Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2011-11-28 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

698 words·~3 min read·/register/2011/11/28/2011-30297·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: FR Doc. 2011-30297 · EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0017-201014(b) & EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0018-201001(b); FRL-9495-8 · 40 CFR 52

Summary

EPA is proposing to approve several State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC). These revisions establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the three major sources located in the portion of York County, South Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that either emit volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides or both. The bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is hereinafter referred to as the “bi-state Charlotte Area.” In addition, South Carolina's SIP revisions include negative declarations for certain source categories for which EPA has control technique guidelines, meaning that SC DHEC has concluded that no such sources are located in that portion of the nonattainment area. EPA has evaluated the proposed revisions to South Carolina's SIP, and has preliminarily concluded that they are consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements and EPA guidance.

Dates

Written comments must be received on or before December 28, 2011.

Supplementary Information

On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. EPA subsequently announced a reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS, and proposed new 8-hour ozone NAAQS in January 2010. See 75 Fr 2938. In September 2011, EPA withdrew the proposed reconsidered NAAQS and began implementation of the 2008 NAAQS. The current action, however, is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 ozone NAAQS for a portion of York County, South Carolina. Requirements for the bi-state Charlotte Area under the 2008 NAAQS will be addressed in the future. For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. Dated: November 7, 2011. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2011-30297 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]

Connections1 off-index
1 reference not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 52
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
Cite40 CFR 52
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.