Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37389 

1Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 

52.39 and subparts AAAAA through EEEEE of 40 

CFR part 97). 2Under South Carolina’s draft regulations, the 

State will retain EPA’s default allowance allocation 

methodology and EPA will remain the 

implementing authority for administration of the 

trading program. See sections IV and V.B.2, below. 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 26, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16819 Filed 8–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0364; FRL–9965–99– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of a draft revision to the South 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) concerning the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that was 

submitted by South Carolina for parallel 

processing on May 26, 2017. Under 

CSAPR, large electricity generating units 

(EGUs) in South Carolina are subject to 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) 

requiring the units to participate in 

CSAPR’s federal trading program for 

annual emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and one of CSAPR’s two federal 

trading programs for annual emissions 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action 

would approve the State’s regulations 

requiring large South Carolina EGUs to 

participate in new CSAPR state trading 

programs for annual NOX and SO2

emissions integrated with the CSAPR 

federal trading programs, replacing the 

corresponding FIP requirements. These 

CSAPR state trading programs are 

substantively identical to the CSAPR 

federal trading programs, with the State 

retaining EPA’s default allowance 

allocation methodology and EPA 

remaining the implementing authority 

for administration of the trading 

program. EPA is proposing to approve 

the portions of the draft SIP revision 

concerning these CSAPR state trading 

programs because these portions of the 

draft SIP revision meet the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

EPA’s regulations for approval of a 

CSAPR full SIP revision replacing the 

requirements of a CSAPR FIP. Under the 

CSAPR regulations, approval of these 

portions of the draft SIP revision would 

automatically eliminate South Carolina 

units’ obligations to participate in 

CSAPR’s federal trading programs for 

annual NOX and SO2 emissions under 

the corresponding CSAPR FIPs 

addressing interstate transport 

requirements for the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Approval of these portions of the SIP 

revision would satisfy South Carolina’s 

good neighbor obligation for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 11, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0364 at http://

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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bailey 

can be reached by telephone at (404) 

562–9164 or via electronic mail at 

bailey.ashten@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of the May 26, 2017, draft 

revision to the South Carolina SIP 

concerning CSAPR 1 trading programs 

for annual emissions of NOx and SO2. 

Large EGUs in South Carolina are 

subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the 

units to participate in the federal 

CSAPR NOx Annual Trading Program 

and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program. CSAPR also provides 

a process for the submission and 

approval of SIP revisions to replace the 

requirements of CSAPR FIPs with SIP 

requirements under which a state’s 

units participate in CSAPR state trading 

programs that are integrated with and, 

with certain permissible exceptions, 

substantively identical to the CSAPR 

federal trading programs. 

The portions of the draft SIP revision 

proposed for approval would 

incorporate into South Carolina’s SIP 

state trading program regulations for 

annual NOX and SO2 emissions that 

would replace EPA’s federal trading 

program regulations for those emissions 

for South Carolina units for control 

periods in 2017 and later years.2 EPA is 

proposing to approve these portions of 

the draft SIP revision because they meet 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations for approval of a CSAPR full 

SIP revision replacing a federal trading 

program with a state trading program 

that is integrated with and substantively 

identical to the federal trading program. 

Under the CSAPR regulations, approval 

of these portions of the draft SIP 

revision would automatically eliminate 

the obligations of large EGUs in South 

Carolina (but not any units in Indian 

country within South Carolina’s 

borders) to participate in CSAPR’s 

federal trading programs for annual NOX

and SO2 emissions under the 

corresponding CSAPR FIPs. EPA 

proposes to find that approval of these 

portions of the draft SIP revision would 

satisfy South Carolina’s obligation 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

37390 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME 

Homer City II), 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

4Although the court in EME Homer City II 

remanded South Carolina’s Phase 2 SO2 budget 

because it determined that the budget may be too 

stringent, nothing in the court’s decision affects 

South Carolina’s authority to seek incorporation 

into its SIP of a state-established budget as stringent 

as the remanded federally-established budget or 

limits EPA’s authority to approve such a SIP 

revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3). 

5 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR 

Update was promulgated to address interstate 

pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and to address a judicial remand of certain original 

CSAPR ozone season NOX budgets promulgated 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR at 

74505. The CSAPR Update established new 

emission reduction requirements addressing the 

more recent NAAQS and coordinated them with the 

remaining emission reduction requirements 

addressing the older NAAQS, so that starting in 

2017, CSAPR includes two geographically separate 

trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions 

covering EGUs in a total of 23 states. See 40 CFR 

52.38(b)(1)–(2). 

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. 

The Phase 2 SO2 budget established 

for South Carolina in the CSAPR 

rulemaking has been remanded to EPA 

for reconsideration.3 If EPA finalizes 

approval of the portions of the draft SIP 

revision as proposed, South Carolina 

will have fulfilled its obligations to 

provide a SIP that address the interstate 

transport provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA 

would no longer be under an obligation 

to (nor would EPA have the authority 

to) address those interstate transport 

requirements through implementation 

of a FIP, and approval of these portions 

of the draft SIP revision would 

eliminate South Carolina units’ 

obligations to participate in the federal 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program 

and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program. Elimination of South 

Carolina units’ obligations to participate 

in the federal trading programs would 

include elimination of the federallyestablished Phase 2 budgets capping 

allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual 

allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

allowances to South Carolina units 

under those federal trading programs. 

