[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83571]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26283]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4731-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Colorado; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4731-DR), dated August 25, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 1, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 25, 2023.

    Jefferson County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-26283 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64468-64469]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26917]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Investment Company Act Release No. 31870; File No. 812-14536
Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and AAM ETF Trust; Notice of
Application

October 19, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption
from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections
6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered
open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered
open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment
companies, business development companies, as defined in section
2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively,
``Underlying Funds'') that are within and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess
of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants: AAM ETF Trust, a Massachusetts business trust that intends
to register under the Act as an open-end management investment company
with multiple series and Advisors Asset Management, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 20, 2015.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on November 13, 2015 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/
o Scott I. Colyer, Advisors Asset Management, Inc., 18925 Base Camp
Road, Suite 203, Monument, Colorado 80132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file

number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) a Fund \1\ (each a
``Fund of Funds'') to acquire shares of Underlying Funds \2\ in excess
of the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act and (b) the
Underlying Funds that are registered open-end investment companies or
series thereof, their principal underwriters and any broker or dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to sell shares of
the Underlying Fund to the Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in
section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.\3\ Applicants also request an order of
exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from the prohibition
on certain affiliated transactions in section 17(a) of the Act to the
extent necessary to permit the Underlying Funds to sell their shares
to, and redeem their shares from, the Funds of Funds.\4\ Applicants
state that such transactions will be consistent with the policies of
each Fund of Funds and each Underlying Fund and with the general
purposes of the Act and will be based on the net asset values of the
Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to each existing and
future series of AAM ETF Trust and to each existing and future
registered open-end investment company or series thereof that is
advised by Advisors Asset Management, Inc. or its successor or by
any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with
Advisors Asset Management, Inc. or its successor and is part of the
same ``group of investment companies'' as AAM ETF Trust (each, a
``Fund''). For purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is
limited to an entity that results from a reorganization into another
jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization. For
purposes of the request for relief, the term ``group of investment
companies'' means any two or more investment companies, including
closed-end investment companies and business development companies,
that hold themselves out to investors as related companies for
purposes of investment and investor services.
    \2\ Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained exemptions
from the Commission necessary to permit their shares to be listed
and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'').
    \3\ Applicants represent that a Funds of Funds will not invest
in reliance on the order in business development companies or
closed-end investment companies that are not listed and traded on a
national securities exchange.
    \4\ A Fund of Funds generally would purchase and sell shares of
an Underlying Fund that operates as an ETF through secondary market
transactions rather than through principal transactions with the
Underlying Fund. Applicants nevertheless request relief from section
17(a) to permit a Fund of Funds to purchase or redeem shares from
the ETF. A Fund of Funds will purchase and sell shares of an
Underlying Fund that is a closed-end fund through secondary market
transactions at market prices rather than through principal
transactions with the closed-end fund. Accordingly, applicants are
not requesting section 17(a) relief with respect to transactions in
shares of closed-end funds (including business development
companies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help
prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that
is not in the same ``group of investment companies'' as the Fund of
Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
    3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may
exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section
12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise
prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the
proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve
overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered
investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is
consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the
Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from
any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26917 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51631-51635]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18156]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R4-OAR-2022-0226; FRL-10161-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Revisions To Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunction Rules

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), on November 4, 2016. This
revision was submitted by South Carolina in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy and SIP call published by EPA on June 12, 2015,
of provisions in the South Carolina SIP related to excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is
proposing approval of the SIP revision and proposing to determine that
the revision corrects the deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015,
SIP call. EPA is also proposing to approve portions of multiple SIP
revisions previously submitted by SC DHEC on October 1, 2007, July 18,
2011, August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, as they relate to the
provisions identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R4-
OAR-2022-0226 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 electronically submit any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information, the disclosure of which 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 www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estelle Bae, Air Permits 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. Ms. Bae can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9143 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submissions
    A. Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.L, ``Emergency Provisions''
    B. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C, ``Visible
Emissions''
    C. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4, ``Total
Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills''
III. Proposed Actions
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) outlining EPA's policy at the time with
respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed
specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or
did not comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to

excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP provision that EPA determined
to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the existing
SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On
September 17, 2014, EPA issued a document supplementing and revising
what the Agency had previously proposed in the 2013 NPRM in light of a
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
decision in which the Court found that the CAA precludes authority of
EPA to create affirmative defense provisions applicable to private
civil suits. EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense
SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed
in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised
interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP
provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where
appropriate. See 79 FR 55920 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' hereinafter referred to as the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.''
See 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address
the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the
affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required
to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP
calls by November 22, 2016.
    EPA issued a memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to South Carolina in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including overburdened communities,
receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the
CAA.\4\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the
2020 Memorandum regarding EPA's plans to review and potentially modify
or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects
EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the
2015 SSM SIP Action as the Agency takes action on SIP submissions,
including South Carolina's November 4, 2016, SIP submittal, provided in
response to the 2015 SIP call.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \4\ See 80 FR at 33985.
    \5\ EPA is also proposing to act on the portions of the October
1, 2007, July 18, 2011, August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, SIP
revisions as they relate to the SSM provisions identified in the
June 12, 2015, SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the South Carolina SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action,
EPA determined that two of the South Carolina SIP provisions identified
in the petition for rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club with the EPA
Administrator on June 30, 2011 (the Petition), S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
(Regulation) 61-62.5 Standard No. 1, Section I.C, ``Visible
Emissions,'' and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4,
``Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills,'' were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. See 80 FR at 33964.
In addition, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA identified one provision
that provided an affirmative defense for excess emissions that occur
during emergencies under Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.G.6,
``Emergency Provisions'' (now Section II.L, as explained below in
Section II of this NPRM). This provision was not identified in the
Petition but was included by EPA in the 2015 SSM SIP Action because EPA
determined that it was substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements. See id. The rationale underlying EPA's determination that
these provisions are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements,
and therefore to issue a SIP call to South Carolina to remedy the
provisions, is detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and the accompanying
proposals. South Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA on November
4, 2016,\6\ in response to the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's November 4, 2016,
SIP revision as it relates to SSM events, which would remedy the SIP-
called provisions. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve portions of
South Carolina's SIP revisions submitted on October 1, 2007,\7\ July
18, 2011,\8\ August

