[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11894-11914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4680]


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

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9dbdcd7d3d8d4d0d797d5c0d7d6cbd8dcf9dcc9d897ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a181f14101b1713145416031415081b1f3a1f0a1b541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a04051e0b18030b04040344070309020f060f2a0f1a0b440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e30312a3f2c373f3030377033373d363b323b1e3b2e3f70393128">[email protected]</span></a>. Sara Waterson can be 
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by

[[Page 11895]]

electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#215640554453524e4f0f52405340614451400f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2c5d3c6d7c0c1dddc9cc1d3c0d3f2d7c2d39cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA'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.
    \2\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen 
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and in some cases, ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 
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. 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \4\ Areas 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 11896]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 11897]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH<INF>3</INF> 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

[[Page 11898]]

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 11899]]

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be 
met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.

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

[[Page 11900]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average for     Average for
                Condition                 20% worst days  20% best  days
                                             (dv \10\)         (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 x 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 state-specific control measures relied on by

[[Page 11901]]

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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and SO<INF>2</INF>. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> 
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 NH<INF>3</INF> do 
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while 
emissions inventories were also developed for NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC, 
and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into South 
Carolina's regional haze analyses, South Carolina did not further 
evaluate NH<INF>3</INF> 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, off-road 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; North 
Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; Georgia's multi-pollutant rule; 
consent decrees for Santee Cooper, Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric 
and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative; NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC reductions from the control 
rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern 
Kentucky; North Carolina's NO<INF>X</INF> 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 ground-
level 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) 
emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.2 to 0.5 percent, depending on the 
pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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

[[Page 11902]]

    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:
    <bullet> 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, PM<INF>2.5,</INF> and 
regional haze regulatory modeling studies.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 12x12 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 36x36 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-pm-rh-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

[[Page 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 11904]]

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from non-utility industrial 
point sources. SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to be appropriate.
    SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
non-utility boilers are the main sources of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Prior 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 human-induced 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Carolina's SO<INF>2</INF> AOI methodology captured greater 
than 80 percent of the total point source SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> for controls. Next, an 
analysis of control options, generic costs of controls, and cost per 
ton for various units contributing greater than one

[[Page 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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.

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 cost-effective 
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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emitted per year. Switching to 
a low sulfur coal reduces emissions between 24 and 36 tons of 
SO<INF>2</INF> per year, but at a cost ranging from $7,801 to $11,152 
per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
reduction of 4,011 tons at an additional cost to Holcim of $41,039 per 
ton of SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 11906]]

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 sulfur-contributing 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from these options ranged from 
2,281 to 3,284 tons of SO<INF>2</INF>. However, the cost-effectiveness 
estimates for the fuel switching options ranged from $6,417 to $10,012 
per ton SO<INF>2</INF>, 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> PSD limit. Changing from high sulfur No. 6 fuel oil to 
low sulfur No. 6 oil in the No. 1 recovery boiler would reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 81 tons and cost $7,463 per ton of 
SO<INF>2</INF> removed based on the actual operating scenario and 
reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 384 tons and cost $3,359 per ton of 
SO<INF>2</INF> removed at its maximum allowed operating level. Both 
scenarios are above SC DHEC's $2,000 per ton SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> control measures, beyond those 
needed to meet CAIR requirements, for South Carolina's EGUs would not 
be reasonable during this first

[[Page 11907]]

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 non-EGU 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 non-EGUs 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 BART-eligible 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and direct PM (including both PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 NH<INF>3</INF> and do not meet the BART eligibility 
threshold criteria. For this reason, South Carolina did not evaluate 
emissions of VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> in its BART determinations.

B. BART-Subject Sources

    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 11908]]

    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 case-by-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 post-
processing 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 BART-eligible 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 BART-eligible 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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 BART-eligible EGUs in the State, 
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
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-NO<INF>X</INF> burners and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to 
control NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> from the gas stream. Although designed 
to control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the FGD systems provide the added 
benefit of removing sulfates, a principal constituent of condensable 
PM<INF>10</INF>. 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 PM<INF>10</INF> addressing the statutory 
factors. The cost effectiveness of the various options ranged from 
$11,238 to $19,056 per ton of PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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-NO<INF>X</INF> burners and 
SCR to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and an electrostatic 
precipitator to control PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF>. To address the BART 
requirement, SCE&G evaluated several additional options for control of 
PM<INF>10</INF> and addressed the statutory factors. The cost 
effectiveness of the various options ranged from $307,420 to $376,318 
per ton of PM<INF>10</INF> removed with a projected visibility 
improvement of less than 0.01 deciview. SC DHEC determined that the 
additional annualized costs associated with additional PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 
SO<INF>2</INF> from the gas stream. Although designed to control 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the FGD system will provide the added benefit 
of removing sulfates, a principal constituent of condensable 
PM<INF>10</INF>. PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF>, 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

[[Page 11910]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Many 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.

                                                            Table 6--South Carolina 2018 RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2018 RPG-- 20%   Uniform rate  of                     2018 RPG-- 20%
                                                                    Baseline         worst days        progress at        Baseline          best days
                         Class I area                           visibility-- 20%    (improvement    2018--20%  worst  visibility-- 20%    (improvement
                                                                   worst days      from baseline)         days            best days      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

[[Page 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ South Carolina submitted its visibility SIP revisions 
addressing RAVI on June 3, 1985, which EPA approved on January 21, 
1986 (51 FR 2698).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> A tapered element oscillating microbalance for 
continuously measuring PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass concentration;
    <bullet> An aethalometer for continuously measuring black carbon;
    <bullet> An integrating nephelometer, supported by VISTAS, for 
continuously measuring light scattering; and
    <bullet> Continuous monitoring of NO<INF>2</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass and 
visibility. These studies included: continuous monitoring of sulfate, 
nitrate, and carbon to better understand daily trends in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 11912]]

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

[[Page 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 pre-existing 
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

[[Page 11914]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>