Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 1 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

Attachment 2 

Summary of External Stakeholder and EPA 

Comments and Department Responses 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 2 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 3 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

Summary of External Stakeholder Comments with Department Responses ........................ 4 

Summary of EPA Comments with Department Responses .................................................. 8 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 4 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

Notes from External Stakeholder Meetings Regarding Proposed Amendments to Regulation 61-62 

Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards as Noticed in the February 26, 2010, State Register

Comment: 

Ben Williams expressed concerns about language added to R. 61-62.1, Section II(B)(2) which states: 

“The Department reserves the right to require a construction permit and the need for permit(s) will be

made by the Department on a case-by-case basis.” 

Response: 

Engineering Services Division staff explained that this was necessary with regard to certain situations 

which may arise from registration permits, and it was decided that this language should be moved to the 

Registration Permits section. 

Upon further review, it was decided that this language is necessary for facilities that operate outside the 

realm of standard review and used on a very limited basis where other avenues of compliance have failed. 

This language will be kept in the section, but moved to subsection II(B)(6) 

Comment: 

Ben Williams expressed concerns about modeling requirements associated with R. 61-62.5, Standard 2 

and whether revisions to this standard would not automatically need legislative approval in the future. 

Response: 

Consistent with a previous response to this question posed by the Chamber of Commerce Environmental 

Technical Committee, in a February 20, 1998, memo, the Department does not specifically “require” 

modeling to demonstrate compliance with R. 61-62.5, Standard 2. Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions 

from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to EPA can be made. Regulation 

61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (as adopted in the SIP) requires that air 

modeling be conducted to determine permit applicability. Standard 2 defines the applicable ambient air 

quality standards for the State of South Carolina. By in large these standards are adopted pursuant to any 

federal change in the NAAQS, and thus do not require legislative review. The Department has been 

granted authority by the USEPA to administer the State’s permitting program which specifies and refers

to the standards codified in R. 61-62.5, Standard 2. The State permitting program requires that analyses 

be conducted prior to issuance of a permit to ensure that a project’s emissions will not cause of contribute 

to a violation of an NAAQS, applicable State Standard, or maximum allowable pollutant increase. 

Standard 2 references the “analytical methods to be used will be those applicable Federal Reference 

Methods published in 40 CFR 50.” The standards themselves do not specify how a source demonstrates 

compliance. However, the method of demonstration that has been typically used is modeling, although 

alternative scenarios are acceptable. Therefore, the Department is not required to seek Legislative 

approval each time it revises Standard 2. 

Comment: 

Deb Basnight had concerns about the deletion of R. 61-62.6 “Bubble” regulation. 

Response: 

In the March 8, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 12700) the EPA disapproved South Carolina’s generic 

bubble regulation because it does not comply with EPA's Emissions Trading Policy Statement of 

December 4, 1986, of the Economic Incentive Program Rules. EPA rescinded the June 7, 1987, (47 FR 

38887) approval of the generic bubble regulations and disapproved the June 5, 1985, submittal. 

Comment: 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 5 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

Duane Mummert inquired as to the source of the proposed definition for “facility” (R. 61-62.1, Definition 

#27.) and expressed concern that this definition would cause problems with “co-location.” 

Response: 

In evaluating this proposed new definition, the Department has decided to omit this from the proposed 

revision because it feels as though the changes to “major plant” and “major source” are sufficient. 

Comment: 

Duane Mummert suggested updating R. 61-62.5, Standard 1, Section 1(A) & (B) to make paragraphs 

more consistent with NSPS (which includes provisions for startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions). 

Response: 

It was determined that this change would trigger anti-backsliding issues as the NSPS wording is less 

restrictive, and the EPA will not support this change. This may also create the need for an additional 

Notice of Drafting as it was not referred to in the original Notice published in the State Register on 

February 26, 2010. 

Comment: 

Duane Mummert suggested amending R. 61-62.1, Section II(B)(2)(f)(ii) to allow for only 100 hours of 

generators to be consistent with the new RICE MACT (promulgated 3/3/10). He also suggested this be 

changed in R. 61-62.5, Standard 5.2, diesel generator exemptions for consistency. Ben Williams 

suggested we also specify that there are no limitations in emergency use of generators. 

Response: 

The Department does not feel that amending these requirements in 61-62.1 is necessary as the new 

federally mandated MACT would be incorporated into state regulations and permits. The revisions to 

Standard 5.2 may also create the need for an additional Notice of Drafting as it was not referred to in the 

original Notice published in the State Register on February 26, 2010. 

Comment: 

Ben Williams expressed concern about new wording in R. 61-62.1, Section II(J)(13), in particular the 

words “as the Department reasonably may require.” It was his belief that including this language was 

subjective and could create disagreement. The revised portion of Section II(J)(13) states: 

“The permittee shall maintain such operational records; make reports; install, use, and maintain 

monitoring equipment or methods; sample and analyze emissions or discharges in accordance with 

prescribed methods, at locations, intervals, and procedures as the Department shall prescribe; and provide 

such other information as the Department reasonably may require. All records required to demonstrate 

compliance with the limits established under this permit shall be maintained on site for a period of at least 

five (5) years from the date.” 

Response: 

This language is taken from 48-1-50 Section 22 of the Pollution Control Act. The department has never 

abused this discretion, and feels it should remain in the proposed changes. 

Comment: 

Duanne Mummert requested a change in R. 61-62.5, Standard 4, Section XII(B), such that TRS stack 

testing shouldn’t be required for facilities that are already required to have CEMs installed. 

Response: 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 6 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

Based upon consultation with the Department’s Office of General Council, this revision will be included 

into the Notice of Proposed Revisions submitted to the Board for approval to publish in the State 

Register. This revision is covered by the February 26, 2010, Notice of Drafting, in that it “delete[s] or 

update[s] obsolete requirements.” 

Comment: 

Duanne Mummert requested changing the “or” at the end of R. 61-62.5, Standard 5.1, Section 1(B)(1) to 

an “and” to account for the possibility of a situation where another state’s SIP inclusion is neither 

available nor effective. 

Response: 

The definition of Standard 5.1 carriers the same meaning as that in Standard 7.1. Furthermore, retaining 

the “or” would allow the Department the same historic discretion to continue to evaluate situations as

discussed in the meeting on a case by case basis. 

Comment: 

Duanne Mummert requested we include MACT with the wording in R.61-62.5, Standard 5.1, Section 

I(B)(2) which states: “In no event shall the application of LAER permit a proposed new or modified 

source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under New Source Performance Standards 

if applicable” 

Response: 

The Department feels this is an unnecessary addition in this regulation since Std 5.1 addresses VOCs, and 

while some MACTs use VOCs as a surrogate for HAP control, MACT standard and applicability are 

defined in 61-62.63. 

Comment: 

Lisa Saltzburg requested clarification for the exemption for natural gas boilers to maintain a log of startup 

and shutdowns, required by R. 61-62.5, Standard 1. 

Response: 

The Department explained that this requirement was not necessary for natural gas boilers as opacity is not 

typically an issue and therefore the requirement for records could be irrelevant. The Department 

indicated it would clarify this exemption in subsequent summaries of proposed revision. 

Comment: 

Lisa Saltzburg asked for clarification on the update to “major source” definition throughout R. 61-62 and 

inquired as to whether it had anything to do with the Tailoring Rule. 

Response: 

The Department explained that the purpose of the change was to allow for the expansion of the major 

source thresholds which occur due to subpart 2 ozone classifications, and not because of the tailoring rule. 

Comment: 

Athena Strickland asked whether the Department would incorporate the new definition of waste (as part 

of the CISWI rule) in this action. 

Response: 

The Department clarified that it would not. The Department explained that this NPRM was scheduled to 

be released in April 2010 (with a final in December 2010). The Department explained it would rather not 

incorporate a known proposed change into this action to account for any potential future delay in its 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 7 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

promulgation. Furthermore, the Department also clarifies that given the requirements for CISWI are 

specified in the CAA, any revision to its associated definitions could be adopted by reference (i.e. would 

not require Legislative review). The Department explained that it would likely be handled in its regular 

End-of-the-Year revisions instead. 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 8 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

Comments from EPA included in an email from Joel Huey on 5/19/2010. 

Comment: 

 “1. Regulation 61-62.1, Section I(20) - Replacing a specific SC regulation citation with a 

phrase as “applicable Federal and State regulations” does not help the reader to know what specific 

federal and state regulations are subject/applicable to this regulation. It may be more consistent with 

Federal and state rules but it is not clear which rules are being referred to.” 

Response: 

The wording in this definition is being changed as such: 

1920. Conditional major source - A stationary source that obtains a federally enforceable physical or 

operational limitation from the Department to limit or cap the stationary source’s potential to emit to 

avoid being defined as a major source as defined in S.C. Regulation 61-62.70, Title V Operating Permit 

Program by applicable Federal and State regulations. 

The Department found this change to be necessary since the definition for “major source” is defined 

separately in several portions of our regulations including our Title IV, NSR, and emissions inventory

requirements. Defining “major source” using the statement “by applicable federal and state regulations” 

in our Definitions and General Requirements regulation simplified the definition while still making it 

accurate which was the purpose of these regulatory changes. 

Comment: 

 “2. Regulation 61-62.1, Section II(B)(6) is revised to require the development of a 

construction permit on the decision of the Department (i.e., SC) on a case-by-case basis. This 

determination will take into consideration, but will not be limited to the nature and amount of the 

pollutants, location and other things. The way this is written, the amount of the pollutants could be 

omitted in the decisions to develop a permit. The amount of a pollutant is key to the application of the 

PSD/NSR program. The location, especially a nonattainment area, is also a key concern. A suggested 

revision to the proposed language is as follows: 

...this determination will include the amount of the pollutants, location of the source and will take into 

consideration but not be limited to .... and other things.” 

Response: 

This inclusion is being added to our “Exemptions” subsection of our construction permits section and is 

necessary to allow for the regulation of potential sources which operate outside the realm of regular air 

pollution control review. If it is determined that an otherwise exempted source will require a permit, it 

will then be subject to all procedures indicated in Section II(A) which takes into account “the nature and 

amount of the pollutants, location and other things.” 

Comment: 

 “3. R. 61-62.5, Standard 6, Alternative Emission Limitation Options (“Bubble”) – We 

request that the supporting documentation for the deletion of this rule confirm or discuss that there are no 

South Carolina sources that are currently subject to the existing rule.” 

Response: 

There are currently no sources in SC currently subject to this rule. The Department will submit a 

statement to this fact for the record in our final SIP package. 

Comment: 

 “4. R. 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Emissions from Process Industries, to modify the regulatory 

strategy for cotton gins - It is not clear from the State’s analysis to support the regulation change that the 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 9 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

new controls-based-regulation for the cotton gin will be more stringent than any of the emissions rate

approach and will therefore lead to improved air quality in many areas throughout the State. [See 

suggestions below.] 

110(l) language 20100504 

Section 110(l) of the Act states, “Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this 

chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator 

shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement

concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any 

other applicable requirement of this chapter.” A 110(l) “evaluation of interference” generally considers 

whether the SIP revision is expected to allow for an increase in actual emissions to the air over what is 

allowed under the existing federally-approved SIP. To meet this requirement, please provide additional 

discussion in the narrative to support the State’s contention that the new controls-based regulation would 

be more stringent than the allowable emissions rate approach of the existing SIP. Such discussion should 

describe, for example, (1) how the State has determined that measures to be employed are considered 

state of the art for this industry, (2) how control of emissions would be enforceable, and (3) how fugitive 

emissions would be minimized. In addition, please explain the need for allowing a “registration permit” 

for this industry.” 

Response: 

These suggestions have been incorporated to the 110(l) demonstration which has been submitted with the

states prehearing SIP package for review. 

Comment from EPA regarding SC’s 110(l) demonstration included in an email from Joel Huey on 

5/13/2010 

Comment: 

EPA suggested improving the draft 110(l) discussion to clarify that compliance with the current process 

rate curve has been based on applying emission factors which are generic to the industry, are not source 

specific, and cannot be tailored to be source specific. EPA staff suggested that DHEC consider stating that 

there is currently no specified means for these sources to show compliance with the process weight rate 

curve, regardless of how clean they operate (except through expensive testing). EPA further suggested

that DHEC specify that based on staff judgment the proposed revisions would clarify what constitutes 

good operating practices and serve to impose specific and measurable performance requirements and 

operating standards to ensure a greater degree of control of emissions from this industry and further 

allows the state/source to determine compliance more efficiently. 

Response: 

These suggestions have been incorporated to the 110(l) demonstration which has been submitted with the

states prehearing SIP package for review. 

Comments from EPA included in an email from Joel Huey on 5/13/2010 

Regarding R61-62_1-Strikethrough 20100504 

Comment: 

“1. Section I includes the following definitions: 

 64. PM2.5 – Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

2.5 micrometers emitted to the ambient air as measured by a reference method based on Appendix L of 40
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 10 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

CFR 50 and designated in accordance with 40 CFR 58 or by an equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58 July 18, 1997. 

 66. PM10 - Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers as measured by a reference method based on Appendix J of 40 CFR 50 and designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 53 or by an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53, July 1, 

1987. 

It appears the references to 40 CFR 58 should be to 40 CFR 53. 

It’s unclear what the dates “July 18, 1997” and “July 1, 1987” are in reference to or if they are needed.” 

Response: 

These suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments which have been put out for public 

notice. 

Comment: 

“2. Section II.I.1.b. of Rule 61-62.1 would seem to read more clearly with the following edits: 

Registration permits will be developed only for specific stationary source groups with uncontrolled 

potential to emit less than the threshold for major source groups, in accordance with S.C. Regulation 61-

62.70, Title V Operating Permit Program; S.C. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration; and S.C. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source 

Review, and where equipment similarities and simplicity remove the need for in depth site-specific 

review.” 

Response: 

These typographical and formative suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments which have 

been put out for public notice. 

Regarding R61-62_5S4-Strikethrough 20100331 

Comment: 

“3. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, A. Definitions, the definitions for “High pressure exhausts” and 

“Low pressure exhausts” would seem to read more clearly with the following edits: 

 7. High pressure exhausts – The exhaust air systems at a cotton gin preceding the gin stand 

(including unloading, drying, extracting, cleaning, and overflow handling systems) in which material is 

conveyed by a higher pressure air and is typically controlled by cyclones. 

 8. Low pressure exhausts – The exhaust air systems at a cotton gin following the gin stand 

(including lint cotton cleaning and battery formation process) in which material is conveyed by low 

pressure air and is typically controlled by condensers.” 

Response: 

These suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments which have been put out for public 

notice. 

Comment: 

“... it’s unclear why gin stands that are preceded by high pressure exhausts include “unloading, drying, 

extracting, cleaning, and overflow handling systems,” while gin stands that are followed by low pressure 

exhausts include lint cotton cleaning and battery formation process. Are these different gin stands?” 

Response: 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 11 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

A gin stand is a piece of equipment at the cotton gin which separates seed from the cotton. All cotton gins 

are essentially separated into 2 parts; the drying and major cleaning systems before the gin stand (which 

have "high pressure exhausts") and the lint cleaning (minor cleaning and mote separation) and battery 

condensing systems following the gin stand (which have "low pressure exhausts"). These definitions were 

based off of those used in the NC reg. 

Comment: 

“4. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, B. Applicability, paragraph 1 states, “This rule applies to all 

existing, new, and modified cotton ginning operations in South Carolina. These facilities will be subject 

to registration permit conditions as specified in SC Regulation 61-62.1 Section II(I). 

The Registration permit rule states that registration permits will be developed only for specific stationary 

source groups with uncontrolled potential to emit less than the threshold for major source groups. Since 

the new cotton gin rule applies to all gins in the State, please discuss how the State has determined that all 

cotton ginning operations in the State have uncontrolled potential to emit that is less than the major source 

thresholds.” 

Response: 

In its April 14, 1998, “Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories” memo 

from John S. Seitz, Director, the EPA provides guidance for addressing minor source status under 

the Clean Air Act (Act) for lower-emitting sources in eight source categories. EPA lists cotton gins 

as one of these eight source categories. In the aforementioned memo, the EPA states: 

“Many sources have the “capacity” to emit major amounts of air pollutants, but 

actually emit amounts that are much lower than the major source threshold. For such 

sources, States and local permitting agencies provide opportunities to obtain limits on 

their potential to emit through construction permit programs, operating permits, 

general permits applicable to multiple sources, State implementation plans (SIP), and 

other mechanisms.” 

In the aforementioned memo, the EPA goes on to offer two overall approaches that states and 

local agencies can use to establish enforceable emission limits which ensure that a source’s 

potential emissions are below the major source threshold: 

 

Under the second approach, generally appropriate for less complex sources, States and 

local agencies create a standard set of terms and conditions for many similar sources at 

the same time. The terms air quality agencies use to describe this approach include 

“general permits,” “prohibitory rules,” “exclusionary rules,” and “permits-by-rule.” 

Based on this guidance, the Department has determined that the cotton gin industry qualifies as a category 

of sources “for which a single type of activity tends to dominate emissions, and for which most sources in 

the category actually emit at levels well below their potential, and well under the major source 

thresholds...” and, as such, should be eligible for registration permits under SC Regulation 61-62.1 

Section II(I). 

Comment: 

“5. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, B. Applicability, it appears the reference in paragraph 2 to 

“control devices in Paragraph C(1)” should be to Paragraph C(2).” 

Response: 
Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 12 

General Amendments to R. 61-62 

July 18, 2011 

This suggestion has been incorporated into the amendments which have been put out for public notice. 

Comment:

“6. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, E. Monitoring, it appears the reference in paragraph 2 to “the 

range indicated in C(1)” should be to Paragraph C(2).” 

Response: 

This suggestion has been incorporated into the amendments which have been put out for public notice. 

Regarding 110(l) language 20100504 

Comment: 

“7. In the next to last sentence, use of the phrase “State specific” is unclear.” 

Response: 

This wording has been clarified in the 110(l) demonstration submitted for review in out prehearing SIP

package.