8, 2014,\9\ and August 12, 2015,\10\ that re-organize and re-number
sections to clarify and streamline permitting requirements, update
internal references, correct typographical errors, and incorporate
minor updates to the language for clarification and consistency in
South Carolina's SIP. Although these submittals include changes to
several South Carolina air quality regulations, in today's proposed
action, EPA is only proposing to act on the portions of each submission
related to the 2015 SSM SIP Action, which include revisions to
Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.L; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1,
Section I.C; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4.
EPA has acted or will act on all other changes included in the October
1, 2007, July 18, 2011, August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015,
submissions in separate actions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On November 4, 2016, South Carolina also submitted to EPA
other requested SIP revisions: changes to Regulations 61-62.1,
Section III, ``Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements,'' 61-
62.60, ``South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and New Source
Performance Standards,'' and 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air
Quality Standards.'' The SIP revision related to 61-62.1, Section
III, ``Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements'' was approved
on May 31, 2017, see 82 FR 24851, and the SIP revision related to
61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' was
approved on June 29, 2017, see 82 FR 29414. EPA is not acting on the
change made to Regulation 61-62.60, ``South Carolina Designated
Facility Plan and New Source Performance Standards,'' because this
is not part of the federally approved SIP. This proposed action, if
finalized, will fully close out the November 4, 2016, submittal.
    \7\ On October 1, 2007, South Carolina also submitted to EPA
other SIP revisions to Regulations 61-62.1, Section II, ``Permit
Requirements;'' 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, ``Control of Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX);'' and 61-62.5, Standard No. 4,
``Emissions From Process Industries.'' The SIP revision related to
61-62.5 was approved on June 25, 2018. See 83 FR 29455. EPA will
address the remaining changes to the SIP in separate actions.
    \8\ On July 18, 2011, South Carolina also submitted to EPA SIP
revisions to Regulations 61-62.1, Section I, ``Definitions and
General Requirements;'' 61-62.3, ``Air Pollution Episodes;'' 61-
62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality Standards;'' 61-62.5,
Standard No. 4, ``Emissions from Process Industries;'' 61-62.5,
Standard No. 6, ``Alternative Emission Limitation Options
(``Bubble'');'' 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration;'' and 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, ``Nonattainment New
Source Review (NSR).'' This submittal also updated the entirety of
Regulation 61-62 to correct typographical errors, provide
clarification, and delete or update obsolete requirements. The SIP
revision for 61-62.1, Section I was approved June 25, 2018, see 83
FR 29451; 61-62.3 was approved August 21, 2017, see 82 FR 39551; 61-
62.5, Standard No. 2 was approved April 3, 2013, see 78 FR 19994;
61-62.5, Standard No. 4 was approved on June 25, 2018, see 83 FR
29455; 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 was approved on August 10, 2017, see
82 FR 37299; and 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 was approved on August
10, 2017, see 82 FR 37299. EPA will address the remaining SIP
revisions in separate actions.
    \9\ On August 8, 2014, South Carolina also submitted to EPA SIP
revisions to Regulations 61-62.1, Section I, ``Definitions and
General Requirements;'' 61-62.1, Section II, ``Permit
Requirements;'' 61-62.1, Section III, ``Emissions Inventory and
Emissions Statements;'' 61-62.1, Section IV, ``Source Tests;'' 61-
62.1, Section V, ``Credible Evidence;'' 61-62.5, Standard No. 1,
``Emissions From Fuel Burning Operations;'' and 61-62.5, Standard
No. 4, ``Emissions From Process Industries.'' The SIP revision for
61-62.1, Section I was approved June 25, 2018, see 83 FR 29451; 61-
62.1, Section III was approved May 31, 2017, see 82 FR 24851, and
June 12, 2015, see 80 FR 33413; 61-62.1, Section IV was approved
August 21, 2017, see 82 FR 39537; 61-62.1, Section V was approved
August 21, 2017, see 82 FR 39537; 61-62.5, Standard No. 1 was
approved June 25, 2018, see 82 FR 29455; and 61-62.5, Standard No. 4
was approved June 25, 2018, see 83 FR 29455. EPA will address the
remaining changes to the SIP in separate actions.
    \10\ On August 12, 2015, South Carolina also submitted to EPA,
SIP revisions to Regulations 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, ``Emissions
From Fuel Burning Operations;'' 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient
Air Quality Standards;'' 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration;'' and 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1,
``Nonattainment New Source Review.'' The SIP revision for 61-62.5,
Standard No. 2 was approved June 29, 2017, see 82 FR 29414; 61-62.5,
Standard No. 7 was approved August 10, 2017, see 82 FR 37299; 61-
62.5, Standard No. 7.1 was approved August 10, 2017, see 82 FR
37299. This proposed action, if finalized, will fully close out the
August 12, 2015, submittal.
    \11\ See supra notes 7-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of SIP Submissions

A. Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.L, ``Emergency Provisions''

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, and as fully explained in the September
2014 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA identified as
inadequate and issued a SIP call for South Carolina's Regulation 61-
62.1, Section II.G.6, titled ``Emergency Provisions,'' which provides
an affirmative defense for excess emissions during emergencies. To
address this SIP-called provision, South Carolina's November 4, 2016,
SIP revision seeks to remove the affirmative defense for excess
emissions that occur during emergencies, provide minor changes to the
wording, and renumber and otherwise revise the provisions to reflect
the removal of the affirmative defense provision (including replacing a
reference to ``demonstration'' of the affirmative defense of an
emergency with a reference to ``documentation'' of an emergency). EPA
is proposing to approve this removal and to approve portions of the
October 1, 2007, and August 8, 2014, SIP revisions as they relate to
Section II.G.6, including the renumbering of Section II.G.6 to II.L.
    The October 1, 2007, SIP revision seeks to renumber Regulation 61-
62.1, Section II.G.6, as approved in the existing South Carolina SIP,
as Regulation II.L and to remove the entry at Section II.G.6. The
effect of relocating the provision to Section II.L is that the
``Emergency Provisions'' section is now a stand-alone section
applicable to all air quality permits issued by the State, whereas
Section II.G.6 previously applied to conditional major operating
permits only. EPA is also proposing to approve minor changes from the
August 8, 2014, revision which renumber the subparagraphs in the 2007
version of Section II.L as II.L.2 and II.L.3 and make minor changes
related to internal citations.\12\ The combined effect of these two SIP
revisions, as it relates to the inadequate provisions identified in the
2015 SSM SIP Action, is to renumber II.G.6.b (the affirmative defense
provision) as II.L.2 and renumber II.G.6.c. (the affirmative defense
documentation provision) as II.L.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In this proposed action, EPA is proposing to revise the SIP
to make the format of internal citations in the SIP-called
provisions consistent with that of South Carolina's current
regulations. However, the internally referenced provisions
themselves have not yet been renumbered in the SIP. EPA will act on
the remainder of South Carolina's renumbering edits in Regulation
61-62.1 in a later SIP action (or later actions), and until that
time, will include a reference in the regulatory text table noting
the correct cross-references if the Agency finalizes this proposed
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The November 4, 2016, SIP revision removes paragraph II.L.2 (the
affirmative defense provision), renumbers the documentation provision
from paragraph II.L.3 to paragraph II.L.2, and removes the affirmative
defense language from the documentation provision. Thus, the
``Emergency Provisions'' section of Regulation 61-62.1, as revised, no
longer provides an affirmative defense for emergencies.
    Approval of these intervening changes previously submitted to EPA
would not affect EPA's basis for the SIP call on this provision as
provided in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA is approving only the
intervening changes from the current SIP-approved version of Regulation
61-62.1, Section II, as transmitted in the October 1, 2007, and August
8, 2014, SIP revisions in conjunction with the changes transmitted in
the November 4, 2016, submittal, to remove the affirmative defense
provisions. EPA proposes to find that the October 1, 2007, August 8,
2014, and November 4, 2016, SIP revisions, as they relate to Regulation
61-62.1, Section II.G.6 (now Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.L) are
consistent with CAA requirements and adequately address the specific
deficiencies in this provision that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action with respect to the South Carolina SIP.

B. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C, ``Visible
Emissions''

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA issued a SIP call for Regulation
61-62.5, Standard No. 1 titled ``Emissions from Fuel Burning
Operations,'' Section I titled ``Visible Emissions,'' Subsection C
titled ``Special Provisions,'' because it provided an exemption from
opacity limits for excess emissions from fuel-burning operations that
occur during startup or shutdown and was inadequate to meet the
fundamental requirements of the CAA. To address this deficiency, South
Carolina's November 4, 2016, SIP submission, in relevant part, seeks to
remove the portion of Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C,
that provides the exemption. The portion being removed states, ``The
opacity standards set forth above do not apply during startup or
shutdown.'' In addition to correcting the specific deficiency in that
provision that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA proposes
to approve other minor revisions, as they relate to Section I.C, from
the July 18, 2011, and August 12, 2015, submissions.
    The July 18, 2011, submittal seeks to amend the language in
Regulation 61-

62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C to exclude natural gas-fired units
from a requirement to maintain startup, shutdown, and maintenance
records.\13\ On August 12, 2015, South Carolina submitted an additional
revision to this provision which seeks to modify the language to
include propane-fired units in the exemption as well.\14\ On August 16,
2017, EPA published a direct final rule to approve the July 18, 2011,
and August 12, 2015, revisions to Section I.C. See 82 FR 38829.
However, since Section I.C was SIP-called in the 2015 SSM SIP Action,
EPA withdrew the direct final rule and thus did not approve this
portion of the July 18, 2011, and August 12, 2015, submittals. EPA is
now proposing to act on these changes to the SIP-called provision in
conjunction with the State's November 4, 2016, SIP revision, which
addresses the deficiencies identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA is proposing to act on the portions of the July 18,
2011, SIP revision related to what is in the existing SIP under
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C, ``Visible
Emissions,'' only.
    \14\ EPA is proposing to act on the portions of the August 12,
2015, SIP revision related to what is in the existing SIP under
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C, ``Visible
Emissions,'' only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) of the CAA provides that EPA shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. South Carolina considered CAA section 110(l) in requesting the
changes described in the preceding paragraph. The net changes to
Section I.C requested by South Carolina mean that the applicable
opacity standards will apply at all times to the SIP units specified at
Sections I.A and I.B of Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, and only
those units burning natural gas or propane exclusively will be excluded
from the requirement to maintain logs of startup and shutdown periods.
In a letter dated December 30, 2016,\15\ South Carolina explains that
the State expects no increase in actual emissions as a result of
exempting units burning only natural gas and propane fuels from
maintaining logs of startup and shutdown periods because there are
minimal opacity concerns with these fuels during startup, shutdown, or
other operational modes. Because natural gas and propane contain
relatively minor amounts of sulfur and the combustion of these fuels
results in relatively minor emissions of particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, and sulfuric acid, all of which could result in visible
emissions, opacity is expected to be minimal when these fuels are
burned exclusively. See 58 FR 3590, 3645, 3656 (January 11, 1993).
Furthermore, these requested changes to Section I.C will not result in
any increase in emissions because they do not change any applicable
emission limitations and will not affect the State's ability to attain
or maintain state or federal standards or reasonable further progress.
Thus, EPA proposes to find that the July 18, 2011, August 12, 2015, and
November 4, 2016, SIP revisions pertaining to Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 1, Section I.C, are consistent with CAA requirements and
adequately address the specific deficiencies in this provision that EPA
identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to the South
Carolina SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This letter is included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4, ``Total Reduced
Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills''

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 4 titled ``Emissions from Process Industries,'' Section XI
titled ``Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills,''
Subsection D titled ``Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting,''
Paragraph 4, was substantially inadequate to meet the fundamental
requirements of the CAA, as it provided an exemption from sulfur limits
for kraft pulp mills for excess emissions that occur during SSM. In the
November 4, 2016, submission, South Carolina requests removal of
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4, thereby eliminating
the exemption from sulfur limits for kraft pulp mills for excess
emissions that occur during SSM events. EPA proposes to find that South
Carolina's SIP revision removing Section XI.D.4 is consistent with CAA
requirements and adequately addresses the specific deficiency in this
provision that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect
to the South Carolina SIP.

III. Proposed Actions

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). As
described in Section II of this NPRM, EPA is proposing to approve South
Carolina's November 4, 2016, SIP submission with respect to Regulation
61-62.1, Section II.L; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C;
and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4. EPA is also
proposing to approve portions of the October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011,
August 8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, South Carolina SIP submissions
that seek revisions to these provisions, as specified in Section II of
this NPRM. EPA is further proposing to find that these SIP revisions
correct the deficiencies identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and
fully satisfy South Carolina's obligations with respect to the SIP call
included in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Accordingly, the approval would
remove the inconsistency between the EPA's SIP-approved rules and South
Carolina's rules (i.e., a ``SIP gap'') for Regulation 61-62.1, Section
II.L; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I.C; and Regulation
61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Section XI.D.4. EPA is not reopening the 2015
SSM SIP Action and is taking comment only on whether this SIP revision
is consistent with CAA requirements and whether it addresses the
substantial inadequacies in the specific South Carolina SIP provisions
identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I
through III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into the South Carolina SIP Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.L,
``Emergency Provisions,'' State effective on September 23, 2016; \16\
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1, Section I, ``Visible Emissions,''
State effective on September 23, 2016; and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard
No. 4, Section XI, ``Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp
Mills,'' State effective on September 23, 2016. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through https://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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The remaining portions of Regulation 61-62.1, Section II,
would retain the June 24, 2005, State effective date, as currently
approved in the South Carolina SIP under 40 CFR 52.2120(c).
Additionally, although Section II.G of Regulation 61-62.1 would
retain the June 24, 2005, State effective date, paragraph G.6
specifically is being proposed for removal from the South Carolina
SIP because it is being recodified as Section II.L of Regulation 61-
62.1. These changes are explained in more detail in Section II.A of
this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these
proposed actions merely approve removal of State law not meeting
Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond
those already imposed by State law. For that reason, these proposed
actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    Because these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law, these proposed actions
for the State of South Carolina do not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, these proposed actions will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian
Nation (CIN) Reservation is located within the boundary of York County,
South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act,
S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to
impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies,
in accordance with the Settlement Act.

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: August 18, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-18156 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P