Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 68465 

1EPA 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. 

2EPA 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. 

3South 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. 

4Following 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. 

5Some 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. 

6 88 FR at 74893. 

and/or Safety Marine Information 

Broadcast (SMIB) as appropriate. 

Dated: September 27, 2023. 

A.R. Bender, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Upper Mississippi River. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21885 Filed 10–3–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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 

LaRocca.Sarah@epa.gov. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 twostep 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
68466 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

7 Id. at 74894. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10See State of New Jersey v. EPA, 21–1033 (D.C. 

Cir. 2021). 

11See 74 FR 2376. 

12See 84 FR 39244 (August 9, 2019). 13As 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. 

14Footnote 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 68467 

15See ‘‘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. 

16The 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. 

17See 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). 

18March 2018 Memorandum at 6–8. 

19 Id. 

20Permitting 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. 

21South Carolina’s SIP-approved NNSR rules 

have a state-effective date of April 24, 2020. See 86 

FR 59646 (October 28, 2021). 22See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

In that document, EPA stated that 

‘‘implementation of this rule will not 

cause States to violate the antibacksliding 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

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. 

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). 

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

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
68468 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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, lowincome 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 68469 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c)—EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regulation No. 62.5 ................ Air Pollution Control Standards.

*******

Standard No. 7 ....................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration.11/26/2021 10/4/2023, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Standard No. 7.1 .................... Nonattainment New Source 

Review.

11/26/2021 10/4/2023, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Except for the ethanol production 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2023–0403; FRL–11259– 

02–R7] 

Air Plan Approval; MO; Control of 

Emissions From Volatile Organic 

Liquid Storage 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Missouri State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) related to the 

control of emissions from volatile 

organic liquid storage. These revisions 

do not impact the stringency of the SIP 

or have an adverse effect on air quality. 

The EPA’s approval of this rule revision 

is being done in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 3, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2023–0403. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.govwebsite. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through www.regulations.gov 

or please contact the person identified 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section for additional 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bethany Olson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Permitting and Planning Branch, 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 

66219; telephone number: (913) 551– 

7905; email address: olson.bethany@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is the EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is approving revisions to the 

Missouri SIP received on February 15, 

2019, and June 10, 2021, and a 

supplemental submission on April 24, 

2023. The revisions are to Title 10, 

Division 10 of the Code of State 

Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10–5.500 

‘‘Control of Emissions from Volatile 

Organic Liquid Storage.’’ The purpose of 

the state regulation is to limit the 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from installations with 

volatile organic liquid storage vessels in 

the St. Louis 1997 eight (8)-hour ozone 

nonattainment area by incorporating 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) as required by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Missouri 

made multiple revisions to the rule. The 

revisions add incorporations by 

reference to other state rules, add 

definitions specific to the rule, revise 

unnecessarily restrictive or duplicative 

language, and make administrative 

wording changes. EPA finds that these 

revisions meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, do not impact the 

stringency of the SIP, and do not 

adversely impact air quality. The full 

text of the rule revisions as well as 

EPA’s analysis of the revisions can be 

found in the technical support 

document (TSD) included in the docket 

for this action. 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The State’s submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. The State provided 

public notice on the first SIP revision 

from June 15, 2018, to September 6, 

2018, and held a public hearing on 

August 30, 2018. Missouri received ten 

comments from two sources during the 

comment period on 10 CSR 10–5.500. 

The EPA provided nine comments. 

Missouri responded to all comments 

and revised the rule based on public 

comments prior to submitting to EPA, as 

noted in the State submission included 

in the docket for this action. The State 

provided public notice on the second 

SIP revision from November 15, 2019, to 

February 6, 2020, and held a public 

hearing on January 30, 2018. Missouri 

received one comment from a staff 

member during the comment period. 

The State revised the rule purpose 

statement based on the comment prior 

to submitting to EPA. 

The EPA’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and supporting information 

contained in the docket were made 

available for public comment from 

August 22, 2023, to September 21, 2023. 

The EPA received no comments. In 

addition, as explained above and in 

more detail in the technical support 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1