41914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

pre-2015 regulatory regime. These 

waters would have been jurisdictional 

under the 2015 Clean Water Rule where 

they met specific criteria and were 

found to have a significant nexus to 

downstream traditional navigable 

waters, interstate waters, or territorial 

seas. 

The agencies are interested in 

identifying characteristics that could 

allow for clarity, implementability, and/ 

or regionalization in defining adjacency 

and identifying jurisdictional waters, 

including whether there are appropriate 

distances or other factors to limit 

adjacency, whether there are certain 

situations where case-specific 

significant nexus determinations would 

more appropriately determine 

jurisdiction, and whether there are 

certain types of waters with particular 

features or characteristics that could 

provide clear and implementable 

distinctions between jurisdictional and 

non-jurisdictional waters. The agencies 

are also interested in recommendations 

for implementation approaches to 

address any of these types of waters. 

• Exclusions from the definition. The 

agencies request feedback on the 

implementability and clarity of 

exclusions present in the NWPR and 

identified in the 2015 Clean Water Rule 

or the pre-2015 regulations and the 

preambles to those regulations. Was the 

scope of these exclusions appropriate 

under the Clean Water Act, easy to 

understand, and implementable? Are 

the NWPR definitions of prior converted 

cropland and waste treatment systems 

appropriate under the Clean Water Act, 

easy to understand, and implementable? 

Did the exclusions have any benefits or 

harmful impacts? Are there regional 

differences with these features and/or 

systems that should be considered? 

V. Public Meetings and Outreach 

The agencies will hold a series of 

public meetings intended to solicit 

recommendations as the agencies 

pursue the development of both rules. 

During these meetings, the agencies 

intend to provide brief background 

information on the rulemaking process 

and stakeholders will have the 

opportunity to provide input, 

particularly with regard to the directives 

in Executive Order 13990 and the topics 

above. The agencies will hold four 

meetings open to all stakeholders and 

an additional session for small entities, 

and reserve a time for an additional 

meeting that will be added in case all 

speaking slots are filled in earlier 

meetings. 

The public meetings will be held as 

web conferences in August 2021, with 

one date reserved in September, if 

needed. Registration instructions can be 

found at the following website: https:// 

www.epa.gov/wotus/public-outreachand-stakeholder-engagement-activities. 

Persons or organizations wishing to 

provide verbal recommendations during 

the meetings will be selected on a firstcome, first-serve basis. Due to the 

expected number of participants, 

individuals will be asked to limit their 

spoken presentation to three minutes. 

Once the speaking slots are filled, 

participants may be placed on a standby 

list to speak or continue to register to 

listen to the recommendations. The 

meetings will be recorded and posted on 

EPA’s website. Supporting materials 

and written feedback from those who do 

not have an opportunity to speak can be 

submitted to the docket as described 

above. The schedule for the ‘‘waters of 

the United States’’ meetings is as 

follows: 

—August 18, 2021, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern, 

—August 23, 2021, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Eastern, 

—August 25, 2021, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern, 

—August 26, 2021, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

Eastern, and 

—August 31, 2021, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern. 

The agencies have also reserved 

September 2, 2021, from 2 p.m. to 4 

p.m. Eastern, for an additional meeting 

that will be added in case all speaking 

slots are filled in earlier meetings. 

In addition, the agencies are initiating 

Federalism and tribal consultations for 

the proposed rulemaking to restore the 

regulations defining ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ in place from 1986 until 

2015, amended to be consistent with 

relevant Supreme Court decisions. The 

agencies also intend to host a series of 

dialogues with state and tribal 

coregulators this fall to discuss both 

rulemakings. 

Finally, the rulemaking efforts of the 

past decade have highlighted the 

regional variability of water resources 

and the importance of close engagement 

with stakeholders to understand the 

specifics of how they experience 

regulation under varying definitions of 

waters of the United States. As an 

agency, we will honor our commitment 

to listen and learn from diverse 

perspectives by hosting 10 roundtables 

representing different regions of the 

country and encouraging broad 

participation that reflects diverse views. 

These 10 regional roundtables will 

allow a full spectrum of stakeholders to 

provide their perspectives about what 

has worked and what has not worked 

within their geographic areas in 

previous regulatory efforts with each 

other and in the presence of EPA and 

Army leadership. These roundtables 

will highlight similarities and 

differences across geographic regions, 

while emphasizing particular water 

resources that are characteristic of or 

unique to each region, and providing 

site-specific feedback about 

implementation. Information on the 

roundtables will be posted on the EPA 

website above. 

Vance F. Stewart III, 

Acting Principal Deputy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, Department of the Army. 

John Goodin, 

Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and 

Watersheds, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16643 Filed 8–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0445; FRL–8779–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; SC; Revisions to 

Definitions 

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 by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC or 

Department), on April 24, 2020. The SIP 

revision updates the definition of ‘‘Spec. 

Oil (Specification Oil)’’ and makes 

minor updates to formatting and 

numbering. EPA is proposing to approve 

this revision pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and implementing 

federal regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 3, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2020–0445 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 41915 

1On April 24, 2020, SC DHEC also submitted to 

EPA SIP revisions to Regulations 61–62.1, Section 

II—Permit Requirements; 61–62.1, Section III— 

Emission Inventory and Emissions Statement; 61– 

62.1, Section IV—Source Tests; 61–62.1, Section 

V—Credible Emissions; 61–62.5, Standard No. 2— 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; 61–62.5, Standard 

5.2—Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX); 61–62.5, 

Standard 7—Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

and 61–62.5, Standard 7.1—Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR). EPA will address these SIP 

revisions in separate actions. 

2 ‘‘Non-Spec. Oil (Off Spec Oil)’’ is defined as 

‘‘[u]sed oil that does not meet the specification 

above.’’ S.C. Code Regs. 61–62.1 § I (97)(b). 

Therefore, used oil that does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ is still considered ‘‘Used Oil.’’ Id. 

3See footnote 2. 

4Additionally, South Carolina is currently 

attaining the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. 

5These rules are interrelated because CAA 

Section 129 specifically references the ‘‘Solid Waste 

Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.],’’ including the 

definition of ‘‘solid waste’’ promulgated pursuant to 

that act. See CAA § 129(g)(6). 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include a discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via 

electronic mail at bell.tiereny@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

On April 24, 2020, SC DHEC 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA for 

approval that includes changes to South 

Carolina Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

Definitions, including a revised 

definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil (Specification 

Oil)’’ and updates to numbering and 

formatting within this regulation.1 EPA 

is proposing to approve these changes 

pursuant to the CAA. 

II. Background 

SC DHEC has requested incorporation 

of several changes to South Carolina 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

Definitions into South Carolina’s SIP. 

First, SC DHEC’s SIP revision proposes 

minor updates to numbering and 

formatting within South Carolina 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

Definitions. 

Second, SC DHEC proposes to revise 

the definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil 

(Specification Oil)’’ at Paragraph 97(a) 

within the definition of ‘‘Used Oil.’’ 

Specifically, the revised definition of 

‘‘Spec. Oil’’ would remove the phrase 

‘‘Nickel—120 ppm [parts per million] 

maximum,’’ thus eliminating the nickel 

specification for ‘‘Spec. Oil.’’ In the 

South Carolina SIP’s definition of ‘‘Used 

Oil,’’ ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ and ‘‘Non-Spec. Oil’’ 2

are listed as ‘‘[t]wo (2) types’’ of ‘‘used 

oil.’’ Notably, the terms ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ and 

‘‘Specification Oil’’ do not currently 

appear anywhere else in South 

Carolina’s SIP outside of the definition 

of ‘‘Used Oil.’’ 

SC DHEC has indicated that the 

purpose of its requested change to the 

definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ in South 

Carolina Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

Definitions is to maintain a consistent 

definition of spec. oil across South 

Carolina’s various regulatory programs. 

Specifications for spec. oil are also 

contained in 40 CFR 279.11 and in 

South Carolina Rule 61–107–.279.11, 

both of which implement the used oil 

provisions of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 

6901 et seq. Neither 40 CFR 279.11 nor 

South Carolina Rule 61–107–.279.11 

include a specification for nickel in 

those regulations’ respective used oil 

specifications and, therefore, South 

Carolina’s proposed SIP revision would 

make the definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ in 

South Carolina Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section I—Definitions consistent with 

the used oil specifications in these other 

regulations. 

III. Analysis of State’s Submittal 

As mentioned above, the April 24, 

2020, SIP revision includes a change to 

the definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil 

(Specification Oil)’’ within the 

definition of ‘‘Used Oil’’ in South 

Carolina Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

Definitions. Because this change would 

remove the specification for nickel in 

‘‘Spec. Oil,’’ it would allow unlimited 

nickel content in ‘‘Spec. Oil.’’ 

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA 

cannot approve a SIP revision ‘‘if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 7501 of 

this title), or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ EPA finds 

that SC DHEC’s proposed updated 

definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil,’’ which 

removes the specification for nickel in 

‘‘Spec. Oil,’’ is approvable under section 

110(l) for two reasons. First, this 

proposed revision will not interfere 

with the NAAQS or any other CAA 

requirement because the revision has no 

practical effect. ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ does not 

appear anywhere in South Carolina’s 

SIP other than in the definition of ‘‘Used 

Oil’’ itself; the definition of ‘‘Used Oil’’ 

describes ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ as just one of 

‘‘[t]wo (2) types’’ of ‘‘used oil’’; and oil 

that would not meet the definition of 

‘‘Spec. Oil’’ in the current SIP-approved 

version of the rule due solely to nickel 

concentrations above 120 ppm would be 

still be considered ‘‘Used Oil’’ under the 

regulation.3 Thus, although the term 

‘‘Used Oil’’ appears elsewhere in South 

Carolina’s SIP (such as in the definitions 

of Waste and Municipal Solid Waste), 

changing the definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ 

will have no practical effect, and 

therefore, satisfies section 110(l).4

Second, SC DHEC’s proposed removal 

of the nickel specification from the 

definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ is not 

inconsistent with CAA section 129 

(relating to solid waste combustion) and 

is consistent with interrelated solid 

waste rules codified at 40 CFR parts 241 

and 279.5 The referenced solid waste 

rules generally relate to the status of 

used oil when used oil is burned for 

energy recovery. More specifically, 

under 40 CFR 241.2, ‘‘used oil which 

meets the specifications outlined in 40 

CFR 279.11’’ are ‘‘[t]traditional fuels’’ 

and are therefore not solid waste subject 

to the requirements of CAA section 129. 

See generally 76 FR 15456, 15502–06 

(March 21, 2011). South Carolina’s 

revised definition of ‘‘Spec. Oil’’ is 

consistent with these solid waste rules 

and, specifically, is consistent with the 

specifications for used oil in 40 CFR 

279.11, which does not include a nickel 

specification. Thus, South Carolina’s 

proposed rule will not interfere with 

section 129 of the CAA or any plan 

promulgated under section 129 of the 

CAA. 

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 the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

South Carolina’s Regulation 61–62.1, 

Definitions and General Requirements, 

Section I—Definitions, state effective on 

April 24, 2020. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41916 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Information Contact’’ section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve and 

incorporate into South Carolina’s SIP 

the aforementioned changes to South 

Carolina Regulation 61–62.1, Section I— 

Definitions, state effective on April 24, 

2020. EPA has determined that these 

revisions meet the applicable 

requirements of Section 110 of the CAA 

and the applicable regulatory 

requirements at 40 CFR part 51. 

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 

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 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule for 

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 state of 

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. 

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: July 22, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16032 Filed 8–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–21–921; RM–11891; DA 

21–921; FR ID 41251] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Henderson, Nevada 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by KVVU 

Broadcasting Corporation (Petitioner), 

the licensee of KVVU (FOX), channel 9, 

Henderson, Nevada. The Petitioner 

requests the substitution of channel 24 

for channel 9 in the DTV Table of 

Allotments. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 3, 2021 and reply 

comments on or before September 20, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the Petitioner as follows: 

Christina Burrow, Esq., Cooley LLP, 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

700, Washington, DC 20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media 

Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support 

of its channel substitution request, the 

Petitioner states that the Commission 

has recognized that VHF channels have 

certain characteristics that pose 

challenges for their use in providing 

digital television service, including 

propagation characteristics that allow 

undesired signals and noise to be 

receivable at relatively far distances and 

nearby electrical devices to cause 

interference. According to the 

Petitioner, it has received numerous 

complaints of poor or no reception from 

viewers, and explains the importance of 

a strong over-the-air signal in the Las 

Vegas area during emergencies, when, it 

states, cable and satellite service may go 

out of operation. It also explained that 

improving KVVU’s signal would serve 

the public interest because more than 25 

percent of viewers in the Las Vegas area 

receive television broadcast signals 

over-the-air. Finally, the Petitioner 

recognized that the channel 24 noise 

limited contour would not fully 

encompass the existing channel 9 

contour, but stated that only 152 

persons in the lost coverage area would 

lose service from KVVU–TV, a number 

the Commission considers de minimis, 

and no viewers would lose access to 

their first or second over-the-air 

television service. The Petitioner also 

performed an analysis using the 

Commission’s TVStudy software, which 

indicated that Petitioner’s proposal 

would result in no more than 0.5 

percent new interference to any 

surrounding co-channel or adjacentchannel facility. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21–921; 

RM–11891; DA 21–921, adopted July 27, 

2021, and released July 28, 2021. The 

full text of this document is available for 

download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats (braille, large print, computer 

diskettes, or audio recordings), please 

send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Government Affairs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1