99180 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1On July 1, 2024, SC DHEC was restructured into 

a health agency, the Department of Public Health, 

and an environmental agency, the Department of 

Environmental Services (DES). In a letter dated June 

20, 2024, South Carolina represented to EPA that 

all the functions, powers, and duties of the 

environmental divisions, offices, and programs of 

DHEC, including the authority to administer and 

• 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); 

• 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 

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 communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 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.’’ The 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.’’ The air agency did not 

evaluate environmental justice 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The 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 environmental justice for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land in 

Washington except as specifically noted 

below and is also not approved to apply 

in any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rulemaking does not 

have Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 3, 2024. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28804 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2024–0006; FRL–12050– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; SC; Updates to the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted through the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on 

September 26, 2023, regarding updates 

to the State’s Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading 

programs. The SIP revision incorporates 

by reference (IBRs) certain amendments 

EPA has made to the regulations for the 

Federal CSAPR trading programs for 

annual emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for large 

electric generating units (EGUs). EPA 

created these Federal trading programs 

in 2011 as market-based mechanisms for 

South Carolina and certain other States 

to address their obligations to 

downwind States under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act)’s good neighbor 

provision with respect to the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA 

is proposing to approve South 

Carolina’s September 26, 2023, SIP 

revision because it is consistent with 

EPA’s good neighbor CSAPR trading 

programs and the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 9, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2024–0006 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Josue Ortiz Borrero, 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. 

Mr. Ortiz can be reached via phone 

number (404) 562–8085 or via electronic 

mail at ortizborrero.josue@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of SC DHEC’s 1 September 26, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99181 

enforce State Implementation Plans, are retained 

and continued in full force and effect under DES. 

The letter is in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. The State agency will simply be 

referred to as the State or South Carolina for the 

remainder of this document. 

2Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (Apr. 30, 

2021). 

3 Deadlines for Submission and Recordation of 

Allowance Allocations Under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading Programs and the 

Texas SO2 Trading Program, 87 FR 52473 (Aug. 26, 

2022). 

4EPA is not taking action on changes reflected in 

this submittal to South Carolina Regulation 61– 

62.60, subpart XXX, subpart IIII, subpart JJJJ, and 

South Carolina Regulation 61–62.63, subpart C, 

subpart AAAA, subpart YYYY, subpart ZZZZ, 

subpart DDDDD, subpart GGGGG, subpart IIIII, and 

subpart HHHHHH, since these rules are not part of 

the SIP. 

5Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 

2011). 

6Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 

7The trading programs established under CSAPR, 

the CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update 

include a program for annual NOX emissions; two 

geographically separate programs for annual SO2

emissions; and three geographically separate 

programs for ozone-season NOX emissions. While 

some of the requirements set forth in these three 

rules have been amended in subsequent rules, the 

subsequent amendments are not relevant to the 

South Carolina SIP revision addressed in this 

action. 

8See 76 FR at 48212. 

9See 76 FR at 48373–74. 

10See 81 FR at 74555. 

11 Id. 

12See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the 

ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their good 

neighbor obligations using mechanisms other than 

the CSAPR Federal trading programs or integrated 

State trading programs. 

13See Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 

2017). 

2023, SIP submission that updates 

South Carolina’s State trading programs 

at Regulation 61–62.97, Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading 

Program, Subpart A—South Carolina 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, 

and Subpart B—South Carolina CSAPR 

SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Large 

EGUs in South Carolina are subject to 

these two State CSAPR trading programs 

for annual NOX and SO2 emissions, 

which are precursors to PM2.5, to 

address the State’s good neighbor 

obligation for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The State CSAPR trading 

programs are integrated with the Federal 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program 

and the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program established by EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 97, subparts 

AAAAA and DDDDD, respectively. As 

adopted by the State before this SIP 

revision and as previously approved by 

EPA into the SIP, the State’s CSAPR 

trading program regulations generally 

IBR the Federal CSAPR trading program 

regulations as the Federal regulations 

had been amended through October 26, 

2016. The September 26, 2023, SIP 

submission would update the IBR 

language to reflect amendments EPA 

made to the Federal CSAPR trading 

program regulations in the 2021 Revised 

CSAPR Update 2 and the 2022 

Recordation Rule.3 The SIP revision 

would also correct two cross-references 

in the State’s rule. Section II, below, 

briefly summarizes the framework of the 

CSAPR trading programs and how those 

programs are implemented in South 

Carolina. 

