Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 29451 

1 In its July 18, 2011, submittal, South Carolina 

is removing entirely a rule for setting alternative 

emission limitations at Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 6, ‘‘Alternative Emission Limitation 

Options (‘Bubble’),’’ and replacing it with 

‘‘Reserved.’’ This change is not presently before 

EPA for action because Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 6 is not part of the State’s federally 

approved SIP. EPA rescinded the original approval 

of this regulation and disapproved a further 

revision to it on March 8, 1995 (60 FR 12700). 

2EPA did not approve one portion of 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 7 from the April 10, 2014 submittal 

making revisions to certain provisions 

corresponding to EPA’s May 1, 2007 rule regarding 

ethanol production facilities (72 FR 24060). EPA 

will evaluate this portion of the April 10, 2014 

submittal in a separate action. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0387; FRL–9979–78– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; SC; Definitions and 

Open Burning 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve changes to the South Carolina 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

revise definitions and a regulation for 

open burning. EPA is approving 

portions of SIP revisions submitted by 

the State of South Carolina, through the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) 

on the following dates: July 18, 2011, 

June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 

2014, and July 27, 2016. These actions 

are being taken pursuant to the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This rule will be effective July 

25, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0387. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not 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, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, Region 4, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. Mr. Akers can be reached 

via electronic mail at akers.brad@

epa.gov or via telephone at (404) 562– 

9089. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

On July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 

10, 2014, August 8, 2014, and July 27, 

2016, SC DHEC submitted SIP revisions 

to EPA for approval that involve 

changes to South Carolina’s SIP 

regulations to add definitions, make 

administrative and clarifying 

amendments, and correct typographical 

errors. These SIP submittals make 

changes to several air quality rules in 

South Carolina Code of Regulations 

Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.). The 

changes EPA is approving into the SIP 

in this action modify portions of 

Regulation 61–62.1 ‘‘Definitions and 

General Requirements’’ at Section I— 

‘‘Definitions’’ and make a revision to 

Regulation 61–62.2,—‘‘Prohibition of 

Open Burning.’’ 

At this time, EPA is not acting on the 

changes detailed in Table 1 below, 

which include portions of several SIP 

submittals that EPA has approved 

previously. EPA will address all 

remaining requested changes to the 

South Carolina SIP in the relevant SIP 

submissions as listed below in a 

separate action. 

TABLE 1—OTHER PORTIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUBMITTALS

Submittal Regulation Status 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section II ........................................ EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 1 .............................. EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 2 .............................. Approved April 3, 2013 (78 FR 19994). 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.3 ......................................................... Approved August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537). 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 4 .............................. EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 6 .............................. Not part of the SIP.1

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7 .............................. Approved August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37299). 

July 18, 2011 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7.1 ........................... Approved August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37299). 

June 17, 2013 ...................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section II ........................................ EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

June 17, 2013 ...................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section IV ...................................... Approved August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537). 

June 17, 2013 ...................... Regulation 61–62.3 ......................................................... Approved August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537). 

June 17, 2013 ...................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 4 .............................. EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

June 17, 2013 ...................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 5 .............................. Approved August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38825). 

April 10, 2014 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7 .............................. Partially approved August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37299).2

April 10, 2014 ....................... Regulation 61–62.6 ......................................................... Approved August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537). 

August 8, 2014 ..................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section II ........................................ EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

August 8, 2014 ..................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section III ....................................... Approved June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33413) and May 31, 

2017 (82 FR 24851). 

August 8, 2014 ..................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section IV ...................................... Approved August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537). 

August 8, 2014 ..................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section V ....................................... Approved August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537). 

August 8, 2014 ..................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 1 .............................. EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

August 8, 2014 ..................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 4 .............................. EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

July 27, 2016 ....................... Regulation 61–62.1, Section II ........................................ EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

July 27, 2016 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 4 .............................. EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
29452 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—OTHER PORTIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUBMITTALS—Continued 

Submittal Regulation Status 

July 27, 2016 ....................... Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 5.2 ........................... EPA will evaluate in a separate action. 

II. Background 

On August 21, 2017, EPA published a 

proposed rulemaking (82 FR 39551), 

which accompanied a direct final 

rulemaking (82 FR 39537) published on 

the same date. The proposed rule 

proposed to approve the portions of 

South Carolina’s SIP revisions described 

above. It also stated that if EPA received 

adverse comment on the direct final 

rule, then the Agency would withdraw 

the direct final rule and address public 

comments received in a subsequent 

final rule based on the proposed rule. 

EPA received one adverse comment 

letter from a Commenter regarding the 

portion of the direct final rule revising 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

‘‘Definitions,’’ and the revision to 

Regulation 61–62.2,—‘‘Prohibition of 

Open Burning,’’ and EPA accordingly 

withdrew those portions of the direct 

final rule proposing to approve changes 

to these rules on October 13, 2017 (82 

FR 47636). After considering the 

adverse comments, EPA is now taking 

final action, based on the proposed rule, 

on the portions of South Carolina’s SIP 

revisions modifying Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section I and Regulation 61–62.2, as 

described above. 

III. Analysis of South Carolina’s 

Submittals 

A. Definitions 

South Carolina is amending its list of 

applicable definitions related to the 

regulation of air quality at Regulation 

61–62.1, Section I—‘‘Definitions.’’ The 

July 18, 2011, submittal makes several 

changes to the definitions as follows: (1) 

Adds a definition for ‘‘CAA [Clean Air 

Act];’’ (2) adds definitions for ‘‘PM2.5,’’ 

or fine particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers, and 

‘‘PM2.5 emissions;’’ (3) revises the 

definition of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ to 

match the federal definition at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(ix), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(20); and (4) makes 

other clarifying and administrative edits 

to definitions throughout Section I, 

including renumbering. The June 17, 

2013, submittal further revises the 

definitions to make several 

administrative edits only. 

The April 10, 2014, submittal makes 

one revision to the definitions at 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section I.94.— 

‘‘Volatile Organic Compound (VOC),’’ to 

add a compound to the list of 

compounds determined by EPA to have 

negligible photochemical reactivity and 

therefore exempted from being 

considered a VOC, consistent with the 

federal definition. This revision in the 

April 10, 2014, submittal was 

superseded by another revision to the 

definition of VOC at I.94. in the August 

8, 2014, submittal. This latter submittal 

changes the format of the definition of 

VOC at I.99., renumbered from I.94., to 

incorporate directly the list of 

compounds exempted by EPA from the 

federal regulatory definition of VOC by 

making an explicit reference to the 

definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s). The 

August 8, 2014, submittal also revises 

Section I by: (1) Adding definitions for 

‘‘Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),’’ 

‘‘NAICS [North American Industrial 

Classification System] Code,’’ and ‘‘SIC 

[Standard Industrial Classification] 

Code’’; and (2) making administrative 

changes throughout. 

Finally, the July 27, 2016, submittal 

makes subsequent revisions to Section I 

to add the definition of ‘‘emission’’ and 

makes administrative edits throughout. 

EPA has reviewed the changes made to 

South Carolina’s definitions and is 

approving the aforementioned changes 

to Regulation 61–62.1, Section I into the 

SIP pursuant to CAA section 110 

because the revisions are consistent 

with the CAA. 

B. Open Burning 

South Carolina is making a minor 

change to its rules covering open 

burning at Regulation 61–62.2— 

‘‘Prohibition of Open Burning.’’ The 

April 10, 2014, submittal revises the 

regulation to make an administrative 

edit to a referenced manual only and 

makes no substantive changes. 

Specifically, the State is changing the 

font for the referenced manual for 

internal consistency. EPA has reviewed 

this purely administrative change made 

to South Carolina’s rules for open 

burning and is approving the 

aforementioned change to Regulation 

61–62.2 into the SIP pursuant to CAA 

section 110. 

IV. Response to Comments 

As noted above, EPA previously 

proposed to approve these changes, and 

others, to the South Carolina SIP on 

August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39551), along 

with a direct final rule published the 

same date (82 FR 39537). EPA received 

adverse comments from a Commenter 

regarding the portions of the direct final 

rule revising Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section I—‘‘Definitions,’’ and the 

revision to Regulation 61–62.2,— 

‘‘Prohibition of Open Burning,’’ and 

EPA accordingly withdrew those 

portions of the direct final rule on 

October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47636). EPA’s 

responses to the adverse comments are 

below. 

A. Definitions 

The Commenter stated that South 

Carolina’s definition of PM2.5 ‘‘should 

also include condensable and filterable 

PM.’’ South Carolina’s SIP, under 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section I, defines 

PM2.5 as ‘‘[p]articulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers emitted to 

the ambient air as measured by a 

reference method based on Appendix L 

of 40 CFR 50 and designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 53 or by an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 53.’’ This 

definition is consistent with the way 

EPA uses the term in federal 

regulations. For example, PM2.5 is 

defined in the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards as ‘‘particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers.’’ (See 40 

CFR 50.7, 50.13 and 50.18.) Therefore, 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

implication that South Carolina’s 

definition of PM2.5 is not sufficient. 

Although the Commenter did not 

mention South Carolina’s definition of 

‘‘PM2.5 emissions,’’ EPA notes that the 

State has added this term to R. 61–62.1 

and defines it as ‘‘[f]inely divided solid 

or liquid material with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

2.5 micrometers emitted to the ambient 

air as measured by a reference method 

approved by the Department, with 

concurrence of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.’’ With regard to 

‘‘filterable PM’’ as mentioned by the 

Commenter, this component is included 

in the definition as ‘‘[f]inely divided 

solid . . . material’’ emitted to the 

ambient air. With regard to 

‘‘condensable PM’’ as mentioned by the 

Commenter, South Carolina’s definition 

differs from the federal definition of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 29453 

3Under the federal definition, ‘‘direct PM2.5

emissions’’ means solid or liquid particles emitted 

directly from an air emissions source or activity, or 

reaction products of gases emitted directly from an 

air emissions source or activity which form 

particulate matter as they reach ambient 

temperatures. Direct PM2.5 emissions include 

filterable and condensable PM2.5 emissions 

composed of elemental carbon, directly emitted 

organic carbon, directly emitted sulfate, directly 

emitted nitrate, and other organic or inorganic 

particles that exist or form through reactions as 

emissions reach ambient temperatures (including 

but not limited to crustal material, metals, and sea 

salt). 40 CFR 51.1000. 

4The specific adoption of condensable PM2.5 as 

a regulated NSR pollutant was included in a March 

14, 2011, SIP revision, which was approved on June 

23, 2011 (76 FR 36875), and corrected for Standard 

No. 7 on August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37299). 

5See ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ EPA–454/B–17– 

003, July 2017. 6 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

‘‘direct PM2.5 emissions’’ 3 in that it does 

not specify the inclusion of 

‘‘condensable PM2.5 emissions.’’ 

However, South Carolina’s definition is 

sufficient for purposes of the State’s SIP 

because, as explained below, the 

condensable component of source PM2.5

emissions will be included whenever a 

determination of a source’s PM2.5

emissions is required. 

The inclusion of the condensable 

component in determining a source’s 

PM2.5 emissions is driven by the 

applicable source test method(s) 

required under a relevant rule. First, 

South Carolina’s federally approved SIP 

includes emission limits for ‘‘PM’’ but 

does not include emission limits for 

‘‘PM2.5.’’ Therefore, ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ (as defined in the South 

Carolina SIP), not ‘‘PM2.5 emissions,’’ is 

the term that is relevant for the purpose 

of determining a source’s status of 

compliance with applicable PM 

emission limits of the South Carolina 

SIP. Second, South Carolina’s PSD rules 

(which apply throughout the State) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

rules (which do not currently apply for 

PM2.5 in the State) both require sources 

to include the condensable portion of 

PM2.5 emissions. (See definitions of 

‘‘Regulated NSR pollutant’’ at 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 

7(b)(44)(i)(a) and Standard No. 

7.1(c)(13)(D), respectively.) 4 Third, 

under federal rules such as the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), 

whether the condensable PM2.5

component must be measured is 

dictated by the testing methods that are 

specified to apply under those rules. 

Finally, with regard to emissions 

inventories, EPA has provided guidance 

to assist states in appropriately 

accounting for the condensable PM2.5

component in making annual reports of 

PM2.5 emissions.5 Moreover, the federal 

provisions regarding regular emissions 

inventory reporting at subpart A to part 

51 require states to include the 

condensable and filterable portions of 

both PM2.5 and PM10 as applicable in the 

triennial reports of annual emissions for 

all sources and the annual reports of 

larger stationary source emissions. See 

40 CFR 51.15(a)(1)(vi)–(vii). 

South Carolina’s definition of ‘‘PM2.5’’ 

is consistent with EPA’s definition of 

the term. In addition, as discussed 

above, omitting the phrase 

‘‘condensable PM2.5 emissions’’ from 

South Carolina’s definition of ‘‘PM2.5

emissions’’ has no effect on the State’s 

implementation of its PM2.5 program 

because the South Carolina SIP 

currently has no limits on ‘‘PM2.5

emissions’’ and because the other 

programs that regulate particulate 

matter specify the required source test 

methods, and those methods require 

measurement of the condensable 

component in determining a source’s 

PM2.5 emissions. Accordingly, EPA 

considers South Carolina’s definitions 

of these terms approvable under the 

CAA. 

B. Open Burning 

The Commenter suggests that EPA 

cannot approve changes to South 

Carolina’s open burning rules if the 

rules do not apply ‘‘at all times.’’ EPA 

notes that no substantive change was 

made to the SIP-approved rule at 

Regulation 61–62.2, Prohibition of Open 

Burning. The only change made in the 

April 10, 2014, submittal was a change 

to the font from italics to non-italics for 

a referenced manual within the 

regulation. As stated in the proposed 

rule (82 FR 39551, August 21, 2017), 

EPA proposed to approve changes to the 

South Carolina SIP submitted by SC 

DHEC. The existing text of Regulation 

61–62.2 is already part of South 

Carolina’s federally approved SIP, and 

only the revision to the rule (i.e., the 

font change) was subject to comment 

through the proposal action. The change 

that was made is purely administrative 

in nature, and the Commenter has not 

raised a concern relevant to the revision. 

Nevertheless, EPA finds that Regulation 

61–62.2 adequately prescribes the 

conditions under which open burning is 

allowed or prohibited. The only 

provisions of this rule related to timing 

are 62.2.E.6., 62.2.G.4. and 62.2.G.5., 

which are restrictions, not relaxations, 

on when open burning may be 

conducted in the State. 

EPA received no additional comments 

regarding the changes to Regulation 61– 

62.1, Section I nor to the change made 

to Regulation 61–62.2. The public 

comments received are located in the 

Docket for this final action at 

www.regulations.gov. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of South Carolina 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

‘‘Definitions,’’ effective June 24, 2016, 

which revises definitions applicable to 

the SIP, and Regulation 61–62.2, 

‘‘Prohibition of Open Burning,’’ 

effective December 27, 2013, which 

revises formatting for consistency. 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 

State’s implementation plan, 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.6

VI. Final Action 

This is a final action based on the 

proposed rule (82 FR 39551). For the 

reasons discussed above, EPA is 

approving the aforementioned changes 

to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on 

July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 

2014, August 8, 2014, and July 27, 2016, 

because they are consistent with the 

CAA and federal regulations. 

VII. 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: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
29454 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this final action for the 

State of South Carolina does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it does not 

have substantial direct effects on an 

Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian 

Nation 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, ‘‘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.’’ EPA 

notes this action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 24, 2018. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 12, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended 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, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising under 

‘‘Regulation No. 62.1’’ the entry 

‘‘Section I’’ and the entry ‘‘Regulation 

No. 62.2’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Section I ....................................... Definitions .................................... 6/24/2016 6/25/2018, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Regulation No. 62.2 ..................... Prohibition of Open Burning ........ 12/27/2013 6/25/2018, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–13450 Filed 6–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES