clarify that the term ``sum 
of the difference'' as used in the referenced subparagraphs shall 
include both increases and decreases in emissions as calculated in 
accordance with those subparagraphs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 88 FR at 74893.
    \7\ Id. at 74894.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When EPA finalized changes in the PEA Rule, the Agency responded to 
adverse comments received on the changes as proposed. Since that time, 
a petition for judicial review of the PEA Rule was filed in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 
Circuit).\10\ However, this does not impede finalization of separate 
actions, including today's rulemaking approving revisions to the South 
Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations. EPA provides further explanation 
below to address the Commenter's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See State of New Jersey v. EPA, 21-1033 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: The Commenter states that ``[e]ven under the EPA's 2020 
[PEA] rule, EPA cannot approve [South Carolina's] plan revision without 
a requirement that a project consist of `substantially related' 
activities.'' The Commenter suggests that the February 3, 2022, 
submission fails to include a requirement that projects consist of 
substantially related activities.
    The Commenter states that EPA relies on its January 1, 2009, 
rulemaking \11\ (hereafter referred to as the 2009 NSR Aggregation 
Action, or the 2009 Action) in the PEA Rule to interpret ``major NSR 
regulations as requiring that a project consist of `substantially 
related' activities.'' The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve 
South Carolina's SIP revision without requiring the State to revise its 
SIP to conform with EPA's interpretation of the 2009 action referenced 
in the PEA Rule. The Commenter further asserts that this requirement 
must be made part of the SIP so that it can be enforced by EPA and 
citizens pursuant to CAA sections 113 and 304. In the background 
section of its comments, the Commenter also states that this concern is 
``primarily a matter for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,'' where the 
PEA Rule is currently being challenged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 74 FR 2376.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1: EPA requires NNSR and PSD SIP revisions to meet or 
exceed the minimum requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, 
respectively. Some States, including South Carolina, choose to meet 
minimum PSD requirements by adopting certain language within the 
Federal PSD plan codified at 40 CFR 52.21. The PEA Rule has been 
adopted into 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 52.21, and Appendix S 
to 40 CFR part 51. South Carolina adopted the PEA Rule changes within 
these rules verbatim, as described more fully in its February 3, 2022, 
submittal.
    In this comment, the Commenter focuses not on whether South 
Carolina's proposed PSD and NNSR SIP revisions comply with EPA's 
minimum standards for PSD and NNSR plans codified at 40 CFR 51.165 and 
40 CFR 51.166, which have also been adopted into 40 CFR 52.21 and 
Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. Rather, the comments are directed at the 
substance of the PEA Rule itself. The Commenter, for example, 
explicitly takes the position that ``EPA's 2020 Rule is unlawful.''
    The time for submitting comments on the PEA Rule was when EPA 
notified the public that it was considering adopting that rule and 
requested the public's input.\12\ EPA notes that the Commenter did not 
submit comments on the PEA Rule. EPA thus views the comments as 
untimely comments on the PEA Rule itself.\13\ EPA addressed concerns 
regarding project aggregation in response to comments by other parties 
in that rulemaking action. See 85 FR 74890, 74898-900 (November 24, 
2020). As noted by the Commenter, these concerns are ``primarily a 
matter for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,'' where the PEA Rule is 
currently being challenged by States and organizations other than the 
Commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 84 FR 39244 (August 9, 2019).
    \13\ As the Commenter also notes, litigation regarding the PEA 
Rule has been filed in the D.C. Circuit. The Commenter is not a 
party to that suit. Congress established a jurisdictional bar for 
judicial review to EPA rulemakings which states that ``[a]ny 
petition for review under this subsection shall be filed within 
sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation, approval, or 
action appears in the Federal Register, except that if such petition 
is based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day, then any 
petition for review under this subsection shall be filed within 
sixty days after such grounds arise.'' CAA Subsection 307(b)(1). 
This language further indicates that submitting comments on a 
State's implementation of a preexisting EPA rule is an improper 
method to challenge EPA's underlying rule--such comments (and any 
related judicial review) must be submitted on the underlying rule 
itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In EPA's July 26, 2022, NPRM, EPA did not propose to revise the 
minimum standards within 40 CFR 51.165 or 51.166, and EPA did not seek 
comment on the PEA Rule, which EPA finalized in 2020. Rather, EPA 
explained that ``EPA is proposing to approve [changes to South 
Carolina's SIP] as meeting the requirements of the Federal PSD and NNSR 
programs and as being consistent with the CAA,'' and EPA sought the 
public's comments on this preliminary determination. See 87 FR 44315. 
The Commenter does not engage with the question of whether South 
Carolina's proposed SIP revision (and EPA's proposal to approve this 
SIP revision) complies with EPA's minimum NSR standards, and therefore, 
these comments do not demonstrate that EPA may not approve the SIP 
revision.
    The Commenter's position is also based on an erroneous reading of 
the PEA rule. The PEA Rule preamble states ``that state and local air 
agencies with approved SIPs are and were not required to amend their 
plans to adopt the interpretation that projects should be aggregated 
when `substantially related.' '' See 85 FR at 74895, FN 57 (November 
24, 2020).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Footnote 57 cites to the memorandum from the EPA 
Administrator E. Scott Pruitt, to Regional Administrators, titled 
``Project Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review 
Preconstruction Permitting Program,'' March 13, 2018 (``March 2018 
Memorandum'') available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/nsr_memo_03-13-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter states that EPA's proposed approval 
violates the anti-backsliding provisions of the Act. Specifically, the 
Commenter asserts that adopting the PEA Rule would weaken the 
stringency of South Carolina's SIP by allowing emission reductions to 
be considered at Step 1 of the NSR applicability process for the hybrid 
test for projects involving a combination of new and existing units; by 
not requiring that a project consist of ``substantially related'' 
activities; and by not ensuring that emission decreases considered at 
Step 1 will be ``contemporaneous'' with emission increases resulting 
from the project. The Commenter thus takes the position that South 
Carolina's rules are more stringent without the adoption of the 
language from the PEA Rule. The Commenter asserts that South Carolina's 
revision to the project emissions accounting portion of its rules is 
substantive and that EPA must therefore provide analysis demonstrating 
that the change to the South Carolina SIP will not violate section 
110(l) and section 193 of the Act.
    Response 2: EPA addressed the topic of anti-backsliding in the 
response to comments document for the PEA Rule.

[[Page 68467]]

In that document, EPA stated that ``implementation of this rule will 
not cause States to violate the anti-backsliding requirements of the 
Clean Air Act. Allowing for PEA is consistent with the intent of the 
2002 NSR Reform Rule and is more consistent with the Act than 
implementing Step 1 without PEA. That is because PEA would not subject 
a project which does not significantly increase emissions in and of 
itself, or actually result in a decrease [in] emissions, from being 
subject to NSR.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Response to Comments Document on Proposed Rule: 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 
New Source Review (NNSR): Project Emissions Accounting''--84 FR 
39244, August 9, 2019'' (October 2020), at p. 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding section 110(l) of the CAA, the nature of this revision to 
the South Carolina SIP does not provide cause for EPA to find that this 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement of the South 
Carolina SIP concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or 
any other requirement of the CAA. The relevant South Carolina 
regulations are identical to those adopted by EPA, and South Carolina 
has been applying the prior version of its SIP-approved regulations 
consistent with EPA's interpretation of its pre-PEA regulations, as 
articulated in the March 2018 EPA memorandum.\16\ Like EPA's 
regulations, South Carolina's prior regulations included the term ``sum 
of the difference.'' \17\ As explained in the March 2018 Memorandum, 
``the use of the phrase `sum of the difference' '' allowed for the 
inclusion of both emission increases and decreases.\18\ ``The 
`difference' between a unit's projected actual emissions or potential 
to emit (following the completion of the project) and its baseline 
actual emissions (prior to the project) may be either a positive number 
(representing a projected increase) or a negative number (representing 
a projected decrease). In either case, the values that result from 
`summing' the `difference' could have been taken into consideration at 
Step 1 in determining the emissions impact of the project.'' \19\ Thus, 
this SIP action does not reflect a substantive change to South 
Carolina's applicability requirements for NSR.\20\ As was the case with 
the PEA Rule, this SIP revision only clarifies that PEA is allowed by 
removing any ambiguity. South Carolina's regulations already allow for 
PEA, and the State has implemented the regulations accordingly, without 
interfering with attainment of the NAAQS. No areas within the State are 
designated as nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The March 2018 Memorandum explained that EPA interpreted 
the pre-2020 PEA Rule NSR regulations as ``provid[ing] that 
emissions decreases as well as increases are to be considered at 
Step 1 of the NSR applicability process, provided they are part of a 
single project.'' March 2018 Memorandum, at p. 1. More specifically, 
in the March 2018 Memorandum, EPA interpreted the pre-2020 PEA Rule 
major NSR regulations to mean that emissions increases and decreases 
could be considered in Step 1 for projects that involve multiple 
types of emissions units in the same manner as they are considered 
for projects that only involve new or only involve existing 
emissions units.
    \17\ See Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 subparagraphs 
(a)(2)(iv)(c and d) and Standard No. 7.1 subparagraphs (b)(3 and 4) 
(2020).
    \18\ March 2018 Memorandum at 6-8.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Permitting materials from a February 21, 2019, SC DHEC 
permitting decision have been added to the docket for this action as 
an example showing that South Carolina has already been implementing 
project emissions accounting and this action will not result in a 
substantive change to South Carolina's PSD and NNSR programs. In 
this example, the source applied project emissions accounting at 
Step 1 of the PSD process. South Carolina then determined that the 
project in question was a major modification for volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) and it applied the reasonable possibility 
provisions for all NSR pollutants calculated to have any increase 
above baseline actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, section 193 of the CAA does not prohibit EPA's approval 
of this South Carolina's SIP revision to incorporate the 2020 PEA Rule. 
This section of the Act requires analysis of a plan's changes to ensure 
that an equivalent or greater emission reduction of a given pollutant 
is achieved within a given nonattainment area. For the reasons 
discussed above, the revised NSR provisions of the SIP should achieve 
equivalent emissions reduction as the pre-existing NSR provisions of 
the SIP. Moreover, although EPA is approving revisions to South 
Carolina's NNSR provisions to be consistent with EPA's NNSR 
regulations, there are currently no nonattainment areas in South 
Carolina to which these regulations apply, and these rules would 
therefore currently have no effect.\21\ EPA designated and classified a 
portion of York County, South Carolina, within the Rock Hill-Fort Mill 
area as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 
0.08 parts per million set in 1997. Since then, however, EPA 
redesignated the area to attainment and, thus, South Carolina no longer 
has nonattainment areas that can be specifically considered under 
section 193 of the CAA. See 80 FR 76,865 (December 11, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ South Carolina's SIP-approved NNSR rules have a state-
effective date of April 24, 2020. See 86 FR 59646 (October 28, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that EPA should not act on South 
Carolina's February 3, 2022, revision related to the South Carolina 
NNSR and PSD rules in the SIP while pending litigation exists 
concerning the PEA Rule. The Commenter states that EPA provides no 
explanation of the manner at which it would reverse an approved 
revision should EPA rescind, or a court vacate, the PEA Rule.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that, while litigation 
is incomplete on the PEA Rule, EPA should not act on the South 
Carolina's plan revision. The PEA Rule, promulgated November 24, 2020, 
is a current Federal regulation addressing major new source review. 
South Carolina's February 3, 2022, submission merely adopts federally 
approved regulations. Should EPA rescind, or a court vacate, the PEA 
Rule, EPA has tools available to ensure that SIPs remain compliant with 
EPA's rules.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing 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 
finalizing the incorporation by reference of paragraphs (A)(2)(d)(vi) 
and (A)(2)(d)(vii) of South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 
7--Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and paragraphs (A)(8) and 
(A)(9) of South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1--
Nonattainment New Source Review, all state effective on November 26, 
2021. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
generally available through www.regulations.gov 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). 
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in 
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are 
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will 
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision adopting the PEA Rule provisions 
of 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, into the SIP. 
These changes were submitted by South Carolina on February 3, 2022.

[[Page 68468]]

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 
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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    Because this final rule merely approves State law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law, this final rule 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 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 Reservation 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.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    SC DHEC did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of 
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral 
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. 
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there 
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of 
E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, 
and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. 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 December 4, 2023. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 27, 2023.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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. In Sec.  52.2120, in table 1 to paragraph (c), under ``Regulation 
No. 62.5'' revise the entries for ``Standard No. 7'' and ``Standard No. 
7.1'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 68469]]



                        Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--EPA-Approved South Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regulation No. 62.5..............  Air Pollution
                                    Control Standards.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Standard No. 7...................  Prevention of            11/26/2021  10/4/2023, [Insert
                                    Significant                          citation of
                                    Deterioration.                       publication].
Standard No. 7.1.................  Nonattainment New        11/26/2021  10/4/2023, [Insert   Except for the
                                    Source Review.                       citation of          ethanol production
                                                                         publication].        facilities
                                                                                              exclusion in
                                                                                              paragraphs
                                                                                              (A)(11)(t) and
                                                                                              (B)(22)(c)(xx).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-21722 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P