EPA is proposing to approve South 

Carolina’s September 26, 2023, SIP 

revision because it is consistent with 

EPA’s good neighbor CSAPR trading 

programs and the CAA.4 Please refer to 

the Federal Register citations referenced 

herein, for additional detailed 

background on the CSAPR and 

subsequent rulemakings. 

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPRRelated Rulemakings 

EPA published the original CSAPR in 

August 2011 to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), known as the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provision, concerning 

interstate transport of air pollution.5 See 

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Acting to 

address the same statutory provision, 

EPA published the CSAPR Update 6 in 

October 2016 and the Revised CSAPR 

Update in April 2021. The three rules 

collectively require 27 southern, 

midwestern, and eastern States to limit 

their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or 

NOX in order to mitigate transported air 

pollution unlawfully impacting other 

States’ ability to attain or maintain one 

or more of the following four NAAQS: 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. To implement the 

required emissions reductions, the rules 

include Federal implementation plans 

(FIPs) that require EGUs in each covered 

State to participate in one or more of six 

Federal emissions trading programs 

established under regulations set forth 

at 40 CFR part 97, subparts AAAAA 

through EEEEE and GGGGG.7

As part of the original CSAPR in 2011, 

EPA determined that emissions from 

South Carolina significantly contributed 

to nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

other States.8 To address South 

Carolina’s good neighbor obligations 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

the State’s large EGUs became subject to 

the Federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Trading Program established in subpart 

BBBBB of 40 CFR part 97, and to 

address the State’s good neighbor 

obligations with respect to the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the State’s large EGUs 

because subject to the Federal CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program 

established in subpart AAAAA of 40 

CFR part 97 and the Federal CSAPR SO2

Group 2 Trading Program established in 

subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97.9

In the 2016 CSAPR Update, EPA 

determined that emissions from South 

Carolina do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 or 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in other States.10 As a result, 

EGUs in South Carolina ceased to be 

subject to the Federal CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program 

requirements starting with the 2017 

ozone season.11 The CSAPR Update 

included technical corrections to all the 

trading programs established in CSAPR 

but did not otherwise address the 1997 

or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. South Carolina’s 

EGUs that meet the CSAPR applicability 

criteria therefore continued to be subject 

to the CSAPR requirements to 

participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program and the 

Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program to address the State’s good 

neighbor obligation with respect to the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

CSAPR includes provisions under 

which States may submit and EPA will 

approve SIP revisions to modify or 

replace the CSAPR FIP requirements 

while allowing States to continue to 

meet their good neighbor obligations 

using either CSAPR’s Federal emissions 

trading programs or State emissions 

trading programs integrated with the 

Federal programs.12 South Carolina took 

advantage of these provisions in 2017. 

That year, South Carolina submitted and 

EPA approved revisions to South 

Carolina’s SIP establishing two State 

CSAPR trading programs that replaced 

the two Federal CSAPR trading 

programs regarding South Carolina 

EGUs for annual emissions of NOX and 

SO2.13 EPA approved South Carolina’s 

2017 SIP submission in an action 

published on October 13, 2017, which 

added Regulation 61–62.97, Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading 

Program, to the South Carolina SIP. This 

rule contains two subparts: 61–62.97, 

Subpart A—South Carolina CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program, and 61–62.97, 

Subpart B—South Carolina CSAPR SO2

Group 2 Trading Program. In general, 

each subpart in South Carolina’s CSAPR 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
99182 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

14South Carolina Regulation 61–62.97, Subpart 

A—South Carolina CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

program is designed to IBR most of subpart AAAAA 

of 40 CFR part 97, while separately listing the Phase 

2 annual NOX trading budgets, set-asides, and 

variability limits found at 40 CFR 97.410(a)(18)(iv) 

through (vi) and (b)(18). Regulation 61–62.97, 

Subpart B—South Carolina CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program is designed to IBR most of subpart 

DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97, while separately listing 

the Phase 2 annual SO2 budgets, set-asides, and 

variability limits found at 40 CFR and 

97.710(a)(6)(iv) through (vi) and (b)(6). 

15South Carolina retains EPA’s default allowance 

allocation methodology, and EPA remains the 

implementing authority for administration of the 

trading program. 

16The Revised CSAPR Update did not reopen 

EPA’s determination in the CSAPR Update that 

South Carolina does not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, 

any other State with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. See 86 FR 23067 & n.60. 

17The CSAPR trading programs’ ‘‘assurance 

provisions’’ require the surrender of additional 

allowances if total emissions from a state’s sources 

in a control period exceed the state’s ‘‘assurance 

level,’’ which equals the state’s emissions budget 

plus a defined ‘‘variability limit.’’ See, e.g., 40 CFR 

97.406(c)(2) and 97.425. 18See 82 FR 47936. 

