11894 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4661 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785–201041; FRL– 

9637–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; South 

Carolina; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the South 

Carolina state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on 

December 17, 2007, that addresses 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules 

that require states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (national parks and 

wilderness areas) caused by emissions 

of air pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of this SIP 

revision to implement the regional haze 

requirements for South Carolina on the 

basis that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the South Carolina SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

rescind the Federal regulations 

previously approved into the South 

Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and 

November 24, 1987, and to rely on the 

provisions in South Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to 

meet the monitoring and long-term 

strategy (LTS) requirements for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI). EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

South Carolina regional haze SIP 

because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC 

Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, 

EPA is not proposing to take action in 

this rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0785, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0785.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni or Sara Waterson, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. Sara 

Waterson can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9061 and by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11895 

1EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for South Carolina Regional 

Haze SIP Submittal,’’ is included in the public 

docket for this action. 

2Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 

from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 4Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas 

consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a 

‘‘mandatory Class I federal area.’’ 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. LTS 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI 

LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of South 

Carolina’s regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in South Carolina and 

Surrounding Areas 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in 

the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

6. BART 

7. RPGs 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of South Carolina’s December 17, 2007, 

SIP revision addressing regional haze 

under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(3) because the revision as a 

whole strengthens the South Carolina 

SIP. This proposed rulemaking and the 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for 

EPA’s proposed limited approval 

action.2

In a separate action, EPA has 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

South Carolina regional haze SIP 

because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements. See 

76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA 

is not proposing to take action in today’s 

rulemaking on issues associated with 

South Carolina’s reliance on CAIR in its 

regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA’s 

proposed limited disapproval of South 

Carolina’s regional haze SIP are 

accepted at the docket for EPA’s 

December 30, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0729). The comment 

period for EPA’s December 30, 2011, 

proposed rulemaking is scheduled to 

end on February 28, 2012. 

In this action, EPA is also proposing 

to rescind the Federal regulations in 40 

CFR 52.2132 that were approved into 

the South Carolina SIP. See 50 FR 28544 

(July 12, 1985) and 52 FR 45132 

(November 24, 1987). In summary, EPA 

is proposing to rely on the provisions in 

South Carolina’s December 17, 2007, 

SIP submittal to meet the monitoring 

and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 

CFR 51.305 and 40 CFR 51.306. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 3 in many Class I 

areas 4 (i.e., national parks and 

memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11896 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5

40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various Federal agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

Southeastern United States. Member 

state and tribal governments include: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.6

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural, and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11897 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emissions 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress which states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emissions sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 7 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emissions limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emissions sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emissions limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for 

CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

EPA’s regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR Federal 

implementation plan in 40 CFR part 97 

need not require affected BART-eligible 

electrical generating units (EGUs) to 

install, operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not 

address direct emissions of PM, states 

were still required to conduct a BART 

analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 

subject to BART for that pollutant. 

Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted 

in the remand of the rule to EPA. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to 

address the interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. 

See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the 

Transport Rule,’’ also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this 

proposed finding, EPA also proposed to 

revise the RHR to allow states to 

substitute participation in the trading 

programs under the Transport Rule for 

source-specific BART. EPA has not yet 

taken final action on that rule. Also on 

December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

E. LTS 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

RAVI LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state. The strategy must 

be coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in section 51.305 for 

RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11899 

8The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emissions sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of South 

Carolina’s regional haze submittal? 

On December 17, 2007, SC DHEC’s 

Bureau of Air Quality submitted a 

revision to the South Carolina SIP to 

address regional haze in the State’s 

Class I area as required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

South Carolina has one Class I area 

within its borders: the Cape Romain 

Wilderness Area (Cape Romain). South 

Carolina is responsible for developing a 

regional haze SIP that addresses this 

Class I area and for consulting with 

other states that impact South Carolina’s 

Class I area. The State determined 

appropriate RPGs, including consulting 

with other states that impact the Class 

I area, as discussed in section IV.F.1. In 

addition, South Carolina is responsible 

for describing its long-term emissions 

strategies, its role in the consultation 

processes, and how its particular state 

SIP meets the other requirements in 

EPA’s regional haze regulations. 

The South Carolina regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at this Class I area and an 

LTS to achieve those RPGs within the 

first regional haze implementation 

period ending in 2018. In developing 

the LTS, South Carolina considered 

both emissions sources inside and 

outside of South Carolina that may 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in South Carolina’s Class I 

area. The State also identified and 

considered emissions sources within 

South Carolina that may cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in neighboring states as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 

VISTAS RPO worked with the State in 

developing the technical analyses used 

to make these determinations, including 

state-by-state contributions to visibility 

impairment in specific Class I areas, 

which included the one area in South 

Carolina and those areas affected by 

emissions from South Carolina. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, South Carolina 

calculated baseline/current and natural 

visibility conditions for its Class I area, 

as summarized below (and as further 

described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 

of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register 

action). 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to the 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.8

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. South Carolina opted to use 

the default estimates for the natural 

concentrations combined with the ‘‘new 

IMPROVE equation’’ for its Class I area. 

Using this approach, natural visibility 

conditions using the new IMPROVE 

equation were calculated separately for 

each Class I area by VISTAS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in numerous published 

papers. See, e.g.: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, 

Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 

Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final 

Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative 

Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/publications/GrayLit/ 

016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; 

and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: 

Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 

Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final 

Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to 

the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. 

September 2006. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

10The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for 

‘‘deciview.’’ 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 9 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

SC DHEC estimated baseline visibility 

conditions at Cape Romain using 

available monitoring data from a single 

IMPROVE monitoring site. As explained 

in section III.B, baseline visibility 

conditions are the same as current 

conditions for the first regional haze 

SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 to 

2004 monitoring data was calculated for 

each of the 20 percent worst and 20 

percent best visibility days at the South 

Carolina Class I area. IMPROVE data 

records for Cape Romain for the period 

2000 to 2004 meet EPA requirements for 

data completeness. See page 2–8 of 

EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. 

Table 3.3–1 from Appendix G of the 

South Carolina regional haze SIP, also 

provided in section III.B.3 of EPA’s TSD 

to this action, lists the 20 percent best 

and worst days for the baseline period 

of 2000–2004 for Cape Romain. These 

data are also provided at the following 

Web site: http://www.metro4- 

sesarm.org/vistas/ 

SesarmBext_20BW.htm. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the South Carolina Class I area, 

baseline visibility conditions on the 20 

percent worst days are generally 

between 25 and 30 deciviews. Natural 

visibility in this area is predicted to be 

between approximately 12 and 13 

deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. 

The natural and baseline conditions for 

South Carolina’s Class I area for both the 

20 percent worst and best days are 

presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE CAPE ROMAIN CLASS I AREA

Condition 

Average for 

20% worst 

days 

(dv 10) 

Average for 

20% best 

days (dv) 

Baseline Visibility Conditions 2000–2004 ................................................................................................................ 26.5 14.3 

Natural Background Visibility Conditions ................................................................................................................. 12.2 5.9 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, South Carolina 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and 

the emissions reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glidepath. 

The State’s implementation plan 

presents two sets of graphs, one for the 

20 percent best days, and one for the 20 

percent worst days, for its Class I area. 

South Carolina constructed the graph 

for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for the Cape 

Romain area. For the best days, the 

graph includes a horizontal, straight line 

spanning from baseline conditions in 

2004 out to 2018 to depict no 

degradation in visibility over the 

implementation period of the SIP. South 

Carolina’s SIP shows that the State’s 

RPGs for its area provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best days over the same period, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

For Cape Romain, the overall 

visibility improvement necessary to 

reach natural conditions is the 

difference between baseline visibility of 

26.48 deciviews for the 20 percent worst 

days and natural conditions of 12.21 

deciviews, i.e., 14.27 deciviews. Over 

the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, 

this would require an approximate 

average improvement of 0.24 deciview 

per year (i.e., 14.27 deciviews/60 years) 

to reach natural conditions. Hence, for 

the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in 

order to achieve visibility improvement 

at least equivalent to the uniform rate of 

progress for the 20 percent worst days 

at Cape Romain, a visibility 

improvement of at least 3.36 deciviews 

would be needed over the first 

implementation period (i.e., 0.24 

deciview × 14 years = 3.36 deciviews) 

from the baseline visibility of 26.48 

deciviews, resulting in visibility levels 

at or below 23.12 deciviews in 2018. As 

discussed below in section IV.C.7, 

South Carolina projects a 3.8 deciview 

improvement to visibility from the 2004 

baseline of 26.5 deciviews to 22.7 

deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent 

most impaired days, and a 1.5 deciview 

improvement to 12.7 deciviews from the 

baseline visibility of 14.2 deciviews for 

the 20 percent least impaired days. 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section III.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11901 

11See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). 

the state for achieving its RPGs. South 

Carolina’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the end of the baseline 

period starting in 2004 until 2018. The 

South Carolina LTS was developed by 

the State, in coordination with the 

VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of 

the following components: (1) 

Identification of the emissions units 

within South Carolina and in 

surrounding states that likely have the 

largest impacts currently on visibility at 

the State’s Class I area; (2) estimation of 

emissions reductions for 2018 based on 

all controls required or expected under 

Federal and state regulations for the 

2004–2018 period (including BART); (3) 

comparison of projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for the State’s Class I area; and 

(4) application of the four statutory 

factors in the reasonable progress 

analysis for the identified emissions 

units to determine if additional 

reasonable controls were required. 