As approval of these portions of the 

draft SIP revision would eliminate 

South Carolina’s remanded federallyestablished Phase 2 SO2 budget and 

eliminate EPA’s authority to subject 

units in South Carolina to a FIP, it is 

EPA’s opinion that finalization of 

approval of this SIP action would 

address the judicial remand of South 

Carolina’s federally-established Phase 2 

SO2 budget.4

EPA is proposing to approve the draft 

SIP revision through parallel processing. 

Should South Carolina not submit a 

final SIP revision to EPA and/or should 

EPA not be able to finalize a full 

approval action addressing interstate 

transport provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA will 

undertake further reconsideration of the 

FIP pursuant to the judicial remand. 

Section II of this document describes 

the requirements and steps for parallel 

processing. Section III summarizes the 

relevant aspects of the CSAPR federal 

trading programs and FIPs as well as the 

range of opportunities states have to 

submit SIP revisions to modify or 

replace the FIP requirements while 

continuing to rely on CSAPR’s trading 

programs to address the states’ 

obligations to mitigate interstate air 

pollution. Section IV describes the 

specific conditions for approval of such 

SIP revisions. Section V contains EPA’s 

analysis of South Carolina’s SIP draft 

submittal, and Section VI sets forth 

EPA’s proposed action on the draft 

submittal. Section VII addresses 

required statutory and Executive Order 

reviews. 

II. What is ‘‘parallel processing?’’ 

Parallel processing refers to a 

concurrent state and federal proposed 

rulemaking action. Generally, the state 

submits a copy of the proposed 

regulation or other revisions to EPA 

before conducting its public hearing. 

EPA reviews this proposed state action, 

and prepares a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. EPA’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is published in the Federal 

Register during the same timeframe that 

the state is holding its public hearing. 

The state and EPA then provide for 

concurrent public comment periods on 

both the state action and federal action. 

If the state’s formal SIP revision is 

changed from the draft SIP revision, 

EPA will evaluate those changes and 

may publish another notice of proposed 

rulemaking. A final rulemaking action 

by EPA will occur only after the SIP 

revision has been adopted by South 

Carolina and submitted formally to EPA 

for incorporation into the SIP. 

On May 26, 2017, the State of South 

Carolina, through South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC), 

submitted a request for parallel 

processing for a draft SIP revision 

related to the interstate transport 

provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

revision was noticed for public 

comment by the State on May 26, 2017, 

and is not yet state-effective. Through 

this proposed rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing parallel approval of this draft 

SIP revision. 

Once the May 26, 2017, draft revision 

is state-effective, South Carolina will 

need to provide EPA with a formal SIP 

revision. After South Carolina submits 

the formal SIP revision (including a 

response to any public comments raised 

during the State’s public participation 

process), EPA will evaluate the revision. 

If the formal SIP revision is changed 

from the draft SIP revision, EPA will 

evaluate those changes for significance. 

If any such changes are found by EPA 

to be significant, then the Agency 

intends to re-propose the action based 

upon the revised submission. 

While EPA may not be able to have 

a concurrent public comment process 

with the State, the SCDHEC-requested 

parallel processing allows EPA to begin 

to take action on the State’s draft SIP 

revision in advance of the submission of 

the formal SIP revision. As stated above, 

the final rulemaking action by EPA will 

occur only after the SIP revision has 

been: (1) Adopted by South Carolina, (2) 

submitted formally to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP, and (3) 

evaluated for changes. 

III. Background on CSAPR and CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to 

address the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning 

interstate transport of air pollution. As 

amended (including the 2016 CSAPR 

Update 5), CSAPR requires 27 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 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. The CSAPR emissions 

limitations are defined in terms of 

maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for 

emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, 

and/or ozone season NOX by each 

covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR 

state budgets are implemented in two 

phases of generally increasing 

stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 

applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 

and the Phase 2 (and CSAPR Update) 

budgets applying to emissions in 2017 

and later years. As a mechanism for 

achieving compliance with the 

emissions limitations, CSAPR 

establishes five federal emissions 

trading programs: A program for annual 

NOX emissions, two geographically 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37391 

6See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the 

ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their 

transport-related obligations using mechanisms 

other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or 

integrated state trading programs. 

7States covered by both the CSAPR Update and 

the NOX SIP Call have the additional option to 

expand applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 Trading Program to include nonelectric generating units that would have 

participated in the former NOX Budget Trading 

Program. 

8CSAPR also provides for a third, more 

streamlined form of SIP revision that is effective 

only for control periods in 2016 and is not relevant 

here. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3), (b)(7); 52.39(d), 

(g). 

9 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4), (b)(8); 52.39(e), (h). 

10 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i). 

11 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(j). 

12 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv)–(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)–(vi), 

(b)(9)(vi)–(vii), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(f)(4)–(5), (i)(4)–(5), 

(j). 

13 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7), (b)(11)(i); 52.39(k). 

14EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d 118; See also EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The D.C. 

Circuit also remanded SO2 budgets for Alabama, 

Georgia, and Texas. The court also remanded Phase 

2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states, 

including South Carolina. 

15See memo entitled ‘‘The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Plan for Responding to the 

Remand of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Phase 

2 SO2 Budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina 

and Texas’’ from Janet G. McCabe, EPA Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Air Division Directors (June 27, 

2016), available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598-0003. The 

memo directs the Regional Air Division Directors to 

share the memo with state officials. EPA also 

communicated orally with officials in Alabama, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas in advance of 

the memo. 

separate programs for annual SO2

emissions, and two geographically 

separate programs for ozone-season NOX

emissions. CSAPR also establishes FIP 

requirements applicable to the large 

EGUs in each covered state. Currently, 

the CSAPR FIP provisions require each 

state’s units to participate in up to three 

of the five CSAPR trading programs. 

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 transport-related obligations 

using either CSAPR’s federal emissions 

trading programs or state emissions 

trading programs integrated with the 

federal programs.6 Through such a SIP 

revision, a state may replace EPA’s 

default provisions for allocating 

emission allowances among the state’s 

units, employing any state-selected 

methodology to allocate or auction the 

allowances, subject to timing conditions 

and limits on overall allowance 

quantities. In the case of CSAPR’s 

federal trading programs for ozone 

season NOX emissions (or an integrated 

state trading program), a state may also 

expand trading program applicability to 

include certain smaller electricity 

generating units.7 If a state wants to 

replace CSAPR FIP requirements with 

SIP requirements under which the 

state’s units participate in a state trading 

program that is integrated with and 

identical to the federal trading program 

even as to the allocation and 

applicability provisions, the state may 

submit a SIP revision for that purpose 

as well. However, no emissions budget 

increases or other substantive changes 

to the trading program provisions are 

allowed. A state whose units are subject 

to multiple CSAPR FIPs and federal 

trading programs may submit SIP 

revisions to modify or replace either 

some or all of those FIP requirements. 

States can submit two basic forms of 

CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective 

for emissions control periods in 2017 or 

later years.8 Specific conditions for 

approval of each form of SIP revision 

are set forth in the CSAPR regulations, 

as described in section IV below. Under 

the first alternative—an ‘‘abbreviated’’ 

SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP 

revision that upon approval replaces the 

default allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions of a CSAPR 

federal trading program for the state.9

Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision 

leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP 

and all other provisions of the relevant 

federal trading program in place for the 

state’s units. 

Under the second alternative—a 

‘‘full’’ SIP revision—a state may submit 

a SIP revision that upon approval 

replaces a CSAPR federal trading 

program for the state with a state trading 

program integrated with the federal 

trading program, so long as the state 

trading program is substantively 

identical to the federal trading program 

or does not substantively differ from the 

federal trading program except as 

discussed above with regard to the 

allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.10 For purposes 

of a full SIP revision, a state may either 

adopt state rules with complete trading 

program language, incorporate the 

federal trading program language into its 

state rules by reference (with 

appropriate conforming changes), or 

employ a combination of these 

approaches. 

The CSAPR regulations identify 

several important consequences and 

limitations associated with approval of 

a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA’s 

approval of a full SIP revision as 

correcting the deficiency in the state’s 

implementation plan that was the basis 

for a particular set of CSAPR FIP 

requirements, the obligation to 

participate in the corresponding CSAPR 

federal trading program is automatically 

eliminated for units subject to the state’s 

jurisdiction without the need for a 

separate EPA withdrawal action, so long 

as EPA’s approval of the SIP is full and 

unconditional.11 Second, approval of a 

full SIP revision does not terminate the 

obligation to participate in the 

corresponding CSAPR federal trading 

program for any units located in any 

Indian country within the borders of the 

state, and if and when a unit is located 

in Indian country within a state’s 

borders, EPA may modify the SIP 

approval to exclude from the SIP, and 

include in the surviving CSAPR FIP 

instead, certain trading program 

provisions that apply jointly to units in 

the state and to units in Indian country 

within the state’s borders.12 Finally, if at 

the time a full SIP revision is approved 

EPA has already started recording 

allocations of allowances for a given 

control period to a state’s units, the 

federal trading program provisions 

authorizing EPA to complete the process 

of allocating and recording allowances 

for that control period to those units 

will continue to apply, unless EPA’s 

approval of the SIP revision provides 

otherwise.13

On July 28, 2015, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a 

decision on a number of petitions 

related to CSAPR, which found that 

EPA required more emissions 

reductions than may have been 

necessary to address the downwind air 

quality problems to which some states 

contribute. The court remanded several 

CSAPR emission budgets to EPA for 

reconsideration, including the Phase 2 

SO2 trading budget for South Carolina.14

However, South Carolina has proposed 

to voluntarily adopt into their SIP a 

CSAPR state trading program that is 

integrated with the federal trading 

program and includes a stateestablished SO2 budget equal to the 

state’s remanded Phase 2 SO2 emission 

budget.15 EPA notes that nothing in the 

court’s decision affects South Carolina’s 

authority to seek incorporation into its 

SIP of a state-established budget as 

stringent as the remanded federallyestablished budget or limits EPA’s 

authority to approve such a SIP 

revision. The CSAPR regulations 

provide each covered state with the 

option to meet its transport obligations 

through SIP revisions replacing the 

federal trading programs and requiring 

the state’s EGUs to participate in 

integrated CSAPR state trading 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

37392 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

16 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii), 

(b)(5)(vii), (b)(8)(iv), (b)(9)(viii); 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), 

(h)(2), (i)(6). 

17 In the context of the approval conditions for 

CSAPR-related SIP revisions, an ‘‘existing unit’’ is 

a unit for which EPA has determined default 

allowance allocations (which could be allocations 

of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing 

and amending CSAPR. A document describing 

EPA’s default allocations to existing units is 

available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2017-05/documents/csapr_allowance_

allocations_final_rule_tsd.pdf. 18 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), 

(b)(5)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iii); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), 

(h)(1), (i)(1). 

19See 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 

97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii), 97.812(b)(10)(ii). 

20 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), 

(b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii)(A), (b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A); 

52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i). 

21 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A). 

22 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B)–(C), (a)(5)(i)(B)–(C), 

(b)(4)(ii)(B)–(C), (b)(5)(ii)(B)–(C), (b)(8)(iii)(B)–(C), 

(b)(9)(iii)(B)–(C); 52.39(e)(1)(ii)–(iii), (f)(1)(ii)–(iii), 

(h)(1)(ii)–(iii), (i)(1)(ii)–(iii). 

programs that apply emissions budgets 

of the same or greater stringency. Under 

the CSAPR regulations, when such a SIP 

revision is approved, the corresponding 

FIP provisions are automatically 

withdrawn. 

IV. Conditions for Approval of CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or 

full SIP revision must meet the 

following general submittal conditions: 

• Timeliness and completeness of SIP 

submittal. The SIP submittal 

completeness criteria in section 2.1 of 

appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 apply. In 

addition, if a state wants to replace the 

default allowance allocation or 

applicability provisions of a CSAPR 

federal trading program, the complete 

SIP revision must be submitted to EPA 

by December 1 of the year before the 

deadlines described below for 

submitting allocation or auction 

amounts to EPA for the first control 

period for which the state wants to 

replace the default allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.16 This SIP 

submission deadline is inoperative in 

the case of a SIP revision that seeks only 

to replace a CSAPR FIP and federal 

trading program with a SIP and a 

substantively identical state trading 

program integrated with the federal 

trading program. 

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated 

or full SIP seeking to address the 

allocation or auction of emission 

allowances must meet the following 

further conditions: 

• Methodology covering all 

allowances potentially requiring 

allocation. For each federal trading 

program addressed by a SIP revision, 

the SIP revision’s allowance allocation 

or auction methodology must replace 

both the federal program’s default 

allocations to existing units 17 at 40 CFR 

97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), 

97.711(a), or 97.811(a) as applicable, 

and the federal trading program’s 

provisions for allocating allowances 

from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for 

the state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 

97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a), 

97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), 97.711(b)(1) 

and 97.712(a), or 97.811(b)(1) and 

97.812(a), as applicable.18 In the case of 

a state with Indian country within its 

borders, while the SIP revision may 

neither alter nor assume the federal 

program’s provisions for administering 

the Indian country NUSA for the state, 

the SIP revision must include 

procedures addressing the disposition of 

any otherwise unallocated allowances 

from an Indian country NUSA that may 

be made available for allocation by the 

state after EPA has carried out the 

Indian country NUSA allocation 

procedures.19

• Assurance that total allocations will 

not exceed the state budget. For each 

federal trading program addressed by a 

SIP revision, the total amount of 

allowances auctioned or allocated for 

each control period under the SIP 

revision (prior to the addition by EPA of 

any unallocated allowances from any 

Indian country NUSA for the state) 

generally may not exceed the state’s 

emissions budget for the control period 

less the sum of the amount of any 

Indian country NUSA for the state for 

the control period and any allowances 

already allocated to the state’s units for 

the control period and recorded by 

EPA.20 Under its SIP revision, a state is 

free to not allocate allowances to some 

or all potentially affected units, to 

allocate or auction allowances to 

entities other than potentially affected 

units, or to allocate or auction fewer 

than the maximum permissible quantity 

of allowances and retire the remainder. 

Under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 Trading Program only, 

additional allowances may be allocated 

if the state elects to expand applicability 

to non-electric generating units that 

would have been subject to the NOX

Budget Trading Program established for 

compliance with the NOX SIP Call.21

• Timely submission of statedetermined allocations to EPA. The SIP 

revision must require the state to submit 

to EPA the amounts of any allowances 

allocated or auctioned to each unit for 

each control period (other than 

allowances initially set aside in the 

state’s allocation or auction process and 

later allocated or auctioned to such 

units from the set-aside amount) by the 

following deadlines.22 Note that the 

submission deadlines differ for amounts 

allocated or auctioned to units 

considered existing units for CSAPR 

purposes and amounts allocated or 

auctioned to other units. 

Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or auction results 

CSAPR NOX Annual, CSAPR NOOzone Season Group 1, CSAPR SO2 Group 1, and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Programs 

Existing ......... 2017 and 2018 .......................................... June 1, 2016. 

2019 and 2020 .......................................... June 1, 2017. 

2021 and 2022 .......................................... June 1, 2018. 

2023 and later years ................................. June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. 

Other ............ All years .................................................... July 1 of the year of the control period. 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program 

Existing ......... 2019 and 2020 .......................................... June 1, 2018. 

2021 and 2022 .......................................... June 1, 2019. 

2023 and 2024 .......................................... June 1, 2020. 

2025 and later years ................................. June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. 

Other ............ All years .................................................... July 1 of the year of the control period. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37393 

23 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), 

(b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(ii)(D), (b)(8)(iii)(D), (b)(9)(iii)(D); 

52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), (i)(1)(iv). 

24 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), 

(b)(9); 52.39(e), (f), (h), (i). 

25 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), 

(b)(5)(iii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iv); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), 

(h)(1), (i)(2). 

26 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i), (b)(8)(i), (b)(9)(i). 

27 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(ii), (b)(9)(ii). 

28 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9). 

29 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i). 

30 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), (b)(9)(v); 

52.39(f)(3), (i)(3). 

31 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v), (b)(9)(vi); 

52.39(f)(4), (i)(4). 

32 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011). 

33 81 FR 74504, 74524 (October 26, 2016). 

Removal of South Carolina from the CSAPR ozone 

season trading program beginning in 2017 

addressed the portion of the D.C. Circuit’s remand 

in EME Homer City II related to South Carolina’s 

ozone season NOX budget for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Id. 

34 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); 52.39(c); 52.2140(a), 

(b); 52.2141. 

• No changes to allocations already 

submitted to EPA or recorded. The SIP 

revision must not provide for any 

change to the amounts of allowances 

allocated or auctioned to any unit after 

those amounts are submitted to EPA or 

any change to any allowance allocation 

determined and recorded by EPA under 

the federal trading program 

regulations.23

• No other substantive changes to 

federal trading program provisions. The 

SIP revision may not substantively 

change any other trading program 

provisions, except in the case of a SIP 

revision that also expands program 

applicability as described below.24 Any 

new definitions adopted in the SIP 

revision (in addition to the federal 

trading program’s definitions) may 

apply only for purposes of the SIP 

revision’s allocation or auction 

provisions.25

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated 

or full SIP revision seeking to expand 

applicability under the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 1 or CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 Trading 

Programs (or an integrated state trading 

program) must meet the following 

further conditions: 

• Only electricity generating units 

with nameplate capacity of at least 15 

MWe. The SIP revision may expand 

applicability only to additional fossil 

fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines 

serving generators producing electricity 

for sale, and only by lowering the 

generator nameplate capacity threshold 

used to determine whether a particular 

boiler or combustion turbine serving a 

particular generator is a potentially 

affected unit. The nameplate capacity 

threshold adopted in the SIP revision 

may not be less than 15 MWe.26 In 

addition or alternatively, applicability 

under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 Trading Program may be 

expanded to non-electric generating 

units that would have been subject to 

the NOX Budget Trading Program 

established for compliance with the 

NOX SIP Call.27

• No other substantive changes to 

federal trading program provisions. The 

SIP revision may not substantively 

change any other trading program 

provisions, except in the case of a SIP 

revision that also addresses the 

allocation or auction of emission 

allowances as described above.28

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions and the other applicable 

conditions described above, a CSAPRrelated full SIP revision must meet the 

following further conditions: 

• Complete, substantively identical 

trading program provisions. The SIP 

revision must adopt complete state 

trading program regulations 

substantively identical to the complete 

federal trading program regulations at 

40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 

through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, 

97.702 through 97.735, or 97.802 

through 97.835, as applicable, except as 

described above in the case of a SIP 

revision that seeks to replace the default 

allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.29

• Only non-substantive substitutions 

for the term ‘‘State.’’ The SIP revision 

may substitute the name of the state for 

the term ‘‘State’’ as used in the federal 

trading program regulations, but only to 

the extent that EPA determines that the 

substitutions do not substantively 

change the trading program 

regulations.30

• Exclusion of provisions addressing 

units in Indian country. The SIP 

revision may not impose requirements 

on any unit in any Indian country 

within the state’s borders and must not 

include the federal trading program 

provisions governing allocation of 

allowances from any Indian country 

NUSA for the state.31

V. South Carolina’s SIP Draft Submittal 

and EPA’s Analysis 

A. South Carolina’s Draft SIP Submittal 

In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA 

determined that air pollution 

transported from EGUs in South 

Carolina would unlawfully affect other 

states’ ability to attain or maintain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

included South Carolina in the CSAPR 

ozone season NOX trading program and 

the annual SO2 and NOX trading 

programs.32 In the CSAPR Update 

rulemaking, EPA determined that South 

Carolina was no longer linked to any 

identified downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS or 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and removed South 

Carolina from the CSAPR ozone season 

NOX trading program beginning in 

2017.33 South Carolina’s units meeting 

the CSAPR applicability criteria are 

consequently currently subject to 

CSAPR FIPs that require participation in 

the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program.34 South Carolina’s 

May 26, 2017, draft SIP revision 

incorporates into the SIP CSAPR state 

trading program regulations that would 

replace the CSAPR federal trading 

program regulations with regard to 

South Carolina units’ SO2 and annual 

NOX emissions. The draft SIP submittal 

includes the addition of South Carolina 

Regulation 61–62.97, Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading 

Program. This rule will contain 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 draft CSAPR 

state trading program rule is designed to 

replace the corresponding federal 

trading program regulations. For 

example, South Carolina draft 

Regulation 61–62.97, Subpart A—South 

Carolina CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

program is designed to replace subpart 

AAAAA of 40 CFR part 97 (i.e., 40 CFR 

97.401 through 97.435). 

With regard to form, some of the 

individual draft rules for each South 

Carolina CSAPR state trading program 

are set forth as full regulatory text— 

notably the rules identifying the trading 

budgets, NUSAs, and Indian country 

NUSA—but most of the draft rules 

incorporate the corresponding federal 

trading program section or sections by 

reference. 

With regard to substance, the draft 

rules for each South Carolina CSAPR 

state trading program differ from the 

corresponding CSAPR federal trading 

program regulations in two main ways. 

First, the applicability provisions in the 

South Carolina draft rules require 

participation in South Carolina CSAPR 

state trading programs only for units in 

South Carolina, not for units in any 

other state or in Indian country within 

the borders of South Carolina or any 

other state. Second, the South Carolina 

draft rules omit some federal trading 

program provisions not applicable to 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

37394 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

35The other portions of the draft state submittal 

will be addressed in separate actions. 

36The requirements of paragraph 2.1 must be met 

prior to publication of EPA’s final determination of 

plan approvability. 40 CFR 51, App. V, 2.3.2. 37See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(vi) and 52.39(i)(6). 

South Carolina’s state trading programs, 

including provisions setting forth the 

amounts of emissions budgets, NUSAs, 

Indian country NUSAs, and variability 

limits for other states and provisions 

relating to EPA’s administration of 

Indian country NUSAs. 

The South Carolina draft rules adopt 

the Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2

budgets found at 40 CFR 

97.410(a)(18)(iv) and 97.710(a)(6)(iv), 

respectively. Accordingly, EPA will 

evaluate the approvability of the South 

Carolina draft SIP submission consistent 

with these budgets. 

At this time, EPA is proposing to take 

action on the portions of South 

Carolina’s draft SIP submission 

designed to replace the federal CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program and the 

federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program with regard to South Carolina 

units. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of South Carolina’s 

Draft Submittal 

As described in section V.A above, at 

this time EPA is proposing to take 

action on the portions of South 

Carolina’s draft SIP submittal designed 

to replace the federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program and the federal 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program 

for South Carolina units.35 The analysis 

discussed in this section addresses only 

the portions of South Carolina’s draft 

SIP submittal on which EPA is taking 

action at this time. For simplicity, 

throughout this section EPA refers to the 

portions of the draft submittal on which 

EPA is proposing to take action as ‘‘the 

draft submittal’’ or ‘‘the draft SIP 

revision’’ without repeating the 

qualification that at this time EPA is 

analyzing and proposing to act on only 

portions of the draft SIP submittal. 

1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP 

Submittal 

South Carolina submitted its draft SIP 

revision to EPA on May 26, 2017, and 

EPA has determined that the submittal 

complies with the applicable minimum 

completeness criteria for parallel 

processing in section 2.3 of appendix V 

to 40 CFR part 51.36 The SIP submission 

deadline specified in 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5)(vi) and 52.39(i)(6) is defined 

with reference to certain separate 

CSAPR deadlines for submission of 

state-determined allowance allocations 

to EPA and is therefore inoperative in 

the case of a SIP revision that does not 

seek to replace the EPA-administered 

allowance allocation methodology and 

process set forth in the federal trading 

program rules. Because South Carolina 

is seeking to replace the federal trading 

program rules with substantively 

identical state trading program rules and 

is not seeking to replace the EPAadministered allowance allocation 

methodology and process, the SIP 

submission deadline does not apply.37

2. Complete, Substantively Identical 

Trading Program Provisions 

As discussed above, the South 

Carolina draft SIP revision adopts state 

budgets identical to the Phase 2 budgets 

for South Carolina under the federal 

trading programs and adopts almost all 

of the provisions of the federal CSAPR 

NOX Annual Trading Program and 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, 

including the default allocation 

provisions. Under the State’s draft rules, 

EPA would administer the programs 

and would retain the authority to 

allocate and record allowances. 

With the following exceptions, the 

South Carolina draft rules comprising 

South Carolina’s CSAPR state trading 

program for annual NOX emissions 

either incorporate by reference or adopt 

full-text replacements for all of the 

provisions of 40 CFR 97.402 through 

97.435, and the South Carolina draft 

rules comprising South Carolina’s 

CSAPR state trading program for SO2

emissions either incorporate by 

reference or adopt full-text replacements 

for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 

97.702 through 97.735. 

The first exception is that, as 

discussed below in section V.B.3, 

paragraphs 61–62.97.A.3 and B.3 of the 

South Carolina draft rules limit 

applicability of the rules to units located 

in South Carolina, excluding units 

located in Indian country within South 

Carolina’s borders. This modification of 

the applicability provisions in the 

federal trading program rules is 

appropriate for state trading program 

rules which necessarily must be 

designed to apply only to sources 

subject to the State’s jurisdiction. 

The second exception is that South 

Carolina draft rule 61–62.97 omits the 

provisions of 40 CFR 97.410(a) and (b) 

and 97.710(a) and (b) setting forth the 

forth amounts of the Phase 1 emissions 

budgets, NUSAs, Indian country 

NUSAs, and variability limits for South 

Carolina and the amounts of the Phase 

1 and Phase 2 emissions budgets, 

NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and 

variability limits for other states. 

Omission of the South Carolina Phase 1 

emissions budget, NUSA, Indian 

country NUSA, and variability limit 

amounts is appropriate because South 

Carolina’s state trading programs do not 

apply to emissions occurring in Phase 1 

of CSAPR. Omission of the Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 budget, NUSA, Indian country 

NUSA, and variability limit amounts for 

other states from state trading programs 

in which only South Carolina units 

participate does not undermine the 

completeness of the state trading 

programs. South Carolina’s draft rules 

include full-text replacement provisions 

for the remaining provisions of 40 CFR 

97.410 and 97.710 that are relevant to 

trading programs applicable only to 

South Carolina units during Phase 2 of 

CSAPR. 

The third exception is that South 

Carolina draft rule 61–62.97 omits 40 

CFR 97.411(b)(2), 97.411(c)(5)(iii), 

97.412(b), 97.421(h), 97.421(j), 

97.711(b)(2), 97.711(c)(5)(iii), 97.712(b), 

97.721(h), and 97.721(j), concerning 

EPA’s administration of Indian country 

NUSAs. Omission of these provisions 

from South Carolina’s state trading 

program rules is required, as discussed 

in section V.B.4 below. 

None of the omissions undermine the 

completeness of the South Carolina’s 

state trading programs and EPA has 

determined that South Carolina’s draft 

SIP revision makes no substantive 

changes to the provisions of the federal 

trading program regulations. Thus, 

South Carolina’s draft SIP revision 

meets the condition under 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5) and 52.39(i) that the SIP 

revision must adopt complete state 

trading program regulations 

substantively identical to the complete 

federal trading program regulations at 

40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435 and 

97.702 through 97.735, respectively, 

except to the extent permitted in the 

case of a SIP revision that seeks to 

replace the default allowance allocation 

and/or applicability provisions. 

3. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions 

for the Term ‘‘State’’ 

Paragraphs 61–62.97.A.3 and B.3 of 

the South Carolina draft rules substitute 

the phrase ‘‘The following units in 

South Carolina (but not in Indian 

country within South Carolina’s 

borders),’’ for the phrase ‘‘The following 

units in a State (and Indian country 

within the borders of such State)’’ in the 

corresponding federal trading program 

regulations at 40 CFR 97.410(a)(1) and 

97.710(a)(1) and at 97.410(b) and 

97.710(b), respectively. These 

provisions of the South Carolina draft 

rules define the units that are required 

to participate in South Carolina’s 

CSAPR state trading programs. The 

substitutions appropriately exclude 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37395 

38A FIP will remain in place for any units that 

are in Indian country within South Carolina’s 

borders. 

39As previously discussed in sections IV and 

V.B.2, under South Carolina’s draft regulations, the 

State will retain EPA’s default allowance allocation 

methodology and EPA will remain the 

implementing authority for administration of the 

trading program. 

40 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6); 52.39(j); see also 

52.2140(a)(1); 52.2141(a). 

units located in other states and units 

located in Indian country within the 

borders of South Carolina or any other 

state, thereby limiting the applicability 

of South Carolina’s state trading 

programs to units that are subject to 

South Carolina’s jurisdiction. These 

substitutions do not substantively 

change the provisions of CSAPR’s 

federal trading program regulations. The 

remaining South Carolina rules do not 

substitute for the term ‘‘State’’ as used 

in the federal trading program 

regulations. EPA proposes to find that 

South Carolina’s draft SIP revision 

therefore meets the condition under 40 

CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii) and 52.39(i)(3) that 

the SIP revision may substitute the 

name of the state for the term ‘‘State’’ as 

used in the federal trading program 

regulations, but only to the extent that 

EPA determines that the substitutions 

do not substantively change the 

provisions of the federal trading 

program regulations. 

4. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing 

Units in Indian Country 

As discussed above in section V.B.3, 

paragraphs 61–62.97.A.3 and B.3 of the 

South Carolina draft rules explicitly 

exclude units in Indian country within 

South Carolina’s borders from the 

applicable requirements of the state 

rule. In addition, as required under 40 

CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv) and 52.39(i)(4), 

South Carolina’s draft SIP revision 

excludes federal trading program 

provisions related to EPA’s process for 

allocating and recording allowances 

from Indian country NUSAs (i.e., 40 

CFR 97.411(b)(2), 97.411(c)(5)(iii), 

97.412(b), 97.421(h), 97.421(j), 

97.711(b)(2), 97.711(c)(5)(iii), 97.712(b), 

and 97.721(h) and 97.721(j)). South 

Carolina’s draft SIP revision therefore 

meets the conditions under 

52.38(a)(5)(iv) and 52.39(i)(4) that a SIP 

submittal must not impose any 

requirement on any unit in Indian 

country within the borders of the State 

and must exclude certain provisions 

related to administration of Indian 

country NUSAs.38

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action on South 

Carolina’s Draft Submittal 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of South Carolina’s May 26, 

2017, draft SIP submittal concerning the 

establishment for South Carolina units 

of CSAPR state trading programs for 

annual NOX and SO2 emissions. The 

proposed draft revision would adopt 

into the SIP state trading program rules 

to be codified in SC Code of Annotated 

Regulations at 61–62.97, ‘‘Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading 

Program.’’ These South Carolina CSAPR 

state trading programs would be 

integrated with the federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program and the federal 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, 

respectively, and would be 

substantively identical to the federal 

trading programs.39 If EPA approves 

these portions of the proposed draft SIP 

revision, South Carolina units therefore 

would generally be required to meet 

requirements under South Carolina’s 

CSAPR state trading programs 

equivalent to the requirements the units 

otherwise would have been required to 

meet under the corresponding CSAPR 

federal trading programs. EPA is 

proposing to approve these portions of 

the draft SIP revision because they meet 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations for approval of a CSAPR full 

SIP revision replacing a federal trading 

program with a state trading program 

that is integrated with and substantively 

identical to the federal trading program 

except for permissible differences, as 

discussed in section V above. 

EPA promulgated FIPs requiring 

South Carolina units to participate in 

the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program and the federal CSAPR SO2

Group 2 Trading Program in order to 

address South Carolina’s obligations 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the absence of SIP provisions 

addressing those requirements. 

Approval of the portions of South 

Carolina’s draft SIP submittal adopting 

CSAPR state trading program rules for 

annual NOX and SO2 substantively 

identical to the corresponding CSAPR 

federal trading program regulations (or 

differing only with respect to the 

allowance allocation methodology) 

would satisfy South Carolina’s 

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 and therefore 

would correct the same deficiency in 

the SIP that otherwise would be 

corrected by those CSAPR FIPs. Under 

the CSAPR regulations, upon EPA’s full 

and unconditional approval of a SIP 

revision as correcting the SIP’s 

deficiency that is the basis for a 

particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to 

participate in the corresponding CSAPR 

federal trading program is automatically 

eliminated for units subject to the state’s 

jurisdiction (but not for any units 

located in any Indian country within the 

state’s borders).40 Approval of the 

portions of South Carolina’s draft SIP 

submittal establishing CSAPR state 

trading program rules for annual NOX

and SO2 emissions therefore would 

result in automatic termination of the 

obligations of South Carolina units to 

participate in the federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program and the federal 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. 

As noted in section III above, the 

Phase 2 SO2 budget established for 

South Carolina in the CSAPR 

rulemaking has been remanded to EPA 

for reconsideration. If EPA finalizes 

approval of these portions of the SIP 

revision as proposed, South Carolina 

will have fulfilled its obligations to 

provide a SIP that address the interstate 

transport provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA 

would no longer be under an obligation 

to (nor would EPA have the authority 

to) address those transport requirements 

through implementation of a FIP, and 

approval of these portions of the SIP 

revision would eliminate South 

Carolina units’ obligations to participate 

in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program and the federal CSAPR 

SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. 

Elimination of South Carolina units’ 

obligations to participate in the federal 

trading programs would include 

elimination of the federally-established 

Phase 2 budgets capping allocations of 

CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances to 

South Carolina units under those federal 

trading programs. As approval of these 

portions of the SIP revision would 

eliminate South Carolina’s remanded 

federally-established Phase 2 SO2

budget and eliminate EPA’s authority to 

subject units in South Carolina to a FIP, 

it is EPA’s opinion that finalization of 

approval of this SIP action would 

address the judicial remand of South 

Carolina’s federally-established Phase 2 

SO2 budget. 

EPA’s proposed approval is 

contingent on South Carolina’s 

submission of a final SIP revision to 

address interstate transport provisions 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Should South Carolina not 

submit a final SIP revision to EPA 

addressing interstate transport 

provisions of CAA section 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

37396 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and/or 

should EPA not be able to finalize a full 

approval action, EPA will undertake 

further reconsideration of the FIP 

pursuant to the judicial remand. The 

Agency has made the preliminary 

determination that these proposed 

actions are consistent with the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations for approval of a 

CSAPR full SIP revision replacing the 

requirements of a CSAPR FIP. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal 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 submittals, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 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.’’ 

However, the draft rules proposed for 

approval exclude units in Indian 

country from the applicable 

requirements of the draft rules and 

exclude federal trading provisions 

related to EPA’s process for allocating 

and recording allowances from Indian 

country NUSAs. 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, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

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. 

Dated: July 28, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16902 Filed 8–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R03–RCRA–2014–0407; FRL–9965– 

86-Region 3] 

Delaware: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Delaware has applied to the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for final authorization of 

revisions to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant final 

authorization to Delaware. In the Rules 

and Regulations section of this issue of 

the Federal Register, EPA is authorizing 

the revisions by a direct final rule. We 

have explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble to the 

direct final rule. Unless EPA receives 

written comments that oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the direct final rule will become 

effective on the date it establishes, and 

EPA will not take further action on this 

proposal. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

September 11, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

RCRA–2014–0407, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The 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. The 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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evelyn Sorto, U.S. EPA Region III, 

RCRA Waste Branch, Mailcode 3LC32, 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029, Phone Number: (215) 814– 

2123; Email: sorto.evelyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

issue of the Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the revisions by a direct 

final rule. EPA did not make a proposal 

prior to the direct final rule because we 

believe this action is not controversial 

and do not expect comments that 

oppose it. We have explained the 

reasons for this authorization in the 

preamble of the direct final rule. Unless 

EPA receives adverse written comments 

that oppose this authorization during 

the comment period, the direct final 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS