Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Revisions to Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules, 47855-47856 [2018-20529]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: September 18, 2018.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Delaware Bay.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers can be
reached via telephone at (404) 562–9089
or via electronic mail at akers.brad@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2018–20572 Filed 9–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0073; FRL–9984–
11—Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina:
Revisions to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
portions of 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), on
September 5, 2017, that seek to revise
certain New Source Review (NSR)
regulations regarding the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting program. EPA is proposing
this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0073 at https://
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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Sep 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
I. What action is EPA taking today?
On September 5, 2017, SC DHEC
submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that involves changes to South
Carolina’s NSR permitting regulations to
make them consistent with federal
requirements for NSR permitting,
correct typographical errors, make
internal references consistent, and
update public noticing procedures.1
These changes include revisions to NSR
public notice requirements in SC DHEC
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7—
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) at sections (q) and (w)(4) to
address the federal rule entitled
‘‘Revisions to Public Notice Provisions
in Clean Air Act Permitting Programs,’’
Final Rule, 81 FR 71613 (October 18,
2016) (also referred to as the e-Notice
Rule). In this proposed action, EPA is
approving the SIP revision that makes
changes to South Carolina’s NSR
regulations at SC DHEC Regulation 61–
62.5, Standard No. 7 which applies to
the construction or modification of any
major stationary source in areas
designated as attainment or
unclassifiable as required by part C of
title I of the CAA, with the exception of
the portions of the SIP revision related
to the e-Notice Rule. EPA has addressed
the e-notice portions of the SIP revision
in a separate proposed action. See 83 FR
39638 (August 10, 2018).
South Carolina’s PSD regulations at
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7,
were originally approved into the SIP on
June 10, 1982 (47 FR 6017), with
periodic revisions approved through
August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37299). EPA is
proposing to approve changes submitted
in South Carolina’s September 5, 2017,
SIP revision to modify the PSD
regulations to make minor edits for
1 Also on September 5, 2017, South Carolina
submitted separate SIP revisions with: Changes to
Regulation 61–62.1, Section I—‘‘Definitions’’ and
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 5.2—‘‘Control of
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX);’’ the adoption of
Regulation 61–62.97—‘‘Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) Trading Program;’’ and changes to
the regional haze SIP. The SIP revision related to
Regulation 61–62.97 (CSAPR) was previously
approved on October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47939). EPA
will address the remaining SIP revisions in separate
actions.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47855
internal consistency and to adopt
changes for consistency with EPA’s
2016 permit rescission rule entitled
‘‘Rescission of Preconstruction Permits
Issued Under the Clean Air Act’’ Final
Rule, 81 FR 78043 (November 7, 2016)
(hereinafter referred to as the Permit
Rescission Rule).
II. Background
This proposed action seeks to revise
South Carolina’s PSD regulations in the
SIP as described in Section III, below.
Many of these changes are
administrative in nature, including
updating internal references and
correcting typographical errors. The
September 5, 2017, SIP revision also
makes changes to the PSD regulations to
adopt corrective provisions from EPA’s
Permit Rescission Rule.
On November 7, 2016, EPA published
the Permit Rescission Rule, which
addressed the rescission of
preconstruction permits for PSD. The
rule made the following changes to the
Agency’s PSD rule at 40 CFR 52.21: (1)
Removed a date restriction that only
allowed the rescission of PSD permits
issued under PSD rules in effect as of
July 30, 1987; (2) clarified that permit
rescission is not automatic; and (3)
corrected an outdated cross-reference.
EPA removed the July 30, 1987 date
restriction from the federal rule because
there are circumstances where it may be
appropriate to rescind PSD permits
issued under rules in effect after this
date pursuant to the criteria in 40 CFR
52.21(w)(3) of the Permit Rescission
Rule. For additional information on
provisions in the Permit Rescission
Rule, see 81 FR 78043 (November 7,
2016).
III. Analysis of the State’s September 5,
2017, Submittal
The September 5, 2017, SIP revision
makes several changes to Regulation 61–
62.5, Standard No. 7 at section (w)—
entitled ‘‘Permit rescission’’—to be
consistent with the federal provisions
for rescinding PSD permits.2 Paragraph
(w)(1) currently states that PSD permits
issued pursuant to Standard No. 7
remain in effect until they expire or are
rescinded. This subparagraph is revised
in South Carolina’s submittal to clarify
that section (w) is the only provision
under which permit rescission is
allowed. Next, paragraph (w)(2) is
revised to remove the date restriction
discussed in Section II, above, that
limits rescission to PSD permits issued
2 South Carolina also revised 61–62.5, Standard
No. 7 at paragraph (w)(4) to address EPA’s eNotice
Rule. As discussed above, EPA proposed to approve
this change in a separate proposed action. See 83
FR 39638 (August 10, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
47856
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
under PSD rules in effect on or before
July 30, 1987. South Carolina’s revised
language is consistent with the federal
Permit Rescission Rule, allowing for
permit rescission if the permit meets the
requirement of paragraph (w)(3).
Finally, paragraph (w)(3) is revised to
change the word ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may’’ to
clarify that this provision does not
create a mandatory duty for the State.
This change is consistent with the
Permit Rescission Rule at 40 CFR
52.21(w)(3).
The September 5, 2017, SIP revision
also revises other paragraphs in
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7 for
consistency in formatting, to correct
internal references, and to correct
typographical errors. Section (b) is
modified at paragraph (34),
subparagraph (vi), to correct a
typographical error in the definition of
‘‘Net emissions increase.’’ Next, sections
(w), (aa), and (bb) are revised to be in
bold font for internal consistency.
Finally, Standard No. 7 is revised to
make internal references and formatting
consistent by making changes in section
(aa) at (aa)(1)(i), (aa)(9), (aa)(11)(i), and
(aa)(14)(i). EPA preliminarily finds that
South Carolina’s revised rules are
consistent with federal requirements
and CAA section 110.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
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, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the SC DHEC regulatory paragraphs
identified above in Section III within SC
DHEC Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No.
7, entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD),’’ state effective on
August 25, 2017. 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
changes to the SIP identified in Section
III, above, because they are consistent
with the CAA and its implementing
regulations.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Sep 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. This action merely 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed approval
for the State of South Carolina does not
have Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because it does not
have substantial direct effects on an
Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the
boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code
Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 10, 2018.
Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018–20529 Filed 9–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0308; FRL–9984–
07—Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; KY; Updates to
Attainment Status Designations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Kentucky
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ),
submitted a revision to the Kentucky
State Implementation Plan (SIP) on
December 13, 2016. The SIP revision
updates, as of October 6, 2016, the
description and attainment status
designations for geographic areas within
the Commonwealth for several National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The updates are being made
to conform Kentucky’s attainment status
tables with the federal attainment status
designations made for these areas. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve Kentucky’s SIP
revision because it is consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s
regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0308 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47855-47856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0073; FRL-9984-11--Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Revisions to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of 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), on September
5, 2017, that seek to revise certain New Source Review (NSR)
regulations regarding the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting program. EPA is proposing this action pursuant to the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0073 at https://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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is EPA taking today?
On September 5, 2017, SC DHEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that involves changes to South Carolina's NSR permitting
regulations to make them consistent with federal requirements for NSR
permitting, correct typographical errors, make internal references
consistent, and update public noticing procedures.\1\ These changes
include revisions to NSR public notice requirements in SC DHEC
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7--``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) at sections (q) and (w)(4) to address the federal
rule entitled ``Revisions to Public Notice Provisions in Clean Air Act
Permitting Programs,'' Final Rule, 81 FR 71613 (October 18, 2016) (also
referred to as the e-Notice Rule). In this proposed action, EPA is
approving the SIP revision that makes changes to South Carolina's NSR
regulations at SC DHEC Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 which applies
to the construction or modification of any major stationary source in
areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by part C
of title I of the CAA, with the exception of the portions of the SIP
revision related to the e-Notice Rule. EPA has addressed the e-notice
portions of the SIP revision in a separate proposed action. See 83 FR
39638 (August 10, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Also on September 5, 2017, South Carolina submitted separate
SIP revisions with: Changes to Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--
``Definitions'' and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2--``Control
of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX);'' the adoption of Regulation
61-62.97--``Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading
Program;'' and changes to the regional haze SIP. The SIP revision
related to Regulation 61-62.97 (CSAPR) was previously approved on
October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47939). EPA will address the remaining SIP
revisions in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina's PSD regulations at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard
No. 7, were originally approved into the SIP on June 10, 1982 (47 FR
6017), with periodic revisions approved through August 10, 2017 (82 FR
37299). EPA is proposing to approve changes submitted in South
Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revision to modify the PSD
regulations to make minor edits for internal consistency and to adopt
changes for consistency with EPA's 2016 permit rescission rule entitled
``Rescission of Preconstruction Permits Issued Under the Clean Air
Act'' Final Rule, 81 FR 78043 (November 7, 2016) (hereinafter referred
to as the Permit Rescission Rule).
II. Background
This proposed action seeks to revise South Carolina's PSD
regulations in the SIP as described in Section III, below. Many of
these changes are administrative in nature, including updating internal
references and correcting typographical errors. The September 5, 2017,
SIP revision also makes changes to the PSD regulations to adopt
corrective provisions from EPA's Permit Rescission Rule.
On November 7, 2016, EPA published the Permit Rescission Rule,
which addressed the rescission of preconstruction permits for PSD. The
rule made the following changes to the Agency's PSD rule at 40 CFR
52.21: (1) Removed a date restriction that only allowed the rescission
of PSD permits issued under PSD rules in effect as of July 30, 1987;
(2) clarified that permit rescission is not automatic; and (3)
corrected an outdated cross-reference. EPA removed the July 30, 1987
date restriction from the federal rule because there are circumstances
where it may be appropriate to rescind PSD permits issued under rules
in effect after this date pursuant to the criteria in 40 CFR
52.21(w)(3) of the Permit Rescission Rule. For additional information
on provisions in the Permit Rescission Rule, see 81 FR 78043 (November
7, 2016).
III. Analysis of the State's September 5, 2017, Submittal
The September 5, 2017, SIP revision makes several changes to
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 at section (w)--entitled ``Permit
rescission''--to be consistent with the federal provisions for
rescinding PSD permits.\2\ Paragraph (w)(1) currently states that PSD
permits issued pursuant to Standard No. 7 remain in effect until they
expire or are rescinded. This subparagraph is revised in South
Carolina's submittal to clarify that section (w) is the only provision
under which permit rescission is allowed. Next, paragraph (w)(2) is
revised to remove the date restriction discussed in Section II, above,
that limits rescission to PSD permits issued
[[Page 47856]]
under PSD rules in effect on or before July 30, 1987. South Carolina's
revised language is consistent with the federal Permit Rescission Rule,
allowing for permit rescission if the permit meets the requirement of
paragraph (w)(3). Finally, paragraph (w)(3) is revised to change the
word ``shall'' to ``may'' to clarify that this provision does not
create a mandatory duty for the State. This change is consistent with
the Permit Rescission Rule at 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ South Carolina also revised 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 at
paragraph (w)(4) to address EPA's eNotice Rule. As discussed above,
EPA proposed to approve this change in a separate proposed action.
See 83 FR 39638 (August 10, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 5, 2017, SIP revision also revises other paragraphs
in Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 for consistency in formatting, to
correct internal references, and to correct typographical errors.
Section (b) is modified at paragraph (34), subparagraph (vi), to
correct a typographical error in the definition of ``Net emissions
increase.'' Next, sections (w), (aa), and (bb) are revised to be in
bold font for internal consistency. Finally, Standard No. 7 is revised
to make internal references and formatting consistent by making changes
in section (aa) at (aa)(1)(i), (aa)(9), (aa)(11)(i), and (aa)(14)(i).
EPA preliminarily finds that South Carolina's revised rules are
consistent with federal requirements and CAA section 110.
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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SC DHEC regulatory paragraphs identified above in Section
III within SC DHEC Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, entitled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),'' state effective on
August 25, 2017. 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 changes to the SIP identified in
Section III, above, because they are consistent with the CAA and its
implementing regulations.
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 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed approval for the State of South Carolina
does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial
direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation
Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
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: September 10, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-20529 Filed 9-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P