19This revised IBR table format lists the CSAPR 

rulemakings that amended the Federal NOX annual 

and SO2 Group 2 trading programs at part 97 

subpart AAAAA and DDDDD, respectively, and 

establishes August 26, 2022, as the new date by 

which part 97 amendments are incorporated into 

Regulation 61–62.97. 

State trading program rule was designed 

to replace the corresponding Federal 

trading program regulations.14 South 

Carolina’s CSAPR trading programs are 

integrated with the Federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program and the 

Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program. The State trading programs are 

substantively identical to the Federal 

trading programs as amended in the 

CSAPR Update.15

Since EPA’s approval of the two State 

CSAPR trading programs into South 

Carolina’s SIP in 2017, EPA has 

promulgated changes to the Federal 

CSAPR trading programs at 40 CFR part 

97, subparts AAAAA and DDDDD, in 

the Revised CSAPR Update in 2021 and 

the Recordation Rule in 2022. The 

primary purpose of the Revised CSAPR 

Update rulemaking was to complete the 

evaluation of good neighbor obligations 

of certain States (not including South 

Carolina) with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.16 However, that rule also made 

certain amendments to subparts 

AAAAA and DDDDD of part 97, 

including adjustments to the procedures 

for allocating allowances from the 

portions of the States’ emissions budgets 

set aside for potential allocation to new 

units (with conforming adjustments to 

the assurance provisions) 17 as well as 

extensions to the deadlines for EPA to 

record allocations of allowances in 

sources’ compliance accounts and for 

sources to hold allowances after each 

control period, whether the sources 

participate in the integrated trading 

programs under FIPs or under approved 

SIP revisions. The Recordation Rule 

further extended the deadlines for EPA 

to record allocations of allowances in 

sources’ compliance accounts. 

South Carolina’s current September 

26, 2023, SIP revision would update the 

State’s Air Pollution Control 

Regulations and Standards at Regulation 

61–62.97 to align with the changes 

made by EPA to the Federal CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program at 40 CFR 

part 97, subpart AAAAA, and the 

Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program at 40 CFR part 97, subpart 

DDDDD, in the Revised CSAPR Update 

and the Recordation Rule. 

III. South Carolina’s SIP Submission 

and EPA’s Analysis 

A. South Carolina’s SIP Submittal 

As described in section II of this 

preamble, EPA approved South 

Carolina’s CSAPR SIP revision adopting 

the State rule at Regulation 61–62.97 in 

an action published on October 13, 

2017, replacing the Federal CSAPR NOX

Annual and SO2 Group 2 trading 

programs at 40 CFR part 97, subparts 

AAAAA and DDDDD, for South 

Carolina EGUs with State CSAPR 

trading programs that are integrated 

with and substantively identical to the 

Federal trading programs.18 South 

Carolina’s September 26, 2023, SIP 

submission seeks approval into the SIP 

of the State’s revisions to its State 

CSAPR trading program rules that 

incorporate by reference more recent 

amendments to the Federal CSAPR 

trading program regulations. 

Specifically, the September 26, 2023, 

SIP submission revises the IBR language 

at Regulation 61–62.97, subpart A, 

paragraph 1, and subpart B, paragraph 1, 

to IBR specified revisions to the Federal 

CSAPR trading programs made after the 

previous October 26, 2016, IBR date and 

through August 26, 2022. The 

submission also corrects existing crossreferences in Regulation 61–62.97, 

subpart A, paragraph 3, and subpart B, 

paragraph 3. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of South Carolina’s 

SIP Submission 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of South Carolina’s September 

26, 2023, SIP submission that update 

Regulation 61–62.97 by incorporating 

the amendments to the Federal CSAPR 

NOX Annual and SO2 Group 2 trading 

programs at 40 CFR part 97 made in the 

Revised CSAPR Update and the 

Recordation Rule and by making 

technical corrections to cross-references. 

EPA’s analysis below describes the 

specific changes included in the 

portions of the SIP submission that EPA 

is proposing to approve. 

South Carolina’s September 26, 2023, 

SIP revision makes two distinct updates 

to the State CSAPR trading program 

rules at Regulation 61–62.97. First, the 

SIP submission updates the IBR 

language at subpart A, paragraph 1, and 

subpart B, paragraph 1. The previously 

approved language IBRs ‘‘the provisions 

of the July 1, 2016, edition’’ of 40 CFR 

part 97, subparts AAAAA and DDDDD, 

‘‘as amended at 81 FR [74604–07 or 

74618–21] (October 26, 2016),’’ where 

the referenced amendment is a citation 

to specific pages of the CSAPR Update. 

The September 26, 2023, SIP revision 

removes the phrase ‘‘as amended at 81 

FR [74604–07 or 74618–21] (October 26, 

2016)’’ and replaces it with the new 

language ‘‘. . . as subsequently 

amended upon publication in the 

Federal Register as listed below . . .’’ 

and then adds tables 19 with citations to 

the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504; 

October 26, 2016), the Revised CSAPR 

Update (86 FR 23054; April 30, 2021), 

and the Recordation Rule (87 FR 52473; 

August 26, 2022). The revised IBR 

language also adds the phrase ‘‘as if 

fully repeated herein’’ to clarify that the 

text of the Federal regulations covered 

by the IBR is to be interpreted as if that 

text was repeated verbatim in the State’s 

own regulations. The revisions align the 

format and phrasing of the IBR language 

in the State’s CSAPR trading program 

regulations with the format and 

phrasing of the IBR language in the 

State’s existing New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

regulations. 

The second update to the State 

CSAPR trading program rules at 

Regulation 61–62.97 in South Carolina’s 

SIP submission revises subpart A, 

paragraph 3, and subpart B, paragraph 3, 

to correct existing cross-references. As 

originally adopted into the State’s 

regulations, these paragraphs provided 

for ‘‘40 CFR 97.404(a)(1) and (b)(1)’’ and 

‘‘40 CFR 97.704(a)(1) and (b)(1)’’ in the 

Federal trading program regulations 

covered by the IBR to be interpreted 

with specified wording changes needed 

to ensure that any EGUs in areas of 

Indian country within the State’s 

borders continue to be covered by the 

Federal trading program regulations 

rather than the State trading program 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99183 

regulations. While EPA agreed with the 

State’s wording changes, the paragraph 

citations were not entirely correct. The 

revisions included in this SIP revision 

retain the same wording changes but 

correct the paragraph citations so that 

the wording changes apply to ‘‘40 CFR 

97.404(a)(1) and (b)’’ and ‘‘40 CFR 

97.704(a)(1) and (b)’’ instead. 

The changes included in the 

September 26, 2023, SIP submission 

make the State CSAPR trading program 

regulations more consistent with the 

current Federal CSAPR trading program 

regulations by incorporating 

amendments that EPA made to the 

Federal trading program regulations 

after approving South Carolina’s CSAPR 

trading program regulations into the SIP 

and by correcting cross-references. EPA 

therefore is proposing to approve the 

portions of South Carolina’s September 

26, 2023, SIP submission that revise 

Regulation 61–62.97. EPA believes these 

portions of the SIP submission are 

consistent with the Federal CSAPR NOX

Annual and SO2 Group 2 trading 

program regulations and the 

implementing provisions that govern a 

full CSAPR SIP revision and that the SIP 

as revised would continue to satisfy the 

State’s good neighbor obligation 

pursuant to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions 

which will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in any other State. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as 

discussed in section III of this preamble, 

EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference South Carolina Regulation 61– 

62.97, State effective August 25, 2023, 

which adopts and incorporates by 

reference Federal amendments to 40 

CFR part 97, subpart AAAAA—CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program and 

subpart DDDDD—CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program promulgated after 

October 26, 2016, through August 26, 

2022. 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). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

September 26, 2023, South Carolina SIP 

revision consisting of changes to 

Regulation 61–62.97, CSAPR Trading 

Program, in the South Carolina SIP for 

the reasons discussed above. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve State 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 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 proposed action merely 

proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law, this 

proposed action for the State of South 

Carolina does not have Tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Therefore, this proposed action 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation 

(CIN) Reservation is located within the 

boundary of York County, South 

Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba 

Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement Act), ‘‘all 

State and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and 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 communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment. 

South Carolina 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 proposed 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being proposed here, this proposed 

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 proposed action, 

and there is no information in the 

record inconsistent with the stated goal 

of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
99184 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: December 4, 2024. 

Ce ́sar Zapata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28873 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2024–0431; FRL–12415–01– 

OCSPP] 

Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke all 

tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos, 

except for those associated with the use 

of chlorpyrifos on the following crops: 

alfalfa, apple, asparagus, tart cherry, 

citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, 

strawberry, sugar beet, and spring and 

winter wheat. This proposal also 

addresses the request to revoke all 

chlorpyrifos tolerances contained in the 

September 12, 2007, petition submitted 

by the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action 

Network North America (PANNA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 10, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2024–0431, 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Additional 

instructions on commenting and visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Biggio, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 

Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: 202–566–0700; email address: 

OPPChlorpyrifosInquiries@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general and may be of interest to a 

wide range of stakeholders including 

environmental, human health, and 

agricultural advocates; the chemical 

industry; pesticide users; and members 

of the public interested in the sale, 

distribution, or use of pesticides. Since 

others also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Office of the Federal 

Register’s e-CFR site at https://

www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40. 

C. What action is the Agency proposing? 

EPA is proposing to revoke all 

tolerances for residues of the insecticide 

chlorpyrifos as contained in 40 CFR 

180.342, except for those tolerances 

associated with 11 uses that were 

proposed for retention in the Agency’s 

December 2020 Chlorpyrifos Proposed 

Interim Decision (2020 PID). (Ref. 1) As 

a result of voluntary cancellations and 

label amendments, registrations of 

chlorpyrifos will be limited in terms of 

food uses to these crops within certain 

states, as proposed in the 2020 PID and 

EPA’s Updated Chlorpyrifos Refined 

Drinking Water Assessment for 

Registration Review (September 2020) 

(‘‘2020 DWA’’) as described in Unit III 

below. (Ref. 2) 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke all other tolerances that are not 

needed as a result of the cancellations, 

including uses in food handling 

establishments and food service 

establishments. This proposal will also 

address the request to revoke 

chlorpyrifos tolerances in the pending 

2007 Petition from NRDC and PANNA. 

D. What is EPA’s authority for taking 

this action? 

Pursuant to its authority under 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/ 

uscode/21/346a), EPA may respond to a 

petition filed with the Agency under 

FFDCA section 408(d) by issuing a 

proposed and final rule under FFDCA 

section 408(e). The 2007 Petition 

requested that EPA revoke chlorpyrifos 

tolerances, as well as cancel 

chlorpyrifos registrations. EPA is 

proposing to revoke chlorpyrifos 

tolerances that will no longer be 

necessary due to the cancellation of 

domestic uses on those commodities. 

Under section 408(e) of the FFDCA, EPA 

may issue a rule revoking tolerances 

after providing notice of a proposed 

rulemaking and a period of not less than 

60 days for public comment. 21 U.S.C. 

346a(e). 

E. What is the expected impact of this 

action? 

The revocations of these tolerances 

are not expected to present 

extraordinary circumstances because the 

registrants have requested, pursuant to 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 6(f) (7 

U.S.C. 136d(f)), to voluntarily cancel 

uses associated with these tolerances. 

EPA is in the process of approving those 

cancellation requests under FIFRA, 

which means that soon the tolerances 

will no longer be needed to cover 

residues of chlorpyrifos in or on those 

food commodities. 

The revocations of tolerances could 

impact foreign producers who use 

chlorpyrifos to control insect pests and 

importers of those commodities. 

Shipments found to have residues could 

not be sold in the United States, which 

may represent a loss to importers or 

their trading partners. It is possible that 

these effects could have downstream 

effects, such as raising costs to U.S. 

consumers of these commodities. 

Regardless of the potential impacts of 

this action, tolerances can only be 

maintained if they are safe, which is a 

risk-only analysis under the FFDCA. 

F. What can I do if I want the Agency 

to maintain, for import purposes, a 

tolerance that the Agency proposes to 

revoke? 

This proposed rule provides a 60-day 

public comment period. All chlorpyrifos 

registrants have already voluntarily 

requested cancellation of all the uses of 

chlorpyrifos associated with the 

tolerances proposed for revocation in 

this notice. Once those cancellations are 

effective, those uses of chlorpyrifos on 

these commodities will no longer be 

registered in the United States, and once 

use terminates under the applicable 

existing stocks provisions, the 

tolerances will no longer be necessary to 

cover residues from use of the pesticide. 

Any food being moved through 

interstate commerce after tolerances are 

revoked would be covered by the 

FFDCA channels of trade provision, 21 

U.S.C. 346a(l)(5), as described in Unit 

VII.A. The Agency’s typical process, 

e.g., during registration review, is to 

remove tolerances from the regulations 

that are no longer necessary. This avoids 

confusion among the regulated 

community by reflecting registered uses 

and label directions and helps with 

consistency in enforcement under the 

FFDCA and FIFRA. 

The only reason to retain a tolerance 

in such circumstances is for import 

purposes. Any commenter seeking to 

retain tolerances for import purposes 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS