Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3147 

ACTION: Notice of extension of public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’ or 

‘‘Office’’) published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to change the 

rules of practice to implement Title I of 

the Patent Law Treaties Implementation 

Act of 2012 (‘‘PLTIA’’). Title I of the 

PLTIA amends the patent laws to 

implement the provisions of the 1999 

Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement and 

is to take effect on the entry in force of 

the Hague Agreement with respect to 

the United States. On January 14, 2014, 

the Office conducted a public forum at 

the Alexandria, Virginia headquarters to 

discuss the proposed rules. The USPTO 

is extending the comment period in 

order to provide interested members of 

the public with additional time to 

submit written comments to the USPTO. 

DATES: The comment deadline 

announced in the proposed rule 

published on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 

71870) has been extended. To be 

ensured of consideration, written 

comments must be received on or before 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

by electronic mail message over the 

Internet addressed to: AC87.comments@

uspto.gov. Comments also may be 

submitted by postal mail addressed to: 

Mail Stop Comments—Patents, 

Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, 

marked to the attention of Boris Milef, 

Senior PCT Legal Examiner, Office of 

PCT Legal Administration. 

Additionally, comments may be sent 

by electronic mail message over the 

Internet via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal Web site (http://

www.regulations.gov) for additional 

instructions on providing comments via 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal. 

Although comments may be 

submitted by postal mail, the Office 

prefers to receive comments by 

electronic mail message over the 

Internet because the Office may easily 

share such comments with the public. 

Electronic comments in plain text 

format are preferred, but electronic 

comments in ADOBE® portable 

document format or MICROSOFT 

WORD® format may be submitted. 

Comments not submitted electronically 

should be submitted on paper in a 

format that facilitates convenient digital 

scanning into ADOBE® portable 

document format. 

Written comments will be available 

for public inspection at the Office of the 

Commissioner for Patents, currently 

located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 

600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. 

Comments also will be available for 

viewing at http://www.uspto.gov and at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Because 

comments will be made available for 

public inspection, information that the 

submitter does not desire to make 

public, such as an address or phone 

number, should not be included in the 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Gerk, Office of Policy and 

International Affairs, by phone 571– 

272–9300, by email at David.Gerk@

uspto.gov or by mail addressed to: Mail 

Stop OPIA, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450, 

ATTN: David Gerk. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

published proposed rules to change the 

rules of practice to implement Title I of 

the PLTIA. See Changes To Implement 

the Hague Agreement Concerning 

International Registration of Industrial 

Designs, 78 FR 71870 (Nov. 29, 2013). 

That notice of proposed rulemaking 

required public comments to be 

submitted to the Office by January 28, 

2014. The Office now extends the 

comment deadline for the notice of 

proposed rulemaking to February 4, 

2014, in order to provide the public 

with additional time to submit 

comments. 

Dated: January 11, 2014. 

Margaret A. Focarino, 

Commissioner for Patents, Performing the 

functions and duties of the Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00729 Filed 1–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0389; FRL–9905–58– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing 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 28, 2012. South Carolina’s 

December 28, 2012, SIP revision 

(‘‘progress report SIP’’) addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) and EPA’s rules that 

require states to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the State’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (‘‘regional haze 

SIP’’). EPA is proposing approval of 

South Carolina’s progress report SIP on 

the basis that it addresses the progress 

report and adequacy determination 

requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 18, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0389 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0389, 

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: Ms. 

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–2013– 

0389.’’ 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

approval of South Carolina’s December 17, 2007, 

regional haze SIP to address the first 

implementation period for regional haze (77 FR 

38509). In a separate action, published on June 7, 

2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of the South Carolina regional haze SIP 

because of the State’s reliance on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule to meet certain regional haze 

requirements, which EPA replaced in August 2011 

with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 

FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011)). In the aforementioned 

June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for South Carolina to 

replace the State’s reliance on CAIR with reliance 

on CSAPR. Following these EPA actions, the DC 

Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘EME Homer City’’), 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

cert. granted 570 U.S. __ (June 24, 2013) (No. 12– 

1182) vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place 

pending the promulgation of a valid replacement 

rule. 

‘‘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, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at notarianni.michele@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze progress report SIPs and adequacy 

determinations? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of South 

Carolina’s progress report SIP and 

adequacy determination? 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

States are also required to submit, at the 

same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze SIP. 40 

CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report 

SIP is due five years after submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP. On 

December 17, 2007, SC DHEC submitted 

the State’s first regional haze SIP in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).1

On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC 

submitted, in the form of a revision to 

South Carolina’s SIP, a report on 

progress made in the first 

implementation period towards RPGs 

for Class I areas in the State and Class 

I areas outside the State that are affected 

by emissions from South Carolina’s 

sources. This progress report SIP and 

accompanying cover letter also included 

a determination that the State’s existing 

regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s progress 

report SIP on the basis that it satisfies 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

and 51.308(h). 

II. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze progress report SIPs and 

adequacy determinations? 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address, at a minimum, the seven 

elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As 

described in further detail in section III 

below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires a 

description of the status of measures in 

the approved regional haze SIP; a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; an analysis of changes in 

emissions from sources and activities 

within the state; an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the state 

that have limited or impeded progress 

in Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources; an assessment of the 

sufficiency of the approved regional 

haze SIP; and a review of the state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy. 

B. Adequacy Determinations of the 

Current Regional Haze SIP 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report SIP, a determination 

of the adequacy of their existing 

regional haze SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. As described in 

further detail in section III below, 40 

CFR 51.308(h) requires states to either: 

(1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA 

that no further substantive revision to 

the state’s existing regional haze SIP is 

needed; (2) provide notification to EPA 

(and other state(s) that participated in 

the regional planning process) if the 

state determines that its existing 

regional haze SIP is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze SIP to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3149 

2The consent decree required a reduction of 

37,500 tpy of SO2 from existing units by 2013, 

declining SO2 emissions caps, and declining 

‘‘system’’ SO2 emissions rates. 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of South 

Carolina’s regional haze progress 

report and adequacy determination? 

On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC 

submitted a revision to South Carolina’s 

regional haze SIP to address progress 

made towards RPGs of Class I areas in 

the State and Class I areas outside the 

State that are affected by emissions from 

South Carolina’s sources. This progress 

report SIP also included a determination 

of the adequacy of the State’s existing 

regional haze SIP. South Carolina has 

one Class I area within its borders: the 

Cape Romain Wilderness Area (Cape 

Romain). SC DHEC also identified, 

through an area of influence modeling 

analysis based on back trajectories, five 

Class I areas in two neighboring states 

potentially impacted by South Carolina 

sources: Wolf Island and Okefenokee 

Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Joyce 

Kilmer, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter 

Wilderness Areas in North Carolina. 77 

FR 11911. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs 

The following sections summarize: (1) 

Each of the seven elements that must be 

addressed by the progress report under 

40 CFR 51.308(g); (2) how South 

Carolina’s progress report SIP addressed 

each element; and (3) EPA’s analysis 

and proposed determination as to 

whether the State satisfied each 

element. 

1. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze SIP for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. 

The State evaluated the status of all 

measures included in its 2007 regional 

haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress 

report SIP, South Carolina summarizes 

the status of the emissions reduction 

measures that were included in the final 

iteration of the Visibility Improvement 

State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze 

emissions inventory and RPG modeling. 

The State also discusses the status of 

those measures that were not included 

in the final VISTAS emissions inventory 

and were not relied upon in the initial 

regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The 

State notes that the emissions 

reductions from these measures, which 

are relied upon by South Carolina for 

reasonable progress, will help ensure 

Class I areas impacted by South 

Carolina sources achieve their RPGs. 

The measures include applicable 

Federal programs (e.g., mobile source 

rules, Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards, Federal 

and state consent agreements, and 

Federal and state control strategies for 

electric generating units (EGUs)). This 

summary includes a discussion of the 

benefits associated with each measure. 

In instances where implementation of 

a measure did not occur on schedule, 

information is provided on the source 

category and the measure’s relative 

impact on the overall future year 

emissions inventories. In aggregate, as 

noted in section III.A.2 and III.A.6 of 

this action, the emissions reductions 

from the identified measures are 

expected to result in lower emissions 

than originally projected in South 

Carolina’s regional haze SIP. South 

Carolina states that it does not expect 

reasonable progress to be adversely 

impacted in any of the Class I areas in 

South Carolina or neighboring states by 

any of the changes to the emissions 

reductions projected. 

EPA proposes to find that South 

Carolina’s analysis adequately addresses 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State 

documents the implementation status of 

measures from its regional haze SIP in 

addition to describing additional 

measures not originally accounted for in 

the final VISTAS emissions inventory 

used by the State that came into effect 

since the VISTAS analyses for the 

regional haze SIP were completed. 

South Carolina’s progress report also 

describes significant measures resulting 

from EPA regulations other than the 

regional haze program as they pertain to 

the State’s sources. The progress report 

SIP highlights the effect of several 

Federal control measures both 

nationally and in the VISTAS region, 

and when possible, in the State. For 

example, the SIP provides a copy of the 

Federal consent decree with Santee 

Cooper, a South Carolina utility, and 

summarizes the emissions effects of this 

decree.2

The State’s progress report discusses 

the status of key control measures that 

the State relied upon in the first 

implementation period to make 

reasonable progress. In its regional haze 

SIP, South Carolina identified sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions from coal-fired 

EGUs as a key contributor to regional 

haze in the VISTAS region, with the 

EGU sector as a major contributor to 

visibility impairment at all Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. The State’s 

progress report SIP provides additional 

information on EGU control strategies 

and the status of existing and future 

expected controls for South Carolina’s 

EGUs, with updated actual SO2

emissions data for the years 2009 and 

2011 reflecting reductions of SO2 in 

2009 and 2011. In its regional haze SIP, 

South Carolina determined that no 

additional controls of non-EGU sources 

were reasonable for the first 

implementation period. 

Regarding the status of BART and 

reasonable progress control 

requirements for sources in the State, 

South Carolina’s progress report SIP 

reviews the status of the State’s 21 

BART-eligible sources, including two 

sources—SCE&G-Williams and SCE&GWateree—found to be subject to BART. 

The progress report SIP indicates that 

flue gas desulfurization systems have 

been installed on these two BARTsubject sources and are currently 

operating. Additionally, South Carolina 

summarized its reasonable progress 

control determinations from its regional 

haze SIP. Because the State found no 

additional controls to be reasonable for 

the first implementation period for 

sources evaluated for reasonable 

progress in South Carolina, no further 

discussion of the status of controls was 

necessary in the progress report SIP. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed the 

status of control measures in its regional 

haze SIP as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). The State describes the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP, including the 

status of control measures to meet BART 

and reasonable progress requirements, 

the status of significant measures 

resulting from EPA regulations and 

certain Federally-enforceable consent 

decrees, as well as measures that came 

into effect since the VISTAS analyses 

for the regional haze SIP were 

completed. 

2. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved in the state through the 

measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its regional haze SIP and progress 

report SIP, South Carolina focuses its 

assessment on SO2 emissions from 

EGUs because VISTAS determined that 

sulfate accounted for more than 70 

percent of the visibility-impairing 

pollution in the Southeast and that SO2

point source emissions in 2018 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3See section 7.7 of South Carolina’s regional haze 

SIP narrative, page 79, for more detail. 

4See also sections III.A.4 and III.A.6 of this 

action. 

5The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 

the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the highest and lowest amount of 

visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a 

five-year period. 40 CFR 51.301. 

6 64 FR 35730. 

represent more than 95 percent of the 

total SO2 emissions inventory.3

Overall, SO2 emissions have 

decreased in South Carolina.4 South 

Carolina states that the large reductions 

in SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State 

resulted from many process and 

operational changes, including control 

installations, emissions units switching 

to cleaner fuels, load shifting from 

higher emitting units to lower emitting 

units, and a temporary decrease in 

power generation in 2009. Using utility 

emissions data from 2002 through 2011 

as reported to EPA by the utilities, 

South Carolina indicates that reductions 

in SO2 emissions appear to be sustained 

through 2011, and notes that reductions 

in these emissions were achieved in 

2010 and 2011, despite increased 

electricity generation by these EGUs 

between 2002 and 2011. 

Between 2002 and 2011, heat input to 

these EGUs increased from 

approximately 418,577,515 million 

British thermal units (MMBtu) to 

443,900,798 MMBtu. However, actual 

SO2 emissions from these units 

decreased from 199,118 tons in 2002 to 

66,166 tons in 2011, a 67 percent 

reduction. The average SO2 emissions 

rate from these units also decreased 

from 0.95 lbs SO2/MMBtu in 2002 to 

0.30 lbs SO2/MMBtu in 2011, a 69 

percent reduction. According to the 

State, the reductions in emissions 

demonstrate that even with an increase 

in demand for power, as evidenced by 

the increased heat input to these units, 

a significant reduction in overall SO2

emissions occurred due to the 

installation of controls and the use of 

cleaner burning fuels. 

South Carolina states that a 

comparison of 2009 and 2011 data for 

these EGUs shows similar results. 

Emissions fell from 93,941 tons of SO2

in 2009 to 66,166 tons of SO2 in 2011, 

and the emissions rate dropped from 

0.46 lbs SO2/MMBtu to 0.30 lbs SO2/

MMBtu. The State expects that the 

overall EGU emissions rate will 

continue to drop in 2012 due to the 

start-up of additional scrubbing capacity 

and fuel switching. 

South Carolina also identifies specific 

additional EGU SO2 emissions 

reductions not included in the VISTAS 

projections that are due to the 

installation of additional SO2 controls, 

planned or announced retirements, and 

conversion to natural gas. These 

additional reductions (estimated to be 

60,065 tons per year of SO2 emissions 

based on 2011 emissions) will further 

help to ensure that Cape Romain will 

achieve its RPGs for visibility 

improvement by 2018. 

South Carolina also submitted data for 

the entire VISTAS region showing 

similar trends in SO2 EGU emissions in 

the neighboring states that contribute to 

visibility impairment at Cape Romain. 

Because sulfates have been shown to be 

the predominant species of concern to 

visibility impairment at Cape Romain 

during the first round of regional haze 

planning and because SO2 EGU 

emissions are trending downward, 

South Carolina concludes in its progress 

report that visibility improvements at 

Cape Romain should continue into the 

future from the reduced sulfate 

contribution even if heat input to these 

EGUs may increase. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(2). The State provides 

estimates, and where available, actual 

emissions reductions of SO2 from EGUs 

in South Carolina that have occurred 

since the State submitted its regional 

haze SIP. The State appropriately 

focused on SO2 emissions from its EGUs 

in its progress report SIP because the 

State had previously identified these 

emissions as the most significant 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

Cape Romain and those areas that South 

Carolina sources impact. Given the large 

SO2 reductions at EGUs that have 

actually occurred, further analysis of 

SO2 from other sources or other 

pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), was ultimately unnecessary in 

this first implementation period. Also, 

in the corresponding section of the 

progress report SIP addressing 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1), the State provides 

estimates, and where available, actual 

emissions reductions for certain nonEGU control measures that were 

accounted for in the projected VISTAS 

emissions inventories for 2009 and 

2018. Because no additional controls 

were found to be reasonable for 

reasonable progress for the first 

implementation period for evaluated 

sources in South Carolina, EPA 

proposes to find that no further 

discussion of emissions reductions from 

controls was necessary in the progress 

report SIP. 

3. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that 

states with Class I areas provide the 

following information for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: 5

(i) Current visibility conditions; 

(ii) the difference between current 

visibility conditions and baseline 

visibility conditions; and 

(iii) the change in visibility 

impairment over the past five years. 

The State provides figures with the 

latest supporting data available at the 

time that it developed the progress 

report SIP that address the three 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for 

Cape Romain. For the first regional haze 

SIPs, ‘‘baseline’’ conditions were 

represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period.6 Baseline visibility conditions at 

Cape Romain are 26.5 deciviews (dv) for 

the most impaired (20-percent worst) 

days and 14.3 dv for the least impaired 

(20-percent best) days. Current visibility 

conditions (for the five-year period from 

2005–2009) are 26.4 dv for the 20- 

percent worst days and 15.0 dv for the 

20-percent best days. The difference 

between current visibility and baseline 

visibility conditions for the 20-percent 

worst days is 0.1 dv of improvement 

(i.e., 26.5¥26.4 dv). The difference 

between current visibility and baseline 

visibility conditions for the 20-percent 

best days is 0.7 dv of degradation (i.e., 

14.3¥15.0 dv). South Carolina 

concludes that visibility on the most 

impaired days at Cape Romain has 

improved since 2000 and that visibility 

conditions for the most impaired days 

are on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for 

the affected time period, particularly in 

light of the downward trend in SO2

emissions from the State’s EGUs. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3). The State provides the 

information regarding visibility 

conditions and changes necessary to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3). The progress report SIP 

includes current conditions based on 

the latest available Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring 

data for the years 2005–2009, the 

difference between current visibility 

conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions, and the change in visibility 

impairment over the most recent fiveyear period for which data were 

available at the time of progress report 

SIP development (i.e., 2005–2009). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3151 

7 VISTAS improved model performance for the 

2002 base year emissions inventory used by South 

Carolina in its original regional haze SIP, resulting 

in updates to the 2002 inventory and the 2009 and 

2018 projection inventories. VISTAS provided the 

final iteration of these inventories to the states in 

2008. South Carolina used these updated data for 

the years 2002, 2009, and 2018 in its progress 

report. 

4. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an 

analysis tracking emissions changes of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. 

In its progress report SIP, South 

Carolina presents data from a statewide 

emissions inventory developed for the 

year 2007 and compares this data to 

three sets of data from its initial regional 

haze SIP: a baseline emissions inventory 

for 2002 and estimated emissions 

inventories for the future years of 2009 

and 2018 (as updated and provided by 

VISTAS to the State in 2008).7 The 

pollutants inventoried include volatile 

organic compounds, NOx, fine 

particulate matter, coarse particulate 

matter, ammonia, and SO2. The 

emissions inventories include the 

following source classifications: 

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

biogenic sources. The comparison of 

emissions inventory data shows that 

emissions of the key visibility-impairing 

pollutant for the southeast, SO2, 

continued to drop from 2002 to 2007 

(from 284,935 to 228,053 tons of SO2). 

In addition, South Carolina augments 

the statewide 2007 actual emissions 

inventory data with more recent 

emissions data and control summary 

information for the years 2007 to 2011 

for the EGU sector, which is the key 

source of SO2 in the State. As discussed 

in section III.A.2 of this action, South 

Carolina documents changes in EGU 

emissions that already have occurred 

and changes to future emissions 

projections that are expected by 2018. 

South Carolina expects the overall EGU 

SO2 emissions to continue to drop 

beyond the reductions projected in the 

State’s regional haze SIP due to the 

installation of additional SO2 emissions 

controls at EGUs and additional fuel 

switches not previously projected. As 

noted in section III.A.2 of this action, 

South Carolina expects the overall EGU 

SO2 emissions to continue to drop 

beyond the reductions projected in the 

State’s regional haze SIP due to the 

installation of additional SO2 emissions 

controls at EGUs and additional fuel 

switches not previously projected. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the fiveyear period to be analyzed for emissions 

inventory changes is the time period 

since the current regional haze SIP was 

submitted, there is an inevitable time 

lag in developing and reporting 

complete emissions inventories once 

quality-assured emissions data becomes 

available. Therefore, EPA believes that 

there is some flexibility in the five-year 

time period that states can select. South 

Carolina tracked changes in emissions 

of visibility-impairing pollutants using 

an updated emissions inventory for 

2007 that the State believes is more 

robust than the 2008 National Emissions 

Inventory pertaining to the State, the 

most recent updated inventory of actual 

emissions for the State at the time that 

it developed the progress report SIP. 

EPA believes that the State’s use of the 

five-year period from 2002–2007 

understates the actual reductions 

because substantial additional SO2

emissions reductions are expected to 

occur from 2007–2012. South Carolina 

also analyzed trends in annual SO2

emissions from EGUs in the State for 

2002–2011, the most current qualityassured data available for these units at 

the time of progress report SIP 

development (see, e.g., Figure 3 and 

Table 9 of the progress report SIP). 

5. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. 

In its progress report SIP, South 

Carolina states that sulfates continue to 

be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze at Cape Romain. 

Accordingly, South Carolina first 

focused its analysis on addressing large 

SO2 emissions from point sources. 

While there have been significant 

changes in the anthropogenic emissions 

from EGUs, South Carolina stated that 

these changes have not impeded 

progress in reducing emissions and 

improving visibility. Rather, the State 

concluded that the EGU controls already 

adopted or planned, coupled with 

planned shut downs or fuel 

conversions, will result in greater 

improvements in visibility than those 

originally projected in South Carolina’s 

regional haze SIP for the first 

implementation period. 

In addressing the requirements at 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(5), South Carolina further 

examined other potential pollutants of 

concern affecting visibility at Cape 

Romain. After ammonium sulfate (64.1 

percent), primary organic matter (POM) 

(14.4 percent) is the next largest 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

Cape Romain. To further examine spikes 

in POM monitoring data, the State 

conducted an analysis to determine 

potential contributors. This analysis 

indicated that fires reported within and/ 

or outside the State appear to have 

contributed to visibility impairment on 

days exhibiting uncharacteristically 

high levels of POM. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State performed 

additional analyses to confirm its 

decision to focus on SO2 emissions for 

reasonable progress for the remainder of 

the implementation period and 

demonstrated that there are no 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions of SO2 that have impeded 

progress in reducing emissions and 

improving visibility in Class I areas 

impacted by South Carolina sources. 

The State referenced its analyses in the 

progress report SIP identifying an 

overall downward trend in these 

emissions from 2002 to 2011. Further, 

the progress report SIP shows that the 

State is on track to meeting its 2018 

RPGs for Cape Romain. 

6. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

the state, or other states, to meet the 

RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the state. 

In its progress report SIP, South 

Carolina states that it believes that the 

elements and strategies outlined in its 

original regional haze SIP are sufficient 

to enable South Carolina and other 

neighboring states to meet all the 

established RPGs. To support this 

conclusion, South Carolina notes that 

the actual 2011 EGU emissions of 

66,131 tons of SO2 are already below the 

2018 projected emissions of 76,291 tons 

of SO2, with further decreases expected. 

South Carolina expects that the 

reduction of SO2 emissions will in fact 

be even greater than originally 

anticipated in its regional haze SIP, 

particularly for the EGU sector as 

discussed in section III.A.6. of this 

action. In particular, the State notes that 

the emissions reductions already 

achieved in the 2007 to 2011 period and 

the additional reductions not accounted 

for in the original regional haze SIP (as 

discussed previously for purposes of 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(1)) further support the 

State’s conclusion that the regional haze 

SIP’s elements and strategies are 

sufficient to meet the established RPGs. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8This data is available at: http://

vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/

HazePlanning.aspx. 

In its regional haze SIP, South 

Carolina established a RPG for the 20- 

percent best days that would result in a 

1.4 deciview reduction in visibility 

impairment to 12.7 dv. After South 

Carolina submitted its regional haze SIP 

on December 17, 2007, VISTAS made 

several modifications to the original 

emissions inventory to improve model 

performance and reassess the RPGs for 

the VISTAS states. The final model 

simulation of the updated/revised 

VISTAS emissions inventory results in 

a slight change in the calculation of the 

Cape Romain RPG for the 20-percent 

best days from 12.7 to 12.8 dv. South 

Carolina requests that EPA acknowledge 

this update to the RPG as a revision to 

the State’s regional haze SIP. EPA 

proposes to approve this revised RPG 

for the 20-percent best days for Cape 

Romain because it reflects the updated 

VISTAS baseline inventory used to 

generate the RPGs incorporated into the 

regional haze SIPs for the other VISTAS 

states. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information, including 

expected emissions reductions 

associated with measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. The State referenced 

the improving visibility trends and the 

downward emissions trends in the 

State, with a focus on SO2 emissions 

from South Carolina EGUs, that support 

the State’s determination that the State’s 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet 

RPGs for Class I areas within and 

outside the State impacted by South 

Carolina sources. In addition, because 

additional IMPROVE visibility data has 

become available since the State 

developed its progress report SIP, EPA 

has also reviewed the most current data 

for Cape Romain for the years 2007– 

2011 from the IMPROVE monitoring 

network.8 For the 2007–2011 time 

period, the visibility conditions for the 

20-percent worst days are 24.6 dv and 

for the 20-percent best days are 14.1 dv. 

Using this latest available data, the 

visibility improvement from the 

baseline conditions is 1.9 dv for the 

2007–2011 period on the 20-percent 

worst days and 0.2 dv on the 20-percent 

best days. Despite the degradation of 0.7 

dv on the 20-percent best days at Cape 

Romain over the 2005–2009 period, 

identified in Section III.A.3 of this 

action, EPA believes that South 

Carolina’s conclusion regarding the 

sufficiency of the regional haze SIP is 

appropriate because of the calculated 

visibility improvement using the latest 

available data and the downward trend 

in SO2 emissions from EGUs in the 

State. 

7. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review 

of the state’s visibility monitoring 

strategy and an assessment of whether 

any modifications to the monitoring 

strategy are necessary. In its progress 

report SIP, South Carolina summarizes 

the existing monitoring network at Cape 

Romain and the State’s intended 

continued reliance on the IMPROVE 

monitoring network for its visibility 

planning. South Carolina also expresses 

its continued commitment to operate 

monitors supporting regional haze 

investigations where appropriate and 

when support is available. South 

Carolina is also encouraging VISTAS 

and the other regional planning 

organizations to maintain support of the 

existing data management system or an 

equivalent to facilitate availability 

analysis of the IMPROVE and visibilityrelated data. South Carolina concludes 

that the existing network is adequate 

and that no modifications to the State’s 

visibility monitoring strategy are 

necessary at this time. 

EPA proposes to conclude that South 

Carolina has adequately addressed the 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The 

State reaffirmed its continued reliance 

upon the IMPROVE monitoring network 

and discussed its additional continuous 

sulfate monitors and fine particulate 

matter network used to further 

understand visibility trends in the State. 

South Carolina also explained the 

importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 

network for tracking visibility trends at 

Cape Romain and identified no 

expected changes in this network. The 

State did note that certain special 

monitoring studies that VISTAS 

performed in South Carolina during 

2002–2005 will not be continued due to 

lack of funds; however, the 

discontinuance of these additional, 

specialized studies do not affect the 

adequacy of the State’s current 

monitoring strategy. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report SIP. The following 

section summarizes: (1) The action 

taken by South Carolina under 40 CFR 

51.308(h); (2) South Carolina’s rationale 

for the selected action; and (3) EPA’s 

analysis and proposed determination 

regarding the State’s action. 

In its progress report SIP, South 

Carolina took the action provided for by 

40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a 

state to submit a negative declaration to 

EPA if the state determines that the 

existing regional haze SIP requires no 

further substantive revision at this time 

to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s negative declaration is the 

findings from the progress report (as 

discussed in section III.A of this action), 

including the findings that: Visibility 

has improved at Cape Romain; SO2

emissions from the State’s sources have 

decreased beyond original projections; 

additional EGU control measures not 

relied upon in the State’s regional haze 

SIP have occurred or will occur in the 

implementation period; and the SO2

emissions from EGUs in South Carolina 

are already below the levels projected 

for 2018 in the regional haze SIP and are 

expected to continue to trend 

downward for the next five years, as 

will the SO2 emissions from EGUs in the 

other VISTAS states. Based on these 

findings, EPA proposes to agree with 

South Carolina’s conclusion under 40 

CFR 51.308(h) that no further 

substantive changes to its regional haze 

SIP are required at this time. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of a 

revision to the South Carolina SIP, 

submitted by the State of South Carolina 

on December 28, 2012, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3153 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because there are no 

‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on an Indian 

Tribe as a result of this action and 

because the SIP is not approved to apply 

in Indian country located in the state, 

and EPA notes that it has preliminarily 

determined that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation 

(Catawba Indian Nation) is located in 

Rock Hill, South Carolina. Pursuant to 

the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement 

Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘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.’’ Thus, 

the South Carolina SIP applies to the 

Catawba Reservation. On May 15, 2013, 

EPA offered consultation on South 

Carolina’s progress report SIP to the 

Catawba Indian Nation and that same 

day, the Catawba Indian Nation 

declined formal consultation on South 

Carolina’s progress report SIP. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 7, 2014. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00940 Filed 1–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 543 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0007] 

RIN 2127–AL08 

Exemption From Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: In this rulemaking action, 

NHTSA proposes to amend its 

procedures for obtaining an exemption 

from the vehicle theft prevention 

standard for vehicles equipped with 

immobilizers. NHTSA proposes to 

simplify the exemption procedure for 

immobilizer-equipped vehicles by 

adding performance criteria for 

immobilizers. The adoption of the 

proposed performance criteria for 

immobilizers would have the effect of 

bringing the U.S. anti-theft requirements 

more into line with those of Canada. 

This harmonization of U.S. and 

Canadian requirements is being 

undertaken pursuant to ongoing 

bilateral regulatory cooperation efforts. 

DATES: Comments to this proposal must 

be received on or before March 18, 2014. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 

comment on amendments to an 

information collection. See the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section under 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

below. Please submit all comments 

relating to the information collection 

requirements to NHTSA and to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) at the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section on or before March 

18, 2014. Comments to OMB are most 

useful if submitted within 30 days of 

publication. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9826. 

Comments regarding the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted to NHTSA through one of the 

preceding methods and a copy should 

also be sent to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http://

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues: Mr. Hisham Mohamed, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1