In a separate action proposing limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 

a number of states, EPA noted that these 

states relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a LTS sufficient 

to achieve the state-adopted reasonable 

progress goals. See 76 FR 82219 

(December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA 

proposed a limited disapproval of South 

Carolina’s regional haze SIP submittal 

insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For 

that reason, EPA is not taking action on 

that aspect of South Carolina’s regional 

haze SIP in this action. Comments on 

the December 30, 2011, proposed 

determination were accepted at Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729. The 

comment period for EPA’s December 30, 

2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled 

to end on February 28, 2012. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from South Carolina. The 2018 

emissions inventory was developed by 

projecting 2002 emissions and applying 

reductions expected from Federal and 

state regulations affecting the emissions 

of VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). As discussed further in 

section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses, which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into South 

Carolina’s regional haze analyses, South 

Carolina did not further evaluate NH3

and VOC emissions sources for potential 

controls under BART or reasonable 

progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

Stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. Stationary point 

sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use the roadways); 

and (c) biogenic sources (which are 

natural sources of emissions, such as 

trees). On-road mobile source emissions 

are estimated by vehicle type and road 

type, and are summed to the 

countywide level. 

There are many Federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and South Carolina 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the end of the baseline period 

and 2018. Emissions reductions from 

these control programs are projected to 

achieve substantial visibility 

improvement by 2018 in Cape Romain. 

The control programs relied upon by 

South Carolina include CAIR; EPA’s 

NOX SIP Call; North Carolina’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act; Georgia’s multipollutant rule; consent decrees for 

Santee Cooper, Tampa Electric, Virginia 

Electric and Power Company, Gulf 

Power-Plant Crist, and East Kentucky 

Power Cooperative; NOX and/or VOC 

reductions from the control rules in 

1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, 

Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; 

North Carolina’s NOX reasonably 

available control technology state rule 

for Philip Morris USA and Norandal 

USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock 

Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 

engine standards for on-road trucks and 

buses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls 

for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; EPA’s non-road diesel rules; 

South Carolina’s Smoke Management 

Guideline for Vegetative Debris Burning 

Operations and state regulation, 

Prohibition of Open Burning (R. 61– 

62.2); and Early Action Compacts with 

45 out of 46 counties in South Carolina 

to reduce pollution that creates groundlevel ozone. Controls from various 

Federal Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules were also 

utilized in the development of the 2018 

emissions inventory projections. These 

MACT rules include the industrial 

boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 

as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 

MACT standards. 

Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. 

Circuit mandated the vacatur and 

remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT 

Rule.11 This MACT was vacated since it 

was directly affected by the vacatur and 

remand of the Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address 

the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 

32006) and issued a final rule on March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS 

modeling included emissions 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule, and South Carolina 

did not redo its modeling analysis when 

the rule was re-issued. Even though 

South Carolina’s modeling is based on 

the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT 

limits, the State’s modeling conclusions 

are unlikely to be affected because the 

expected reductions due to the vacated 

rule were relatively small compared to 

the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, and coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 

2018 (i.e., 0.2 to 0.5 percent, depending 

on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 

SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the vacated and final Industrial 

Boiler MACT emissions limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing South 

Carolina regional haze SIP. If there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects 

South Carolina to do so in the State’s 

five-year progress report. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Below in Tables 2 and 3 are 

summaries of the 2002 baseline and 

2018 estimated emissions inventories 

for South Carolina. 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 38,928 130,681 27,766 36,779 1,552 263,790 

Area .................................................................................. 175,666 24,602 63,802 287,162 29,074 14,087 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 114,861 138,941 2,473 6,505 4,646 5,909 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................... 55,016 50,249 3,945 4,152 33 4,866 

Total .......................................................................... 384,471 344,473 97,986 334,598 35,305 288,652 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 44,562 95,477 36,118 53,054 2,396 146,851

Area .................................................................................. 177,273 26,491 70,274 333,404 34,535 14,816 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 41,866 39,348 988 3,994 5,878 584 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................... 36,131 31,758 2,474 2,617 41 1,198 

Total .......................................................................... 299,832 193,074 109,854 393,069 42,850 163,449 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including South 

Carolina. The modeling analysis is a 

complex technical evaluation that began 

with selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic, 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional-scale 

photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze 

regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emissions inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire, and biogenic emissions sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. The 

photochemical model selected for this 

study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was 

modified through VISTAS with a 

module for Secondary Organics 

Aerosols in an open and transparent 

manner that was also subjected to 

outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12×12 

kilometer cells that covers the 10 

VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia) and states 

adjacent to them. This grid is nested 

within a larger national CMAQ 

modeling grid of 36×36 kilometer grid 

cells that covers the continental United 

States, portions of Canada and Mexico, 

and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

Selection of a representative period of 

meteorology is crucial for evaluating 

baseline air quality conditions and 

projecting future changes in air quality 

due to changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS 

conducted an in-depth analysis which 

resulted in the selection of the entire 

year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as 

the best period of meteorology available 

for conducting the CMAQ modeling. 

The VISTAS states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ 

eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of South Carolina 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11903 

develop the glidepath and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA proposes to accept the 

VISTAS technical modeling to support 

the LTS and determine visibility 

improvement for the uniform rate of 

progress because the modeling system 

was chosen and simulated according to 

EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes 

to agree with the VISTAS model 

performance procedures and results, 

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 

tool for the regional haze assessments 

for the South Carolina LTS and regional 

haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emissions sensitivity model runs using 

CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air 

quality impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the 

calculated light extinction at the inland 

Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

for all but one of the coastal Class I areas 

in the VISTAS states. In particular, for 

Cape Romain, sulfate particles resulting 

from SO2 emissions contribute roughly 

71 percent to the calculated light 

extinction on the haziest days. In 

contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed 

less than five percent of the calculated 

light extinction at the VISTAS Class I 

areas on the 20 percent worst visibility 

days. Particulate organic matter (organic 

carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less 

of the light extinction on the 20 percent 

worst visibility days at the VISTAS 

Class I areas. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region, and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. South 

Carolina’s Cape Romain area is 

classified as a ‘‘coastal’’ area. 

Results from VISTAS’ emissions 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS. South Carolina concluded that 

reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 

non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS 

states would have the greatest visibility 

benefits for Cape Romain. Because 

ammonium nitrate is a small contributor 

to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment 

on the 20 percent worst days at the 

coastal Class I areas in VISTAS, which 

include Cape Romain, the benefits of 

reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at 

these sites are small. Some of the worst 

days at Cape Romain and other coastal 

sites within the VISTA region occur in 

the winter when ammonium nitrate has 

a somewhat larger contribution to 

visibility impairment. South Carolina 

concluded that reducing ammonia 

emissions would be more beneficial for 

reducing ammonium nitrate 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

wintertime than further reducing NOX

emissions from either ground or point 

sources. 

The VISTAS’ sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little if any 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region, including South 

Carolina’s area. The sensitivity analyses 

also show that reducing primary carbon 

from point sources, ground level 

sources, or fires is projected to have 

small to no visibility benefit at the 

VISTAS Class I areas. 

South Carolina considered the factors 

listed in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) 

and in section III.E of this action to 

develop its LTS as described below. 

South Carolina, in conjunction with 

VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that 

elemental carbon (a product of highway 

and non-road diesel engines, 

agricultural burning, prescribed fires, 

and wildfires), fine soils (a product of 

construction activities and activities 

that generate fugitive dust), and 

ammonia are relatively minor 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

the Class I area in South Carolina. South 

Carolina considered agricultural and 

forestry smoke management techniques, 

in conjunction with the State’s open 

burning requirements, to address 

visibility impacts from elemental 

carbon. The South Carolina Forestry 

Commission (SCFC) developed a smoke 

management program (Smoke 

Management Guideline for Vegetative 

Debris Burning Operations), which 

regulates vegetative debris burning for 

forestry, agriculture, and wildlife 

purposes in the State. SC DHEC and 

SCFC have a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) describing their 

respective roles in implementing the 

State’s smoke management plan that 

utilizes basic smoke management 

practices and addresses the issues laid 

out in EPA’s 1998 Interim Air Quality 

Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. SC 

DHEC notes in its SIP that this MOU 

represents the State’s collective 

commitment to develop a 

comprehensive approach to establish 

and maintain a smoke management 

plan. In addition, SC DHEC’s Bureau of 

Air Quality has developed a state air 

pollution control regulation (R. 61–62.2, 

Prohibition of Open Burning) that 

prohibits: (a) Open burning of any/all 

household garbage, (b) open burning for 

the purpose of land clearing or right of 

way maintenance in areas other than 

predominantly residential areas, and (c) 

open burning of residential construction 

waste from building and construction 

operations unless specific conditions 

are met. South Carolina notes in its SIP 

that, viewed together, the State’s smoke 

management program and open burning 

requirements minimize visibility 

impacts from all sources of fire used for 

land management purposes within the 

State while recognizing the important 

ecological role of fires. With regard to 

fine soils, the State considered those 

activities that generate fugitive dust, 

including construction activities. Fine 

soil particles are minor contributors to 

visibility at Cape Romain. The State has 

chosen not to develop controls for fine 

soils in this first implementation period 

because of their relatively minor 

contribution to visibility impairment. 

EPA preliminarily concurs with the 

State’s technical demonstration showing 

that elemental carbon, fine soils, and 

ammonia are not significant 

contributors to visibility in the State’s 

Class I area, and therefore, proposes to 

find that South Carolina has adequately 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

12Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ 

States cooperated with FLMs, EPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

13See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 

contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, 

excerpted from the South Carolina’s regional haze 

SIP submittal, Appendix H. 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s 

TSD to this Federal Register action and 

South Carolina’s SIP provide more 

details on the State’s consideration of 

these factors for South Carolina’s LTS. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific 

to South Carolina, the VISTAS 

sensitivity analysis projects visibility 

benefits in Cape Romain from SO2

reductions from EGUs in eight of the 10 

VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. Additional, smaller benefits 

are projected from SO2 emissions 

reductions from non-utility industrial 

point sources. SO2 emissions 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from other RPO regions are 

comparatively small in contrast to the 

VISTAS states’ contributions, and thus, 

controlling sources outside of the 

VISTAS region is predicted to provide 

less significant improvements in 

visibility in the Class I areas within 

VISTAS. 

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity 

analyses results into consideration, 

South Carolina concluded that reducing 

SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU 

point sources within South Carolina 

would have the greatest visibility 

benefits for Cape Romain. The State 

chose to focus solely on evaluating 

certain SO2 sources contributing to 

visibility impairment to the State’s Class 

I area for additional emissions 

reductions for reasonable progress in 

this first implementation period 

(described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 

of this action). EPA proposes to agree 

with the State’s analyses and 

conclusions used to determine the 

pollutants and source categories that 

most contribute to visibility impairment 

in the South Carolina Class I area, and 

proposes to find the State’s approach to 

focus on developing a LTS that includes 

largely additional measures for point 

sources of SO2 emissions to be 

appropriate. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the State may 

use different criteria for identifying 

sources for evaluation and may consider 

other pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in South Carolina and 

Surrounding Areas 

As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 

action, through comprehensive 

evaluations by VISTAS and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI),12 the VISTAS states 

concluded that sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions account 

for the greatest portion of the regional 

haze affecting the Class I areas in 

VISTAS states, including Cape Romain 

in South Carolina. Utility and nonutility boilers are the main sources of 

SO2 emissions within the southeastern 

United States. VISTAS developed a 

methodology for South Carolina, which 

enables the State to focus its reasonable 

progress analysis on those geographic 

regions and source categories that 

impact visibility at its Class I area. 

Recognizing that there was neither 

sufficient time nor adequate resources 

available to evaluate all emissions units 

within a given area of influence (AOI) 

around each Class I area that South 

Carolina’s sources impact, the State 

established a threshold to determine 

which emissions units would be 

evaluated for reasonable progress 

control. In applying this methodology, 

SC DHEC first calculated the fractional 

contribution to visibility impairment 

from all emissions units within the SO2

AOI for Cape Romain and from those 

surrounding areas in other states 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

emissions units in South Carolina. The 

State then identified those emissions 

units with a contribution of one percent 

or more to the visibility impairment at 

that particular Class I area, and 

evaluated each of these units for control 

measures for reasonable progress, using 

the following four ‘‘reasonable progress 

factors’’ as required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of 

compliance; (ii) time necessary for 

compliance; (iii) energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (iv) remaining useful 

life of the emissions unit. 

South Carolina’s SO2 AOI 

methodology captured greater than 80 

percent of the total point source SO2

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I area in South Carolina and 

required an evaluation of 22 emissions 

units. Capturing a significantly greater 

percentage of the total contribution 

would involve an evaluation of many 

more emissions units that have 

substantially less impact. EPA believes 

the approach developed by VISTAS and 

implemented for the Class I area in 

South Carolina is a reasonable 

methodology to prioritize the most 

significant contributors to regional haze 

and to identify sources to assess for 

reasonable progress control in the 

State’s Class I area. The approach is 

consistent with EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance. The technical 

approach of VISTAS and South Carolina 

was objective and based on several 

analyses, which included a large 

universe of emissions units within and 

surrounding the State of South Carolina 

and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. 

It also included an analysis of the 

VISTAS emissions units affecting 

nearby Class I areas surrounding the 

VISTAS states that are located in other 

RPOs’ Class I areas. 

5. Application of the Four CAA factors 

in the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

SC DHEC identified 22 emissions 

units at 13 facilities in South Carolina 

(see Table 4) with SO2 emissions that 

were above the State’s minimum 

threshold for reasonable progress 

evaluation because they were modeled 

to fall within the sulfate AOI of any 

Class I area and have a one percent or 

greater contribution to the sulfate 

visibility impairment to at least one 

Class I area.13 Using the expected costs 

of controls for EGUs complying with 

CAIR as an indicator of what might be 

reasonable for non-EGU sources, SC 

DHEC established a threshold of $2,000 

per ton of SO2 for controls. Next, an 

analysis of control options, generic costs 

of controls, and cost per ton for various 

units contributing greater than one 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11905 

percent to any Class I area was 

developed and matched with data from 

AirControlNET, an EPA air pollution 

control cost database (accessible at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/ 

AirControlNET.htm), to identify 

expected cost per ton reduced for the 

application of each of the specific 

control measures available for these 

units. SC DHEC then compared the 

range cost effectiveness estimates for 

these units to its cost threshold of 

$2,000 per ton for controls. As 

explained in section IV.C.5, 16 of these 

22 emissions units were already subject 

to CAIR or were determined to not have 

a reasonable expectation of having 

control costs less than $2,000 per ton. 

TABLE 4—SOUTH CAROLINA FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis: 

DAK Americas, SC 

Giant Cement, SC 

Holcim Holly Hill, SC Units 1, 2 

International Paper—Georgetown, SC 

MeadWestvaco, SC 

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area: 

EGUs Subject to CAIR: 

Duke Energy—Lee, Units 1, 2, 3 

Santee Cooper—Cross, Units 2, 3 

Santee Cooper—Jefferies Units 3, 4 

South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G)—Canadys, Units 1, 2 

SCE&G—Williams, Unit 1 

Facilities With Unit(s) Evaluated using AirControlNET Only: 

Alumax of South Carolina Units 2, 3, 4, 5 

Cogen South 

Showa Denko Carbon 

A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) 

Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis 

SC DHEC analyzed whether SO2

controls should be required for six units 

at five facilities, (DAK Americas, 

MeadWestvaco, Giant Cement, Holcim 

Holly Hill Units 1 and 2, and 

International Paper), based on a 

consideration of the four factors set out 

in the CAA and EPA’s regulations. For 

the limited purpose of evaluating the 

cost of compliance for the reasonable 

progress assessment in this first regional 

haze SIP for the non-EGUs, SC DHEC 

concluded that it was not equitable to 

require non-EGUs to bear a greater 

economic burden than EGUs for a given 

control strategy. Using CAIR as a guide, 

SC DHEC used a cost of $2,000 per ton 

of SO2 controlled or reduced as a 

threshold for cost effectiveness. 

1. DAK Americas 

DAK Americas operates a facility in 

Moncks Comer, South Carolina, which 

produces polyethylene terephthalate 

(also commonly known as ‘‘PET’’) and 

finishes it into synthetic fibers and 

bottle resin products. Boiler No. 2, a 206 

million British thermal unit per hour 

(MMBtu/hr) bituminous coal-fired 

boiler, was subject to a reasonable 

progress control review. Currently, the 

existing air pollution control device is a 

baghouse to control PM and a one 

percent sulfur limit on the coal sulfur 

content to control sulfur emissions. 

Boiler No. 2 is the only coal-fired boiler 

at the site. SC DHEC reviewed five 

technologies for reasonable progress: 

Low-sulfur coal, wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD), spray dryer 

absorber (SDA), fluidized-bed 

combustion, and dry sorbent injection. 

The energy and non-air quality impacts 

of the options were qualitatively ranked 

according to the degree of energy usage 

and waste generation generally 

associated with each option. The FGD 

and SDA options are the most costeffective options but would only reduce 

emissions 33–48 tons and are 

anticipated to be $3,758 and over $4,000 

per ton, respectively. SC DHEC deemed 

all the available control options to be 

above its $2,000 per ton of SO2

controlled cost effectiveness threshold. 

2. Giant Cement Company (Giant) 

Giant owns and operates a Portland 

cement manufacturing facility located in 

Harleyville, South Carolina. In 2005, 

Giant completed the modernization of 

its cement manufacturing facility. The 

modernized cement facility consists of 

one dry process cement kiln system that 

replaced four wet process cement kilns. 

The modernized cement kiln system is 

more energy efficient than the previous 

wet process cement kilns. A Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permit to construct and operate the kiln 

system was issued in 2003, and the first 

clinker was produced in March 2005. 

Based on the information in the 

reasonable progress control analysis that 

Giant provided, SC DHEC concluded 

that switching to low sulfur coal is not 

a cost effective solution to address SO2

emissions at the Giant facility. Sulfur 

input to the cement kiln system as a 

result of coal usage is less than five 

percent of the total sulfur input, which 

corresponds to between 55 and 69 tons 

of SO2 emitted per year. Switching to a 

low sulfur coal reduces emissions 

between 24 and 36 tons of SO2 per year, 

but at a cost ranging from $7,801 to 

$11,152 per ton of SO2 reduced. SC 

DHEC concluded that none of the 

control options would be below its cost 

effectiveness threshold for reasonable 

progress. 

3. Holcim (US) Inc. (Holcim) 

The Holcim Holly Hill Plant produces 

Portland cement. The two wet process 

cement kilns identified in the 

reasonable progress analysis at the Holly 

Hill facility were shut down in 2003 and 

eventually demolished. They were 

replaced with a single, more efficient 

preheater precalciner kiln system which 

began operation in 2003. Holcim 

prepared a reasonable progress control 

analysis to assess the potential switch to 

lower sulfur fuel oil from three percent 

sulfur coal, which is the sulfur level that 

the current permit is based upon. The 

analysis demonstrated that this switch 

would result in a maximum SO2

reduction of 4,011 tons at an additional 

cost to Holcim of $41,039 per ton of SO2

removed. SC DHEC concluded that 

additional reductions from this facility 

would be above its cost effectiveness 

threshold. 

4. International Paper 

International Paper operates a paper 

mill located in Georgetown, South 

Carolina. Units subject to a reasonable 

progress analysis are the No. 1 Power 

Boiler, No. 2 Power Boiler, No. 1 

Recovery Boiler, and No. 2 Recovery 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Boiler. The power boilers currently burn 

a diverse fuel mix consisting of wood, 

coal, tire-derived fuel, fuel oil, natural 

gas, and propane. These power boilers 

are permitted for several additional 

fuels that are currently not being 

utilized. The fuels that contribute to 

sulfur emissions are coal, tire-derived 

fuel, and No. 6 fuel oil. The recovery 

boilers primarily burn black liquor 

solids, but also burn limited amounts of 

No. 6 fuel oil, primarily during start-up 

(e.g., less than two percent of fuel input 

annually). International Paper prepared 

a reasonable progress control analysis 

which evaluated three fuel switching 

options. 

The Mill evaluated switching sulfurcontributing fuels (coal, tire-derived 

fuel, and No. 6 fuel oil) with natural gas, 

low-sulfur fuel oil, and distillate oils for 

the reasonable progress control analysis. 

The first option was to replace all coal, 

No. 6 fuel oil, and tire-derived fuel with 

natural gas. The second option was to 

replace all sulfur fuels with low sulfur 

fuel oil. The Mill’s title V permit limits 

No. 6 fuel oil consumption in the power 

boilers. Therefore, the Mill calculated 

the second option two ways: (a) 

Replacing as much fuel oil as possible 

with low sulfur fuel oil and leaving the 

balance as natural gas, and (b) assuming 

the Mill would not be limited on firing 

low sulfur fuel oil, calculating a 

complete fuel switch to low sulfur fuel 

oil. The third option was to replace all 

coal, No. 6 fuel oil, and tire-derived fuel 

with low sulfur distillate oils. The 

annual SO2 emissions reductions from 

these options ranged from 2,281 to 3,284 

tons of SO2. However, the costeffectiveness estimates for the fuel 

switching options ranged from $6,417 to 

$10,012 per ton SO2, which are above 

SC DHEC’s cost effectiveness threshold. 

5. MeadWestvaco 

MeadWestvaco Corporation operates a 

paper mill in North Charleston, South 

Carolina. MeadWestvaco Corporation 

submitted a reasonable progress control 

analysis for a switch to a lower sulfur 

fuel for the two recovery boilers listed 

in emissions unit ID 06 of title V Air 

Quality Operating (title V) Permit TV– 

0560–0008. The reasonable progress 

control analysis evaluated costs 

associated with the most feasible fuel 

switch, a change from high sulfur No. 6 

fuel oil to low sulfur No. 6 fuel oil. No. 

6 fuel oil is used mainly as startup/ 

shutdown fuel in the recovery boilers; 

however, it can be used to supplement 

and stabilize steam load when the 

recovery boilers are burning black 

liquor. The analysis used the worst case 

scenario for SO2 emissions, which is to 

assume all fuel oil is burned without 

black liquor, because burning a blend of 

fuel oil and black liquor would be 

expected to yield lower emissions than 

fuel oil firing alone. This analysis 

considered firing the furnace at actual 

fuel usage rates and at a maximum level, 

consistent with its existing SO2 PSD 

limit. Changing from high sulfur No. 6 

fuel oil to low sulfur No. 6 oil in the No. 

1 recovery boiler would reduce SO2

emissions 81 tons and cost $7,463 per 

ton of SO2 removed based on the actual 

operating scenario and reduce SO2

emissions 384 tons and cost $3,359 per 

ton of SO2 removed at its maximum 

allowed operating level. Both scenarios 

are above SC DHEC’s $2,000 per ton SO2

emissions removed cost effectiveness 

threshold. 

6. EPA Assessment 

As noted in EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, the states have wide 

latitude to determine appropriate 

additional control requirements for 

ensuring reasonable progress, and there 

are many ways for a state to approach 

identification of additional reasonable 

measures. States must consider the four 

statutory factors, at a minimum, in 

determining reasonable progress, but 

states have flexibility in how to take 

these factors into consideration. 

South Carolina applied the 

methodology developed by VISTAS for 

identifying appropriate sources to be 

considered for additional controls under 

reasonable progress for the 

implementation period ending in 2018 

that is addressed by this SIP. Using this 

methodology, SC DHEC first identified 

those emissions and emissions units 

most likely to have an impact on 

visibility in the State’s Class I area. 

Units with emissions of SO2 with a 

relative contribution to visibility 

impairment of at least a one percent 

contribution at any Class I area were 

then subject to further analysis to 

determine whether it would be 

appropriate to require controls on these 

units for purposes of reasonable 

progress. As noted above, six units were 

subject to this analysis. 

SC DHEC concluded, based on its 

evaluation of the companies’ submittals, 

that no further controls are warranted at 

this time. After reviewing SC DHEC’s 

methodology and analyses, EPA 

proposes to find that South Carolina’s 

conclusion that no further controls are 

necessary at this time acceptable. EPA 

proposes to determine that South 

Carolina adequately evaluated the 

control technologies available at the 

time of its analysis and applicable to 

these types of facilities and consistently 

applied its criteria for reasonable 

compliance costs. The State included 

appropriate documentation in its SIP of 

the technical analysis it used to assess 

the need for and implementation of 

reasonable progress controls. Although 

the use of a specific threshold for 

assessing costs means that a state may 

not fully consider available emissions 

reduction measures above its threshold 

that would result in meaningful 

visibility improvement, EPA believes 

that the South Carolina SIP still ensures 

reasonable progress. In proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s reasonable 

progress analysis, EPA is placing great 

weight on the fact that there is no 

indication in the SIP submittal that 

South Carolina, as a result of using a 

specific cost effectiveness threshold, 

rejected potential reasonable progress 

measures that would have had a 

meaningful impact on visibility in its 

Class I area. EPA notes that given the 

emissions reductions resulting from 

CAIR and the measures in nearby states, 

the visibility improvements projected 

for the affected Class I area are in excess 

of that needed to be on the uniform rate 

of progress. 

B. Emissions Units Subject to CAIR 

Within AOI of Any Class I Area 

Ten of the 22 emissions units 

identified for a reasonable progress 

control analysis are EGUs. These ten 

EGUs are subject to CAIR. To determine 

whether any additional controls beyond 

those required by CAIR would be 

considered reasonable for South 

Carolina’s EGUs for this first 

implementation period, SC DHEC 

evaluated the SO2 reductions expected 

from the EGU sector based upon results 

of the Intergrated Planning Model (IPM), 

as adjusted by the VISTAS states based 

on their knowledge of which facilities 

will be installing controls, to estimate 

the region-wide impacts of all the 

anticipated EGU controls, including 

CAIR. South Carolina determined that 

for EGUs, emissions reductions 

predicted to result from CAIR would be 

sufficient for ensuring reasonable 

progress during the first implementation 

period (between the baseline and 2018). 

In reaching this decision, SC DHEC 

considered the four reasonable progress 

factors set forth in EPA’s RHR as they 

apply to the State’s entire EGU sector 

(see Appendix H of the South Carolina 

SIP and section III.C.2 of EPA’s TSD for 

this action). In particular, the State took 

into account the factors of cost and time 

necessary for compliance in view of 

EPA’s analysis supporting CAIR. Based 

on the analysis, SC DHEC concluded 

that additional SO2 control measures, 

beyond those needed to meet CAIR 

requirements, for South Carolina’s EGUs 

would not be reasonable during this first 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11907 

14Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

implementation period based on a 

consideration of the reasonable progress 

statutory factors. This conclusion is 

bolstered by the fact that visibility 

improvement at the Cape Romain 

Wilderness Area is projected to exceed 

the uniform rate of progress in this first 

implementation period. EPA proposes 

to find acceptable South Carolina’s 

methodology and determination that no 

additional controls beyond CAIR are 

reasonable for SO2 for affected South 

Carolina EGUs for the first 

implementation period. 

C. Facilities With Unit(s) Evaluated 

Using AirControlNET Only 

SC DHEC determined that there were 

no cost effective controls for six nonEGU emissions units at three other 

facilities. As clarified in a November 9, 

2009, letter from SC DHEC to EPA 

Region 4, the State assessed, through 

VISTAS, Alumax of South Carolina 

Units 2, 3, 4, and 5, Cogen South, and 

Showa Denko Carbon using 

AirControlNET in the initial review of 

affected sources for reasonable progress. 

(The November 2009 letter is in the 

docket for this action and can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0785.) Based on this assessment, SC 

DHEC determined that there were no 

available controls for these facilities that 

were expected to be below the $2,000 

cost effectiveness threshold for nonEGUs established by SC DHEC. Thus, 

the State did not pursue further 

evaluation of the three remaining 

statutory factors (i.e., time necessary for 

compliance, energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and remaining useful life of the 

emissions unit) since there were no 

cost-effective controls to evaluate. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of South 

Carolina’s LTS for the first 

implementation period. The BART 

evaluation process consists of three 

components: (a) An identification of all 

the BART-eligible sources, (b) an 

assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART, 

and (c) a determination of the BART 

controls. These components, as 

addressed by SC DHEC, and SC DHEC’s 

findings, are discussed as follows. 

A. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the state’s boundaries. 

SC DHEC identified BART-eligible 

sources in South Carolina by utilizing 

the three eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s 

regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or 

more emissions units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions 

units were not in operation prior to 

August 7, 1962, and were in existence 

on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or 

more per year of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX, and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants, and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. 

VISTAS modeling demonstrated that 

VOC from anthropogenic sources are not 

significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants in South Carolina, as 

discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 

action. Regarding ammonia, the State 

notes in Appendix H of the SIP that 

analyses of spatial and temporal 

distributions of ammonia concentrations 

indicate that the primary point source 

ammonia contributor to regional haze at 

Cape Romain is likely the 

MeadWestvaco Plant in North 

Charleston, South Carolina, which is 

located 29 kilometers from Cape 

Romain. MeadWestvaco is not subject to 

BART because its BART-eligible units 

emit only approximately 130 tons per 

year of NH3 and do not meet the BART 

eligibility threshold criteria. For this 

reason, South Carolina did not evaluate 

emissions of VOC and NH3 in its BART 

determinations. 

B. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, South Carolina 

required each of its BART-eligible 

sources to develop and submit 

dispersion modeling to assess the extent 

of their contribution to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas. 

1. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 14 modeling system 

(CALPUFF) or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area 

and therefore, to determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ EPA believes that CALPUFF is 

the best regulatory modeling application 

currently available for predicting a 

single source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment (70 FR 39162). South 

Carolina, in coordination with VISTAS, 

used the CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in South Carolina were subject to BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including South Carolina, 

developed a ‘‘Protocol for the 

Application of CALPUFF for BART 

Analyses.’’ Stakeholders, including 

EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade 

groups, and other interested parties, 

actively participated in the development 

and review of the VISTAS protocol. 

The RHR gives the states significant 

flexibility in making decisions 

concerning the BART modeling analysis 

as part of the regional haze process. 

Several BART facilities located in South 

Carolina proposed an alternative 

approach from the recommendation 

contained in the VISTAS CALPUFF 

protocol to developing the sea salt 

concentration when using the new 

IMPROVE equation to calculate 

visibility impacts. For a few sources 

subject to coastal influences, the more 

accurate but less generally available 

sodium ion concentration from ambient 

data rather than the chloride ion 

concentration was used to calculate the 

sea salt contribution. After consultation 

with EPA prior to the submittal of the 

regional haze SIP, SC DHEC allowed the 

use of either the sodium ion or the 

chloride ion to derive the IMPROVE sea 

salt estimate for use in the assessment 

of visibility impacts to Class I areas from 

individual BART-subject sources for 

this first implementation period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

VISTAS has examined the effects of 

sea salt and proposed a hierarchy of 

methods for sea salt estimation based on 

a consideration of different factors that 

impact how technically reliable each 

method is for estimating sea salt in the 

atmosphere. (For further details, see 

section III.D.2 of EPA’s TSD for this 

action and Appendices O.1 and O.3 of 

the South Carolina regional haze SIP 

revision). As a result, SC DHEC chose to 

accept additional information on a caseby-case basis for several BART facilities 

that requested a more refined approach, 

i.e., use of the new IMPROVE equation 

with sodium ion data, in their BART 

exemption modeling. While the use of 

the sodium ion derived alternative sea 

salt estimate would be justified for any 

facility modeling visibility impairment 

at Cape Romain, that refinement was not 

required if a facility exempted using 

chloride ion concentration. EPA 

proposes to find that South Carolina’s 

approach to estimating sea salt 

concentration to determine visibility 

impacts at Cape Romain is acceptable 

based on the supporting technical 

information provided by the State in its 

SIP. 

VISTAS developed a post-processing 

approach to use the new IMPROVE 

equation with the CALPUFF model 

results so that the BART analyses could 

consider both the old and new 

IMPROVE equations. SC DHEC sent a 

letter and a supplementary email to EPA 

justifying the need for this postprocessing approach, and the EPA 

Region 4 Regional Administrator sent 

the State a letter of approval dated 

October 5, 2007. South Carolina’s 

justification included a method to 

process the CALPUFF output and a 

rationale on the benefits of using the 

new IMPROVE equation. The South 

Carolina and EPA Region 4 letters are 

located in Appendix O.1 of the State’s 

December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP 

submittal and can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785. 

2. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if they conclude that the location of a 

large number of BART-eligible sources 

in proximity of a Class I area justifies 

this approach. 

South Carolina used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciview for 

determining which sources are subject 

to BART. SC DHEC concluded that, 

considering the results of the visibility 

impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5 

deciview threshold was appropriate and 

a lower threshold was not warranted. 

South Carolina demonstrated that it is 

unlikely that multiple BART-eligible 

sources would simultaneously adversely 

impact visibility at Cape Romain at a 

level that would warrant a lower 

threshold value. For the South Carolina 

sources that were shown to be 

impacting the Wolf Island Class I area 

in Georgia, South Carolina 

demonstrated that they were located far 

from Wolf Island and that the majority 

of the individual BART-eligible sources 

had visibility impacts well below 0.5 

deciview. Additional details regarding 

South Carolina’s justification for using a 

0.5 deciview threshold are provided in 

section III.D.2 of EPA’s TSD for this 

action. EPA is proposing to agree with 

South Carolina that the overall impacts 

of these sources are not sufficient to 

warrant a lower contribution threshold 

and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was 

appropriate in this instance. 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

South Carolina initially identified 24 

facilities with BART-eligible sources. 

The State subsequently determined that 

three sources (Shaw Industries— 

Anderson, Solutia, Inc., and 

Honeywell—Clemson) are not BARTeligible because the capacities of the 

boilers originally identified at these 

facilities fall below the BART source 

category threshold for fossil-fuel boilers 

of 250 MMBtu/hr heat input. See 40 

CFR 51.301. Table 5 lists the 21 BARTeligible sources in South Carolina. 

TABLE 5—SOUTH CAROLINA’S BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES

Albermarle Corp. 

Bowater Inc. Paper/Pulp 

BP Amoco Chemical—Cooper River Plant 

DAK Americas 

Eastman Chemical 

International Paper Georgetown Mill 

INVISTA—Camden Plant 

INVISTA—Spartanburg Plant (formerly KOSA: Arteva) 

ISG Georgetown 

MeadWestvaco—Kraft Mill 

Milliken Chemical—Dewey Plant 

Owens Corning—Anderson 

Rhodia—Charleston 

Santee Cooper—Grainger 

Santee Cooper—Jefferies 

Santee Cooper—Winyah 

SCE&G—Canadys 

SCE&G—Wateree 

SCE&G—Williams 

Stone Container—Florence 

Wellman Inc.—Palmetto Plant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11909 

Of the 21 BART-eligible sources, 19 

sources demonstrated that they are not 

subject to BART. Seven of the 19 

(Albermarle, BP Amoco Chemical— 

Cooper River Plant, Rhodia— 

Charleston, Eastman Chemical, 

INVISTA—Spartanburg, Owens 

Corning—Anderson, Milliken 

Chemical—Dewey) are exempt from 

further BART review because they are 

only major sources for VOC emissions. 

As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 

action, SC DHEC determined that 

controlling anthropogenic sources of 

VOCs has little, if any, visibility benefit 

at Cape Romain. Twelve of the 19 

(Bowater, DAK Americas, International 

Paper—Georgetown, INVISTA—Camden 

Plant, ISG Georgetown, 

MeadWestvaco—Kraft Mill, Santee 

Cooper—Jefferies, Santee Cooper— 

Winyah, Santee Cooper—Grainger, 

SCE&G—Canadys, Stone Container— 

Florence, Wellman—Palmetto) are not 

subject to BART because their modeled 

visibility impact is less than 0.5 

deciview at the affected Class I areas. In 

addition, although modeling exempted 

them from BART, DAK Americas took 

an emissions limit for further assurance 

of their exemption. South Carolina 

found that two of its BART-eligible 

sources, SCE&G’s Williams and Wateree 

Stations, had modeled visibility impacts 

of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold 

for BART exemption and are considered 

to be subject to BART. SCE&G Willams 

and Wateree Stations, the two BARTeligible EGUs in the State, relied on 

CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX

for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, as 

discussed in section III.D of this action, 

these facilities were only required to 

evaluate PM emissions in their BART 

determinations. 

Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for 

NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs 

was fully approvable and in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the 

BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for 

NOX and SO2 and other provisions in 

this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In 

a separate action, EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

South Carolina regional haze SIP 

because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the remand by the DC Circuit to EPA of 

CAIR. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, 

EPA is not taking action in this 

proposed rulemaking to address the 

State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements, including 

BART for SO2 and NOX emissions from 

EGUs. 

C. BART Determinations for PM 

South Carolina’s two sources found 

subject to BART for PM (SCE&G’s 

Wateree and Williams Stations) each 

submitted permit applications to the 

State that included their proposed 

BART determinations. In accordance 

with the BART Guidelines, to determine 

the level of control that represents 

BART for each source, the State first 

reviewed existing controls on these 

units to assess whether these 

constituted the best controls currently 

available, then identified what other 

technically feasible controls are 

available, and finally, evaluated the 

technically feasible controls using the 

five BART statutory factors. The State’s 

evaluations and conclusions, and EPA’s 

assessment, are summarized below. 

1. SCE&G Wateree 

SCE&G Wateree Station is located in 

Eastover, South Carolina. The station 

consists of two identical pulverized 

coal-fired, wet bottom boilers (Units 1 

and 2). The two boilers produce 

superheated steam, which is used in the 

two dedicated turbine generators. Units 

1 and 2 are equipped with fabric filter 

baghouses to control PM emissions, and 

low-NOX burners and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) to control NOX

emissions. Although Units 1 and 2 

commenced commercial operation in 

the early 1970s, there is no near-term 

limitation on the useful life of these 

units. 

SCE&G also installed two wet 

limestone scrubbers to control SO2

emissions in the summer of 2009. 

Wateree Station Units 1 and 2 were 

retrofit with FGD systems using 

limestone slurry in a spray tower to 

remove SO2 from the gas stream. 

Although designed to control SO2

emissions, the FGD systems provide the 

added benefit of removing sulfates, a 

principal constituent of condensable 

PM10. The operation of the FGD systems 

is projected to reduce visibility impacts 

to well below the State’s 0.5 deciview 

BART contribution threshold. 

To address the BART requirement, 

SCE&G prepared an analysis of several 

additional options for PM10 addressing 

the statutory factors. The cost 

effectiveness of the various options 

ranged from $11,238 to $19,056 per ton 

of PM10 removed with a projected 

additional visibility improvement of 

approximately 0.04–0.05 deciview at 

Cape Romain. SC DHEC determined that 

the additional annualized costs 

associated with additional PM10 control 

options were excessive and that no 

additional control measures were cost 

effective. 

2. SCE&G Williams 

SCE&G Williams Station is located in 

Goose Creek, South Carolina. The 

station consists of a single pulverized 

coal-fired, dry bottom boiler (Unit 1). 

The boiler produces superheated steam, 

which is used in a turbine generator. 

Although Unit 1 commenced 

commercial operation in 1973, there is 

no near-term limitation on the useful 

life of this unit. 

Unit 1 is currently equipped with 

low-NOX burners and SCR to control 

NOX emissions and an electrostatic 

precipitator to control PM10 emissions, 

the latter of which has been 

demonstrated to achieve performance 

levels comparable to those being 

specified as best achievable control 

technology for new coal-fired boilers. 

The existing control device, therefore, is 

considered representative of BART for 

PM10. To address the BART 

requirement, SCE&G evaluated several 

additional options for control of PM10

and addressed the statutory factors. The 

cost effectiveness of the various options 

ranged from $307,420 to $376,318 per 

ton of PM10 removed with a projected 

visibility improvement of less than 0.01 

deciview. SC DHEC determined that the 

additional annualized costs associated 

with additional PM10 control options 

were excessive and that no additional 

control measures were cost effective. 

In October 2009, SCE&G retrofitted 

Williams Station Unit 1 with a FGD 

system using limestone slurry in a spray 

tower to remove SO2 from the gas 

stream. Although designed to control 

SO2 emissions, the FGD system will 

provide the added benefit of removing 

sulfates, a principal constituent of 

condensable PM10. PM10 emissions will 

be reduced from 925 tons per year to 

464 tons per year following the 

installation of the FGD system. This 50 

percent reduction is attributable to the 

removal of condensable PM10, 

principally sulfates, in the FGD system. 

After the installation of the FGD system, 

the modeled 98th percentile deciview 

visibility impact from this facility will 

be reduced by 0.69 deciview at Cape 

Romain. 

3. EPA Assessment 

EPA proposes to agree with South 

Carolina’s analyses and conclusions for 

the BART emissions units located at 

these facilities. EPA has reviewed the 

South Carolina analyses and proposes to 

conclude that they were conducted in a 

manner that is consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/ 

products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas 

similarly relied on CAIR emissions reductions 

within the state to address some or all of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area 

state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop 

their regional haze SIP submittals. 

16South Carolina submitted its visibility SIP 

revisions addressing RAVI on June 3, 1985, which 

EPA approved on January 21, 1986 (51 FR 2698). 

proposes to find that the conclusions 

reflect a reasonable application of EPA’s 

guidance to these sources. 

7. RPGs 

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

requires states to establish RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility. VISTAS 

modeled visibility improvements under 

existing Federal and state regulations for 

the period 2004–2018, and additional 

control measures which the VISTAS 

states planned to implement in the first 

implementation period. At the time of 

VISTAS modeling, some of the other 

states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility at the South 

Carolina Class I area had not yet made 

final control determinations for BART 

and/or reasonable progress, and thus, 

these controls were not included in the 

modeling submitted by South Carolina. 

Any controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, which give 

further assurances that South Carolina 

will achieve its RPGs. This modeling 

demonstrates that the 2018 base control 

scenario provides for an improvement 

in visibility better than the uniform rate 

of progress for Cape Romain for the 

most impaired days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensures no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

As shown in Table 6 below, South 

Carolina’s RPGs for the 20 percent worst 

days provide greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than the uniform 

rate of progress for the State’s Class I 

area (i.e., 22.7 deciviews in 2018). Also, 

the RPGs for the 20 percent best days 

provide greater visibility improvement 

by 2018 than current best day 

conditions. The regional haze 

provisions specify that a state may not 

adopt a RPG that represents less 

visibility improvement than is expected 

to result from other CAA requirements 

during the implementation period. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the 

CAIR states with Class I areas, like 

South Carolina, took into account 

emissions reductions anticipated from 

CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs.15

The modeling supporting the analysis of 

these RPGs is consistent with EPA 

guidance at the time. 

TABLE 6—SOUTH CAROLINA 2018 RPGS

[In deciviews] 

Class I area 

Baseline 

visibility— 

20% worst days 

2018 RPG— 

20% worst days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Uniform rate 

of progress at 

2018—20% 

worst days 

Baseline 

visibility— 

20% best days 

2018 RPG— 

20% best days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Cape Romain ................................................... 26.5 22.7 (3.8) 23.2 14.2 12.7 (1.5) 

The RPGs for the Class I area in South 

Carolina are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. These projections can be expected 

to change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

and facilities may change their 

emissions characteristics as they install 

control equipment to comply with new 

rules. It would be both impractical and 

resource-intensive to require a state to 

continually revise its RPGs every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions, and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 

mandatory standard which must be 

achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR 

at 35733. At the same time, EPA 

established a requirement for a 

midcourse review and, if necessary, 

correction of the states’ regional haze 

plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In 

particular, the RHR calls for a five-year 

progress review after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. The purpose 

of this progress review is to assess the 

effectiveness of emissions management 

strategies in meeting the RPG and to 

provide an assessment of whether 

current implementation strategies are 

sufficient for the state or affected states 

to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, 

based on its assessment, that the RPGs 

for a Class I area will not be met, the 

RHR requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

state’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. South Carolina specifically 

committed to follow this process in its 

submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

approve South Carolina’s RPGs for the 

Cape Romain Class I Area. 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in sections 

III.F and III.G of this action. Under 

EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI 

portion of a state SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 

51.302. An integral vista is defined in 40 

CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from 

within the mandatory Class I federal 

area of a specific landmark or panorama 

located outside the boundary of the 

mandatory Class I federal area.’’ 

Visibility in any mandatory Class I area 

includes any integral vista associated 

with that area. The FLMs did not 

identify any integral vistas in South 

Carolina. In addition, the Class I area in 

South Carolina is not experiencing 

RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected 

by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the 

December 17, 2007, South Carolina 

regional haze SIP submittal does not 

explicitly address the two requirements 

regarding coordination of the regional 

haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. South Carolina has, 

however, previously made a 

commitment to address RAVI should 

the FLM certify visibility impairment 

from an individual source.16 EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11911 

proposes to find that this regional haze 

submittal appropriately supplements 

and augments South Carolina’s RAVI 

visibility provisions to address regional 

haze by updating the monitoring and 

LTS provisions as summarized below in 

this section. 

In the December 17, 2007, submittal, 

SC DHEC updated its visibility 

monitoring program and developed a 

LTS to address regional haze. Also in 

this submittal, SC DHEC affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, SC DHEC made a 

commitment to review and revise its 

regional haze implementation plan and 

submit a plan revision to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze 

regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the 

RAVI LTS regulations, SC DHEC made 

a commitment to submitting a report to 

EPA on progress towards the RPGs the 

mandatory Class I area located within 

South Carolina and in each mandatory 

Class I area located outside South 

Carolina which may be affected by 

emissions from within South Carolina. 

The progress report is required to be in 

the form of a SIP revision and is due 

every five years following the initial 

submittal of the regional haze SIP. See 

40 CFR 51.308(g). Consistent with EPA’s 

monitoring regulations for RAVI and 

regional haze, South Carolina will rely 

on the IMPROVE network for 

compliance purposes, in addition to any 

RAVI monitoring that may be needed in 

the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). Also, the South Carolina 

new source review rules, previously 

approved in the State’s SIP, continue to 

provide a framework for review and 

coordination with the FLMs on new 

sources which may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in either form (i.e., 

RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class 

I area. 

The original South Carolina visibility 

SIP submitted to EPA June 3, 1985, 

addressing the monitoring and LTS 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 

CFR 51.306, respectively, was 

supplemented by an EPA regulation, 40 

CFR 52.2132, on July 12, 1985 (50 FR 

28544), as amended on November 24, 

1987 (52 FR 45132). The 1985 and 1987 

EPA actions incorporate 40 CFR 52.26 

and 40 CFR 52.29 into the South 

Carolina SIP and continue to be in 

effect. Because the December 17, 2007, 

regional haze submittal appropriately 

addresses the monitoring and LTS 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 

CFR 51.306, and supersedes these 

previous requirements, EPA is 

proposing to rescind the Federal 

regulations in 40 CFR 52.2132 and rely 

on the provisions in this December 17, 

2007, submittal to meet these 

requirements. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in South Carolina is the 

IMPROVE network. As discussed in 

section IV.B.2 of this action, there is 

currently one IMPROVE site in South 

Carolina, which serves as the 

monitoring site for Cape Romain 

(ROMA1). 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program and is relied 

upon in the December 17, 2007, regional 

haze submittal. In the submittal, South 

Carolina states its intention to rely on 

the IMPROVE network for complying 

with the regional haze monitoring 

requirement in EPA’s RHR for the 

current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. 

Data produced by the IMPROVE 

monitoring network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) web site 

has been maintained by VISTAS and the 

other RPOs to provide ready access to 

the IMPROVE data and data analysis 

tools. South Carolina is encouraging 

VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain 

the VIEWS or a similar data 

management system to facilitate 

analysis of the IMPROVE data. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, the State supplements 

the IMPROVE sampling by operating 

additional co-located monitoring. 

Monitoring at Cape Romain includes: 

• A tapered element oscillating 

microbalance for continuously 

measuring PM2.5 mass concentration; 

• An aethalometer for continuously 

measuring black carbon; 

• An integrating nephelometer, 

supported by VISTAS, for continuously 

measuring light scattering; and 

• Continuous monitoring of NO2 and 

SO2 precursor gasses. 

Additional haze-related 

measurements were taken in South 

Carolina in 2002–2005 as part of special 

monitoring studies by VISTAS to better 

understand source contributions to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility. These studies 

included: continuous monitoring of 

sulfate, nitrate, and carbon to better 

understand daily trends in PM2.5; 

detailed analyses of carbon collected on 

high volume filters to identify source 

contributions to carbon; and additional 

analyses of sodium and ammonium on 

IMPROVE filter samples. VISTAS does 

not have the funding to continue these 

special studies and has therefore 

transferred the equipment to SC DHEC. 

South Carolina has also acquired several 

continuous sulfate monitors and expects 

to operate them at urban and rural sites 

to further the understanding of both 

PM2.5 and visibility formation and 

trends in the State. SC DHEC will 

operate the units discussed above as 

long as funds allow. In addition, SC 

DHEC operates a comprehensive PM2.5

network of filter-based Federal reference 

method monitors, continuous mass 

monitors, filter-based speciated 

monitors, and continuous speciated 

monitors. 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and in May 2007, 

the State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

the meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. 

SC DHEC has evaluated the impact of 

South Carolina sources on Class I areas 

in neighboring states. The state in which 

a Class I area is located is responsible 

for determining which sources, both 

inside and outside of that state, to 

evaluate for reasonable progress 

controls. Because many of these states 

had not yet defined their criteria for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress, South Carolina 

applied its AOI methodology to identify 

sources in the State that have emissions 

units with impacts large enough to 

potentially warrant further evaluation 

and analysis. The State identified seven 

emissions units at three facilities in 

South Carolina with a contribution of 

one percent or more to the visibility 

impairment at the following five Class I 

areas in two neighboring states: Wolf 

Island Wilderness Area and Okefenokee 

Wilderness Area in Georgia; and Joyce 

Kilmer, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter 

Wilderness Areas in North Carolina. 

Georgia and North Carolina submitted 

letters to South Carolina requesting that 

the State consider adding several of its 

sources’ emissions units to the SC 

DHEC’s final reasonable progress 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

control analysis list of facilities so as to 

account for those facilities that Georgia 

believes are likely to contribute more 

than 0.5 percent, and North Carolina 

believes are likely to contribute more 

than one percent, to the total visibility 

impairment at one or more Class I areas 

in these states, respectively. In its 

response to this request, SC DHEC 

provided Georgia and North Carolina 

with a list of sources identified as likely 

to contribute one percent or more to 

visibility impairment in South Carolina 

and a justification as to why or why not 

each facility would be included in 

South Carolina’s final reasonable 

progress control analysis list of 

facilities. South Carolina provided 

initial results for several of its 

reasonable progress control evaluations 

to both states. SC DHEC also notified 

Georgia that four of the facilities 

identified by Georgia in its letter were 

either below the 0.5 percent 

contribution threshold used by Georgia 

or did not meet South Carolina’s cost 

effectiveness threshold for additional 

controls. The remaining facilities are 

addressed by CAIR. Based on an 

evaluation of the four reasonable 

progress statutory factors, South 

Carolina determined that there are no 

additional control measures for these 

South Carolina emissions units that 

would be reasonable to implement to 

mitigate visibility impacts in Class I 

areas in these neighboring states. SC 

DHEC has consulted with these states 

regarding its reasonable progress control 

evaluations showing that no additional 

cost-effective controls are available for 

those emissions units in South Carolina 

contributing at least one percent to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

the states. The documentation for these 

formal consultations is provided in 

Appendix J of South Carolina’s SIP. 

Regarding the impact of sources 

outside of the State on the Class I area 

in South Carolina, SC DHEC sent a letter 

to Georgia identifying two emissions 

units in that State that South Carolina 

believes contributed one percent or 

higher to visibility impairment at Cape 

Romain. At that time, Georgia was still 

in the process of evaluating BART and 

reasonable progress for its sources. Any 

controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, which gives 

further assurances that South Carolina 

will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be 

conservative, South Carolina opted not 

to rely on any additional emissions 

reductions from sources located outside 

the State’s boundaries beyond those 

already identified in the State’s regional 

haze SIP submittal and as discussed in 

section IV.C.1 of this action. 

South Carolina also received letters 

from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) RPO 

States of New Jersey and New 

Hampshire in the spring of 2007, stating 

that based on MANE–VU’s analysis of 

2002 emissions data, South Carolina 

contributed to visibility impairment to 

Class I areas in those states. The MANE– 

VU states asked South Carolina to 

participate in further consultation with 

MANE–VU during the summer of 2007. 

SC DHEC sent response letters to both 

states and expressed its intent to consult 

with them through VISTAS 

representatives. SC DHEC also 

explained in its responses that VISTAS 

has conducted assessments for the 

VISTAS states to help predict the 

influence of emissions from the VISTAS 

region on visibility at Class I areas in 

and near the VISTAS region. This work 

took into account the latest data and 

information available, including the 

reductions from CAA and state 

programs that will be in effect in 2018. 

SC DHEC notified New Jersey and New 

Hampshire that these assessments do 

not indicate that South Carolina facility 

emissions have an impact on visibility 

at any Class I area outside of the 

VISTAS region, and that SC DHEC thus 

concluded that emissions from South 

Carolina do not reasonably contribute to 

visibility impairment at these States’ 

areas. EPA proposes to find that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed the 

consultation requirements in the RHR 

and appropriately documented its 

consultation with other states in its SIP 

submittal. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, South 

Carolina and the nine other member 

states worked extensively with the 

FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture to develop 

technical analyses that support the 

regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS 

states. South Carolina provided a draft 

regional haze plan to the FLMs and EPA 

for early input in the August to 

September 2007 time period. The 

proposed regional haze plan for South 

Carolina was out for public comment 

from October 26, 2007, until December 

12, 2007. 

The FLMs submitted comments on 

the August 17, 2007, draft SIP provided 

by the State to the FLMs and EPA for 

initial consultation prior to the public 

comment period. The October 9, 2007, 

letter from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (FWS) noted that the draft SIP 

should provide discussion or 

justifications for modifications made to 

the new IMPROVE equation for 

determining which BART-eligible 

sources are contributing to visibility 

impairment at any Class I area. 

Additionally, FWS indicated that the 

modifications to the new IMPROVE 

equation did not appear to be applied 

consistently throughout the regional 

haze analyses and needed further 

explanation. The FWS recommended 

that the SIP provide information that 

indicates that EPA has approved these 

modifications. The FWS also identified 

several appendices that were not 

included in the draft SIP, including the 

appendix that addresses reasonable 

progress, BART, and the LTS. The FWS 

also recommended that the State 

include its smoke management plan in 

the SIP. The FWS suggested that the 

State add discussion of South Carolina’s 

evaluation of impacts to Class I areas 

outside of the State to the narrative that 

was in an appendix, and made several 

other recommendations to provide more 

detail or to clarify technical discussions 

in the SIP. South Carolina responded to 

the comments and subsequently 

modified the plan to address comments 

received on this initial version of the 

State’s regional haze SIP. South Carolina 

included extensive discussion and 

documentation in both the SIP narrative 

and appendices to explain the 

refinements to the IMPROVE equation 

that BART-eligible sources could use, 

including the alternative approach to 

the recommendation contained in the 

VISTAS CALPUFF protocol using the 

sodium ion concentration to develop the 

sea salt concentration when using the 

new IMPROVE equation to calculate 

visibility impacts. The State also 

provided the missing appendices to the 

FLMs on September 28, 2007, and 

added two other appendices on 

November 21, 2007. SC DHEC made the 

requested clarifications to the SIP. 

Instead of including the State’s smoke 

management plan, SC DHEC explained 

the reasons that the MOU with SCFC is 

included instead, with references to the 

smoke management plan. To address the 

requirement for continuing consultation 

procedures with the FLMs under 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(4), SC DHEC made a 

commitment in the SIP to ongoing 

consultation with the FLMs on regional 

haze issues throughout implementation 

of its plan, including annual 

discussions. 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

As also summarized in section IV.D of 

this action, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(g), SC DHEC affirmed its 

commitment to submitting a progress 

report in the form of a SIP revision to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11913 

EPA every five years following this 

initial submittal of the South Carolina 

regional haze SIP. The report will 

evaluate the progress made towards the 

RPGs for the mandatory Class I area 

located within South Carolina and in 

each mandatory Class I area located 

outside South Carolina which may be 

affected by emissions from within South 

Carolina. South Carolina also offered 

recommendations for several technical 

improvements that, as funding allows, 

can support the State’s next LTS. These 

recommendations are discussed in 

detail in the South Carolina submittal in 

Appendix K. 

If another state’s regional haze SIP 

identifies that South Carolina’s SIP 

needs to be supplemented or modified, 

and if, after appropriate consultation 

and South Carolina agrees, today’s 

action may be revisited, or additional 

information and/or changes will be 

addressed in the five-year progress 

report SIP revision. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of a revision to the South Carolina SIP 

submitted by the State of South Carolina 

on December 17, 2007, as meeting some 

of the applicable regional haze 

requirements as set forth in sections 

169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 

CFR 51.300–308, as described 

previously in this action. Also in this 

action, EPA is proposing to rescind the 

Federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.2132 

that were approved into the South 

Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and 

November 24, 1987, and to rely on the 

provisions in South Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP revision to meet 

the monitoring and LTS requirements 

for RAVI. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the state is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of a flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 

255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Under section 202 of the UMRA of 

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under state or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ Consistent with the EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is 

located within the South Carolina. Generally, SIPs 

do not apply in Indian country throughout the 

United States, however, for purposes of the Catawba 

Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South 

Carolina SIP does apply within the Reservation 

pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement 

Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120 (providing that ‘‘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.’’) 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA 

complies with this Executive Order 

through the process of tribal 

consultation. With respect to today’s 

action, EPA has offered the Catawba 

Indian Nation two opportunities to 

consult.17 First, in an email dated 

October 21, 2010, EPA extended the 

Catawba Indian Nation an opportunity 

to consult, however, the Tribe declined 

to consult with EPA at that time. Due to 

the passage of time between the initial 

offer of consultation and today’s 

proposed action, EPA provided the 

Catawba Indian Nation a second 

opportunity to consult on the South 

Carolina Regional Haze SIP revision on 

February 1, 2012. In an email dated 

February 8, 2012, the Catawba Indian 

Nation stated that no consultation on 

this pending action was needed by the 

Tribe. Further, EPA has no information 

to suggest that today’s action will 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4680 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0689; A–1–FRL– 

9638–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Vermont; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Vermont State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) 

on August 26, 2009, with a 

supplemental submittal on January 3, 

2012, that addresses regional haze for 

the first planning period from 2008 

through 2018. This revision addresses 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s rules that require 

States to prevent any future, and remedy 

any existing, manmade impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0689 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0631,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0689. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit through www.regulations.

gov, or email, information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS