ATTACHMENT 3 

Notice of Drafting 

Published in the State Register on April 25, 2008

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

CHAPTER 61 

Statutory Authority: S.C. Code Section 48-1-10 et seq. 

Notice of Drafting: 

The Department is proposing to amend R.61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards and the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed amendments are necessary to meet requirements of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Interested persons are invited to present their 

views in writing to Anthony T. Lofton, Regulatory Development Section, Bureau of Air Quality, 2600 

Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201. To be considered, comments must be received by May 26, 2008, the 

close of the drafting comment period. 

Synopsis: 

On December 31, 2002, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register entitled Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Baseline Emissions 

Determination, Actual-to-future-actual Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, 

Pollution Control Projects [67 FR 80186], which established clean units (CU) and expanded upon 

provisions pertaining to pollution control projects (PCP), which were initially promulgated on July 21, 

1992 [57 FR 32314]. On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the Court) issued an opinion vacating those portions of the 2002 and 1992 rules that pertained to 

CU and PCP. The Court’s vacatur of CU and PCP provisions meant that these provisions could no longer 

be used. 

The EPA published in the June 13, 2007, Federal Register the final rule entitled Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Removal of Vacated Elements [72 

FR 32526] to amend its regulations to eliminate the CU and PCP provisions included in its December 31, 

2002 rulemaking. The June 13, 2007, final rule conforms the regulations to the decision by the Court, 

New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005), vacating the CU and PCP provisions. The EPA stated 

that permitting authorities with approved SIPs containing any or all of the 2002 CU, 2002 PCP, or 1992 

PCP provisions should remove those provisions as soon as feasible, which may be in conjunction with the 

next available SIP revision. The EPA stated that because of the Court decision, these provisions were 

unlawful and may not be applied even prior to their removal from the SIPs and that the deletion of CU 

and PCP provisions from NSR and PSD requirements will reduce the associated overall reporting and 

recordkeeping burden estimates. This final rule became effective on June 13, 2007. 

On May 1, 2007, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register entitled Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production 

Facilities Under the ‘‘Major Emitting Facility’’ Definition, which excluded facilities that produce ethanol 

by natural fermentation and are classified in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code 325193 or 312140 from the definition of ‘‘chemical process plants.’’ This final rule became 

effective on July 2, 2007. 
The Department proposes to amend Regulation 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards

and the SIP by removing all references to pollution control projects and clean units from Regulation 61-

62.5, Standard No. 7, Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, and the SIP. The Department also proposes 

to revise Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No.7 to change the definition of chemical process plants. 

Pursuant to S.C. Code Section, 1-23-120(G)(1), the proposed amendments in this Notice will not be more 

stringent than the current Federal requirements and thus do not require legislative review.
Notice of Drafting 

Published in the State Register on September 26, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

CHAPTER 61 

Statutory Authority: S.C. Code Section 48-1-10 et seq.

Notice of Drafting: 

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) is proposing to 

amend R. 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, and the South Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed amendments will be made in conjunction with revisions 

previously proposed in the April 25, 2008, State Register. Interested persons are invited to present their 

views concerning these amendments in writing to Christopher L. Vaigneur, Regulatory Development 

Section, Bureau of Air Quality, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201. To be considered, comments must 

be received by October 27, 2008, the close of the drafting comment period. 

Synopsis: 

 On May 1, 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the 

Federal Register entitled Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, 

and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the ‘‘Major Emitting Facility’’ 

Definition (72 FR 24060) which excluded facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation and are 

classified in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325193 or 312140 from the 

definition of ‘‘chemical process plants.’’ This final rule became effective on July 2, 2007. 

The EPA made substantial changes to the federal new source review regulations in December 2002. In 

response, the Department revised state regulations and submitted the revised SIP for review. On June 2, 

2008, the EPA took final action to partially approve, disapprove, and conditionally approve revisions to 

the SIP submitted by the State of South Carolina on July 1, 2005 in a final rule titled Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment New Source Review Rules (73 FR 31368). This final rule became effective July 2, 2008. 

As part of the current conditional approval, the Department has agreed to revise the State Nonattainment 

New Source Review program and the SIP. A requirement of the current conditional approval is the 

development of provisions for offsetting emission increases from new source review projects. 

On May 16, 2008, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register entitled Implementation of the 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) (73 FR 

28321) which finalized regulations to implement the New Source Review (NSR) program for fine 

particulate matter (that is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 

micrometers, generally referred to as “PM2.5”). This final rule became effective July 15, 2008. 

The Department proposes to revise R. 61-62.5, Standard No.7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, R. 

61-62.5, Standard No.7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review and the SIP to change the definition of 

“chemical process plants” and to include requirements of the above referenced finalized Federal 

regulations for implementing the NSR program for PM2.5. 

The Department also proposes to make all additional changes necessary (including implementation of 

provisions for offsetting emissions) for full EPA approval of the State Nonattainment NSR program and 
the SIP. In addition, the Department proposes to make typographical corrections and clarifications to 

R.61-62 as necessary. 

Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 1-23-120(H)(1), the proposed amendments in this Notice will not be more 

stringent than the current Federal requirements and thus do not require legislative review. 
ATTACHMENT 4 

Notice of Proposed Regulation 

Published in the State Register on January 23, 2009

Document No. 4056 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

CHAPTER 61 

Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Sections 48-1-10 et seq. 

61-62. Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards

Preamble: 

On May 1, 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the 

Federal Register titled Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and 

Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the ‘‘Major Emitting Facility” 

Definition (72 FR 24060), which excluded facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation and are 

classified in North American Industry Classification System code 325193 or 312140 from the definition 

of ‘‘chemical process plants.’’ This final rule became effective on July 2, 2007. 

On June 13, 2007, the EPA amended its regulations to eliminate the pollution control project and clean 

unit provisions established in a December 31, 2002, rulemaking better known as the “2002 NSR Reform 

Rules” (67 FR 80186). This final rule titled Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Removal of Vacated Elements (72 FR 32526) became 

effective on June 13, 2007. 

On May 16, 2008, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register titled Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) (73 FR 28321), 

which finalized regulations to implement the New Source Review (NSR) program for fine particulate 

matter (that is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers, 

generally referred to as “PM2.5”). This final rule became effective July 15, 2008. 

On June 2, 2008, the EPA took final action to partially approve, disapprove, and conditionally approve 

revisions to the SIP (a response to the “2002 NSR Reform Rules”) submitted by the State of South 

Carolina on July 1, 2005. This final rule titled Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 

South Carolina Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review Rules (73 

FR 31368), became effective July 2, 2008. 

The Department proposes to amend R. 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration;

R. 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) and the South Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate the requirements of the aforementioned Federal amendments 

published on May 1, 2007 (72 FR 24060), June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), and June 2, 2008 (73 FR 31368). 

The Department also proposes to make all additional changes necessary (including implementation of 

provisions for offsetting emissions) for full EPA approval of the State Nonattainment NSR program and 

the SIP. 

The Department proposes to postpone amending R. 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; R. 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) and the SIP to 

incorporate the requirements of the aforementioned Federal amendments published on May 18, 2008 (73 

FR 28321). The Department has deemed it necessary to defer regulatory action until comprehensive 
guidance for additional PM2.5 provisions is released by the EPA. These amendments will be handled in a 

separate regulatory action. In the interim, existing State provisions for particulates will adequately meet 

the requirements for Federal compliance. 

The proposed amendments of R. 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, are necessary 

to maintain consistency with Federal rules. Pursuant to S.C. Code Section, 1-23-120(H)(1), the proposed 

amendments will not require legislative review. 

Two Notices of Drafting for these proposed changes were published in the State Register on April 25, 

2008, and September 26, 2008. Notice of the Department’s intent to draft these regulations was also 

published on the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) Regulatory 

Internet site in its DHEC Regulation Development Update. No comments were received during the 

drafting comment periods. Since these amendments are consistent with Federal law, neither a preliminary 

fiscal impact statement nor a preliminary assessment report is required. 

Discussion of Proposed Revisions: 

SECTION CITATION/EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(e). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(f) by changing the regulation citation in sentence one from (a)(2)(iv)(c) 

through (e) to (a)(2)(iv)(c) and (d), and removing sentence two. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove paragraph (a)(2)(vi). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(12). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(30)(iii)(h). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Add an exclusion to the text of paragraph (b)(32)(i)(a) concerning “chemical process plants.” 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Add an exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph (b)(32)(iii)(t). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(34)(iii)(b). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove paragraph (b)(34)(vi)(d). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(35). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 
Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(36). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Revise paragraph (b)(41)(ii)(d) by changing the regulation citation from (a)(41)(ii)(a) through (c) to 

(b)(41)(ii)(a) through (c). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Add an exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph (i)(1)(vii)(t). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove “at a Clean Unit or” from paragraph (r)(6). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove “a Clean Unit modification project or” from paragraph (r)(7). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (x). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (y). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (z). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(5). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Revise paragraph (b)(6) by changing the regulation citation in sentence one from (b)(3) through (5) to 

(b)(3) and (4), and removing sentence two. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove paragraph (b)(8). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(4). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(6)(C)(viii). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Add an exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph (c)(7)(C)(xx). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove paragraph (c)(8)(C)(iii). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove paragraph (c)(8)(E)(v). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(10). 
R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Added text to paragraph (d)(1)(C)(v). This language was developed by the Department in cooperation 

with stakeholders to address the requirements of the EPA for full approval of the South Carolina State 

Implementation Plan in regard to emissions offsets. This revision specifically fulfills the requirement that 

reductions be surplus and develops a methodology for calculating offsets. These revisions are no more 

stringent than the Federal requirements. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraphs (d)(1)(C)(ix) and (x). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove “at a Clean Unit or” from paragraph (d)(3). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove “a Clean Unit modification project or” from paragraph (d)(4). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Add an exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph (e)(T). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (f). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (g). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1: 

Remove and reserve paragraph (h). 

Notice of Staff Informational Forum and Public Comment Period:

Staff of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control invites interested members 

of the public to attend a staff-conducted informational forum to be held on February 23, 2009 at 10:00 

a.m. in room 3141 (Wallace Room) at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC. The purpose of the forum is to answer questions, clarify any 

issues, and receive comments from interested persons on the proposed amendments to Regulation 61-62, 

Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards. Please use the Bull Street entrance. 

Interested persons are also provided an opportunity to submit written comments to Christopher L. 

Vaigneur at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Air Quality, 

2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201. To be considered, comments must be received no later than 5:00 

p.m. on February 23, 2009, the close of the public comment period. 

Comments received at the Forum and/or during the public comment period by the deadline requested 

above shall be submitted to the Board of Health and Environmental Control in a Summary of Public 

Comments and Department Responses for consideration at the public hearing as noticed below. 

Copies of the proposed regulation for public notice and comment may be obtained by contacting 

Christopher L. Vaigneur at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau 

of Air Quality, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201, or by calling (803) 898-3116. A copy may also be 
obtained on the Department’s Regulatory Information Internet Site at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/regs/ in its DHEC Regulation Development Update. To access this 

document, click on the Air category, then scan down for this proposed amendment. 

Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity for Public Comment: 

Interested members of the public and regulated community are invited to comment on the proposed 

amendments of R. 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards at a public hearing to be 

conducted by the Board of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control at its 

regularly-scheduled meeting on April 9, 2009. The public hearing is to be held in room 3420 (Board 

Room) of the Commissioner’s Suite, third floor, Aycock Building of the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC. The Board meeting commences at 

10:00 a.m. at which time the Board will consider items on its agenda in the order presented. The order of 

presentation for public hearings will be noted in the Board’s agenda to be published by the Department 

twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral comments at the hearing are 

asked to limit their statements to five minutes or less, and as a courtesy are asked to provide written 

copies of their presentation to the Clerk of the Board for inclusion into the record of the public hearing. 

Statement of Need and Reasonableness:

This statement of need and reasonableness was determined by staff analysis pursuant to S.C. Code 

Section 1-23-115(C)(1)-(3) and (9)-(11). 

DESCRIPTION OF REGULATION: Amendments to R. 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and 

Standards and the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Purpose: These amendments will maintain conformity with Federal requirements and ensure compliance 

with Federal standards. 

Legal Authority: The legal authority for R. 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, is 

S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-1-10 et seq. 

Plan for Implementation: The proposed amendments will take effect upon approval and adoption by the 

South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control and publication in the State Register.

DETERMINATION OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

BASED ON ALL FACTORS HEREIN AND EXPECTED BENEFITS: 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly promulgates amendments to Federal 

regulations to include clarification, guidance, technical amendments, and strengthen air quality 

provisions. On May 1, 2007, the EPA published a final rule, adding certain exclusions to the definition of 

“chemical process plants” under the “Major Emitting Facility” definition. Also, on June 13, 2007, the 

EPA amended its regulations to eliminate the pollution control project and clean unit provisions 

established in a December 31, 2002, rulemaking. Furthermore, on June 2, 2008, the EPA took final 

action to partially approve, disapprove, and conditionally approve revisions to the SIP submitted by the 

State of South Carolina on July 5, 2005. As part of the conditional approval, the Department has agreed 

to revise the State Nonattainment NSR program and the SIP in order to obtain full approval from the 

EPA. States are mandated by law to adopt these Federal amendments. These amendments are reasonable 

as they promote consistency and ensure conformity of State regulations to Federal requirements. 

DETERMINATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS: 
There will be no increased cost to the State or its political subdivisions as a result of these amendments. 

The standards to be adopted are already effective and applicable to the regulated community as a matter 

of Federal law. The proposed amendments will benefit the regulated community by clarifying the 

regulations and increasing their ease of use. 

UNCERTAINTIES OF ESTIMATES: 

EPA has provided the estimated costs and benefits for these standards in the Federal Register notices that 

are cited within this document. 

EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH: 

Adoption of the recent changes in Federal law through the proposed amendments to R. 61-62, Air 

Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, and the SIP will provide continued protection of the 

environment and public health. 

DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH IF THE 

REGULATIONS ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED: 

While there is no specific detrimental effect on the environment and public health, the State’s authority to 

implement Federal requirements, which are believed to be beneficial to the public health and 

environment, would be compromised if these amendments were not adopted in South Carolina. 

Indicates Matter Stricken

Indicates New Matter

Text:

R.61-62.5, Standard No. 7 –Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, shall be revised as follows: 

No changes to (a)(1) through (a)(2)(iv)(d) 

(a)... 

 (2)... 

 (iv)... 

 

 (e) [Reserved] Emission test for projects that involve Clean Units. For a 

project that will be constructed and operated at a Clean Unit without causing the emissions unit to lose its 

Clean Unit designation, no emissions increase is deemed to occur.

 (f) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of emissions units. A 

significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the 

emissions increases for each emissions unit, using the method specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(c) 

through (e) and (d) as applicable with respect to each emissions unit, equals or exceeds, the significant 

amount for that pollutant (as defined in paragraph (b)(49)). For example, if a project involves both an 

existing emissions unit and a Clean Unit, the projected increase is determined by summing the values 
determined using the method specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(c) for the existing unit and using the 

method specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(e) for the Clean Unit.

No change to (a)(2)(v) 

 (vi) An owner or operator undertaking a Pollution Control Project (PCP) (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(35)) shall comply with the requirements under paragraph (z).

No changes (b)(1) through b(11)

(b)... 

 

 (12) [Reserved] “Clean Unit” means any emissions unit that has been issued a major NSR permit 

that requires compliance with BACT or LAER, is complying with such BACT/LAER requirements, and 

qualifies as a Clean Unit pursuant to paragraph (x); or any emissions unit that has been designated by the 

Department as a Clean Unit, based on the criteria in paragraphs (y)(3)(i) through (iv).

No changes (b)(13) through (b)(30)(iii)(g) 

 (30)... 

 (iii)... 

 (h) [Reserved] The addition, replacement, or use of a PCP, as defined in 

paragraph (b)(35), at an existing emissions unit meeting the requirements of paragraph (z). A replacement 

control technology must provide more effective emission control than that of the replaced control 

technology to qualify for this exclusion.

No changes to (b)(30)(iii)(i) through (b)(32)(i)

 (32)... 

 (i)... 

 

 (a) Any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has 

the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Fossil fuel-fired steam 

electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, coal cleaning plants 

(with thermal dryers), kraft pulp mills, portland cement plants, primary zinc smelters, iron and steel mill 

plants, primary aluminum ore reduction plants, primary copper smelters, municipal incinerators capable 

of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, petroleum 

refineries, lime plants, phosphate rock processing plants, coke oven batteries, sulfur recovery plants, 

carbon black plants (furnace process), primary lead smelters, fuel conversion plants, sintering plants, 

secondary metal production plants, chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production 

facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140), 

fossil fuel boilers (or combinations thereof) totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour 

heat input, petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, 

taconite ore processing plants, glass fiber processing plants, and charcoal production plants; 

No changes to (b)(32)(i)(b) through (b)(32)(ii) 

 (iii)... 
 (t) Chemical process plants; – The term chemical processing plant shall not 

include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS 

codes 325193 or 312140;

No changes to (b)(32)(iii)(u) through (b)(34)(iii)(a)

 (34)... 

 (iii)... 

 (b) [Reserved] The increase or decrease in emissions did not occur at a Clean 

Unit except as provided in paragraphs (x)(8) and (y)(10) and;

No changes to (b)(34)(iii)(c) through (b)(34)(vi)(c)

 (vi)... 

 (d) The decrease in actual emissions did not result from the installation of add-on 

control technology or application of pollution prevention practices that were relied on in designating an 

emissions unit as a Clean Unit under paragraph (y) or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.165 or to 40 CFR 51.166 (u). That is, once an emissions unit has been designated as a Clean Unit, the 

owner or operator cannot later use the emissions reduction from the air pollution control measures that the 

designation is based on in calculating the net emissions increase for another emissions unit (i.e., must not 

use that reduction in a “netting analysis” for another emissions unit). However, any new emission 

reductions that were not relied upon in a PCP excluded pursuant to paragraph (z) or for a Clean Unit 

designation are creditable to the extent they meet the requirements in paragraph (z)(6)(iv) for the PCP and 

paragraphs (x)(8) or (y)(10) for a Clean Unit.

No changes to (b)(34)(vii) through (b)(34)(ix)

 (35) [Reserved] “Pollution control project (PCP)” means any activity, set of work practices or 

project (including pollution prevention as defined under paragraph (b)(36)) undertaken at an existing 

emissions unit that reduces emissions of air pollutants from such unit. Such qualifying activities or

projects can include the replacement or upgrade of an existing emissions control technology with a more 

effective unit. Other changes that may occur at the source are not considered part of the PCP if they are 

not necessary to reduce emissions though the PCP. Projects listed in paragraphs (b)(35)(i) through (vi) are 

presumed to be environmentally beneficial pursuant to paragraph (z)(4)(i). Projects not listed in these 

paragraphs may qualify for a case-specific PCP exclusion pursuant to the requirements of paragraphs 

(z)(3) and (z)(4).

(i) Conventional or advanced flue gas desulfurization or sorbent injection for control of 

SO2. 

(ii) Electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, high efficiency multiclones, or scrubbers for 

control of particulate matter or other pollutants.

(iii) Flue gas recirculation, low-NOx burners or combustors, selective non-catalytic 

reduction, selective catalytic reduction, low emission combustion (for IC engines), and 

oxidation/absorption catalyst for control of NOx. 

(iv) Regenerative thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, condensers, thermal incinerators, 

hydrocarbon combustion flares, biofiltration, absorbers and adsorbers, and floating roofs for storage 
vessels for control of volatile organic compounds or hazardous air pollutants. For the purpose of this 

regulation, “hydrocarbon combustion flare” means either a flare used to comply with an applicable NSPS 

or MACT standard (including uses of flares during startup, shutdown, or malfunction permitted under 

such a standard), or a flare that serves to control emissions of waste streams comprised predominately of 

hydrocarbons and containing no more than 230 mg/dscm hydrogen sulfide.

(v) Activities or projects undertaken to accommodate switching (or partially switching) to 

an inherently less polluting fuel, to be limited to the following fuel switches:

(a) Switching from a heavier grade of fuel oil to a lighter fuel oil, or any grade of 

oil to 0.05 percent sulfur diesel (i.e., from a higher sulfur content #2 fuel or from #6 fuel, to CA 0.05 

percent sulfur #2 diesel);

(b) Switching from coal, oil, or any solid fuel to natural gas, propane, or gasified 

coal;

(c) Switching from coal to wood, excluding construction or demolition waste, 

chemical or pesticide treated wood, and other forms of “unclean” wood;

(d) Switching from coal to #2 fuel oil (0.5 percent maximum sulfur content); and

(e) Switching from high sulfur coal to low sulfur coal (maximum 1.2 percent 

sulfur content).

(vi) Activities or projects undertaken to accommodate switching from the use of one 

ozone depleting substance (ODS) to the use of a substance with a lower or zero ozone depletion potential 

(ODP.) including changes to equipment needed to accommodate the activity or project, that meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(35)(vi)(a) and (b).

(a) The productive capacity of the equipment is not increased as a result of the 

activity or project.

(b) The projected usage of the new substance is lower, on an ODP- weighted 

basis, than the baseline usage of the replaced ODS. To make this determination, follow the procedure in 

paragraphs (b)(35)(vi)(b)(1) through (4).

(1) Determine the ODP of the substances by consulting 40 CFR 82, 

subpart A, appendices A and B.

(2) Calculate the replaced ODP-weighted amount by multiplying the 

baseline actual usage (using the annualized average of any 24 consecutive months of usage within the past 

10 years) by the ODP of the replaced ODS.

(3) Calculate the projected ODP-weighted amount by multiplying the 

project annual usage of the new substance by its ODP.

(4) If the value calculated in paragraph (b)(35)(vi)(b)(2) is more than the 

value calculated in paragraph (b)(35)(vi)(b)(3), then the projected use of the new substance is lower, on 

an ODP-weighted basis, than the baseline usage of the replaced ODS.
 (36) [Reserved] “Pollution prevention” means any activity that through process changes, 

product reformulation or redesign, or substitution of less polluting raw materials, eliminates or reduces 

the release of air pollutants (including fugitive emissions) and other pollutants to the environment prior to 

recycling, treatment, or disposal; it does not mean recycling (other than certain "in-process recycling" 

practices), energy recovery, treatment, or disposal.

No changes to (b)(37) through (b)(41)(ii)(c)

 (41)... 

 (ii)... 

 

 (d) In lieu of using the method set out in paragraph (a)(41)(ii)(a) (b)(41)(ii)(a)

through (c), may elect to use the emissions unit's potential to emit, in tons per year, as defined under 

paragraph (b)(37). 

No changes to (b)(42) through (i)(1)(vii)(s) 

(i)... 

 (1)... 

 (vii)... 

 (t) Chemical process plants; - The term chemical process plant shall not include 

ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 

325193 or 312140; ... 

No changes to (i)(1)(vii)(u) through (r)(5) 

(r)... 

 (6) Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The provisions of this paragraph (r)(6) apply to 

projects at an existing emissions unit at a major stationary source (other than projects at a Clean Unit or at 

a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not a 

part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase and the owner or operator 

elects to use the method specified in paragraphs (b)(41)(ii)(a) through (c) for calculating projected actual 

emissions. 

No changes to (r)(6)(i) through (r)(6)(v)(c)

 (7) If a Clean Unit modification project or a project at a source with a PAL requires construction 

permitting under Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, “Permit Requirements”, the owner or operator shall 

provide notification of source status as part of the permit application to the Department. 

No changes to (r)(8) through (w)

(x) [Reserved] Clean Unit Test for emissions units that are subject to BACT or LAER. An owner or 

operator of a major stationary source has the option of using the Clean Unit Test to determine whether 

emissions increases at a Clean Unit are part of a project that is a major modification according to the 

provisions in paragraphs (x)(1) through (9).

(1) Applicability. The provisions of this paragraph (x) apply to any emissions unit for which the 

Department has issued a major NSR permit within the last 10 years.
(2) General provisions for Clean Units. The provisions in paragraphs (x)(2)(i) through (iv) 

apply to a Clean Unit.

(i) Any project for which the owner or operator begins actual construction after the 

effective date of the Clean Unit designation (as determined in accordance with paragraph (x)(4)) and 

before the expiration date (as determined in accordance with paragraph (x)(5)) will be considered to have 

occurred while the emissions unit was a Clean Unit.

(ii) If a project at a Clean Unit does not cause the need for a change in the emission 

limitations or work practice requirements in the permit for the unit that were adopted in conjunction with 

BACT and the project would not alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for 

the BACT determination as specified in paragraph (x)(6)(iv), the emissions unit remains a Clean Unit.

(iii) If a project causes the need for a change in the emission limitations or work practice 

requirements in the permit for the unit that were adopted in conjunction with BACT or the project would 

alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the BACT determination as 

specified in paragraph (x)(6)(iv), then the emissions unit loses its designation as a Clean Unit upon 

issuance of the necessary permit revisions (unless the unit re-qualifies as a Clean Unit pursuant to 

paragraph (x)(3)(iv)). If the owner or operator begins actual construction on the project without first 

applying to revise the emissions unit's permit, the Clean Unit designation ends immediately prior to the 

time when actual construction begins.

(iv) A project that causes an emissions unit to lose its designation as a Clean Unit is 

subject to the applicability requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(a) through (d) and paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(f) 

as if the emissions unit is not a Clean Unit.

(3) Qualifying or re-qualifying to use the Clean Unit Applicability Test. An emissions unit 

qualifies as a Clean Unit when the unit meets the criteria in paragraphs (x)(3)(i), (ii) and (iii). After the 

original Clean Unit expires in accordance with paragraph (x)(5) or is lost pursuant to paragraph (x)(2)(iii), 

such emissions unit may re-qualify as a Clean Unit under either paragraph (x)(3)(iv), or under the Clean 

Unit provisions in paragraph (y). To re-qualify as a Clean Unit under paragraph (x)(3)(iv), the emissions 

unit must obtain a new major NSR permit issued through the applicable PSD program and meet all the 

criteria in paragraph (x)(3)(iv). The Clean Unit designation applies individually for each pollutant emitted 

by the emissions unit.

(i) Permitting requirement. The emissions unit must have received a major NSR permit 

within the last 10 years. The owner or operator must maintain and be able to provide information that 

would demonstrate that this permitting requirement is met.

(ii) Qualifying air pollution control technologies. Air pollutant emissions from the 

emissions unit must be reduced through the use of air pollution control technology (which includes 

pollution prevention as defined under paragraph (b)(36) or work practices) that meets both the following 

requirements in paragraphs (x)(3)(ii)(a) and (b).

(a) The control technology achieves the BACT or LAER level of emissions 

reductions as determined through issuance of a major NSR permit within the past 10 years. However, the 

emissions unit is not eligible for the Clean Unit designation if the BACT determination resulted in no 

requirement to reduce emissions below the level of a standard, uncontrolled, new emissions unit of the

same type.
(b) The owner or operator made an investment to install the control technology. 

For the purpose of this determination, an investment includes expenses to research the application of a 

pollution prevention technique to the emissions unit or expenses to apply a pollution prevention technique 

to an emissions unit.

(iii) Prior to using the Clean Units test, the facility shall notify the Department with a 

statement affirming that the conditions set out in paragraph (x)(3)(ii)(a) and (b) have been met in order to 

qualify as a Clean Unit. 

(iv) Re-qualifying for the Clean Unit designation. The emissions unit must obtain a 

new major NSR permit that requires compliance with the current-day BACT (or LAER), and the 

emissions unit must meet the requirements in paragraphs (x)(3)(i) and (x)(3)(ii).

(4) Effective date of the Clean Unit designation. The effective date of an emissions unit's Clean 

Unit designation (that is, the date on which the owner or operator may begin to use the Clean Unit Test to

determine whether a project at the emissions unit is a major modification) is determined according to the 

applicable paragraph (x)(4)(i) or (x)(4)(ii).

(i) Original Clean Unit designation, and emissions units that re-qualify as Clean 

Units by implementing new control technology to meet current-day BACT. The effective date is the 

date the emissions unit's air pollution control technology is placed into service, or 3 years after the 

issuance date of the major NSR permit, whichever is earlier, but no sooner than the date these provisions 

become effective and approved for incorporation into the SIP.

(ii) Emissions units that re-qualify for the Clean Unit designation using an existing 

control technology. The effective date is the date the new, major NSR permit is issued.

(5) Clean Unit expiration. An emissions unit's Clean Unit designation expires (that is, the date 

on which the owner or operator may no longer use the Clean Unit Test to determine whether a project 

affecting the emissions unit is, or is part of, a major modification) according to the applicable paragraph 

(x)(5)(i) or (ii).

(i) Original Clean Unit designation, and emissions units that re-qualify by 

implementing new control technology to meet current-day BACT. For any emissions unit that 

automatically qualifies as a Clean Unit under paragraphs (x)(3)(i) and (ii) or re-qualifies by implementing 

new control technology to meet current-day BACT under paragraph (x)(3)(iv), the Clean Unit designation 

expires 10 years after the effective date, or the date the equipment went into service, whichever is earlier; 

or, it expires at any time the owner or operator fails to comply with the provisions for maintaining the 

Clean Unit designation in paragraph (x)(7).

(ii) Emissions units that re-qualify for the Clean Unit designation using an existing 

control technology. For any emissions unit that re-qualifies as a Clean Unit under paragraph (x)(3)(iv) 

using an existing control technology, the Clean Unit designation expires 10 years after the effective date; 

or, it expires any time the owner or operator fails to comply with the provisions for maintaining the Clean 

Unit designation in paragraph (x)(7).

(6) Required title V permit content for a Clean Unit. After the effective date of the Clean Unit 

designation, and in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 61-62.70, Title V Operating Permit 

Program, but no later than when the title V permit is renewed, the title V permit for the major stationary 

source must include the following terms and conditions in paragraphs (x)(6)(i) through (vi) related to the 

Clean Unit.
(i) A statement indicating that the emissions unit qualifies as a Clean Unit and identifying 

the pollutant(s) for which this designation applies.

(ii) The effective date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when the 

Clean Unit designation is initially recorded in the title V permit (e.g., because the air pollution control 

technology is not yet in service), the permit must describe the event that will determine the effective date 

(e.g., the date the control technology is placed into service). Once the effective date is determined, the 

owner or operator must notify the Department of the exact date. This specific effective date must be 

added to the source's title V permit at the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, or 

renewal of the title V permit for any reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next 

renewal.

(iii) The expiration date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when 

the Clean Unit designation is initially recorded into the title V permit (e.g., because the air pollution 

control technology is not yet in service), then the permit must describe the event that will determine the 

expiration date (e.g., the date the control technology is placed into service). Once the expiration date is 

determined, the owner or operator must notify the Department of the exact date. The expiration date must 

be added to the source's title V permit at the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, 

or renewal of the title V permit for any reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next 

renewal.

(iv) All emission limitations and work practice requirements adopted in conjunction with 

BACT, and any physical or operational characteristics which formed the basis for the BACT 

determination (e.g., possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(v) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as necessary to demonstrate 

that the emissions unit continues to meet the criteria for maintaining the Clean Unit designation. (See 

paragraph (x)(7).)

(vi) Terms reflecting the owner or operator's duties to maintain the Clean Unit 

designation and the consequences of failing to do so, as presented in paragraph (x)(7).

(7) Maintaining the Clean Unit designation. To maintain the Clean Unit designation, the owner 

or operator must conform to all the restrictions listed in paragraphs (x)(7)(i) through (iii). This paragraph 

(x)(7) applies independently to each pollutant for which the emissions unit has the Clean Unit 

designation. That is, failing to conform to the restrictions for one pollutant affects the Clean Unit 

designation only for that pollutant.

(i) The Clean Unit must comply with the emission limitation(s) and/ or work practice 

requirements adopted in conjunction with the BACT that is recorded in the major NSR permit, and 

subsequently reflected in the title V permit. The owner or operator may not make a physical change in or 

change in the method of operation of the Clean Unit that causes the emissions unit to function in a manner 

that is inconsistent with the physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the BACT 

determination (e.g., possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(ii) The Clean Unit must comply with any terms and conditions in the title V permit 

related to the unit's Clean Unit designation.
(iii) The Clean Unit must continue to control emissions using the specific air pollution 

control technology that was the basis for its Clean Unit designation. If the emissions unit or control 

technology is replaced, then the Clean Unit designation ends.

(8) Netting at Clean Units. Emissions changes that occur at a Clean Unit must not be included in 

calculating a significant net emissions increase (that is, must not be used in a "netting analysis"), unless 

such use occurs before the effective date of the Clean Unit designation, or after the Clean Unit 

designation expires; or, unless the emissions unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit 

as a Clean Unit. However, if the Clean Unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a 

Clean Unit, then the owner or operator may generate a credit for the difference between the level that 

qualified the unit as a Clean Unit and the new emissions limit if such reductions are surplus, quantifiable, 

and permanent. For purposes of generating offsets, the reductions must also be federally enforceable. For 

purposes of determining creditable net emissions increases and decreases, the reductions must also be 

enforceable as a practical matter.

(9) Effect of redesignation on the Clean Unit designation. The Clean Unit designation of an 

emissions unit is not affected by re-designation of the attainment status of the area in which it is located. 

That is, if a Clean Unit is located in an attainment area and the area is redesignated to nonattainment, its 

Clean Unit designation is not affected. Similarly, redesignation from nonattainment to attainment does not 

affect the Clean Unit designation. However, if an existing Clean Unit designation expires, it must requalify under the requirements that are currently applicable in the area.

(y) [Reserved] Clean Unit provisions for emissions units that achieve an emission limitation 

comparable to BACT. An owner or operator of a major stationary source has the option of using the 

Clean Unit Test to determine whether emissions increases at a Clean Unit are part of a project that is a 

major modification according to the provisions in paragraphs (y)(1) through (11).

(1) Applicability. The provisions of this paragraph (y) apply to emissions units which do not 

qualify as Clean Units under paragraph (x), but which are achieving a level of emissions control 

comparable to BACT, as determined by the Department in accordance with this paragraph (y).

(2) General provisions for Clean Units. The provisions in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (iv) 

apply to a Clean Unit (designated under this paragraph (y)).

(i) Any project for which the owner or operator begins actual construction after the 

effective date of the Clean Unit designation (as determined in accordance with paragraph (y)(5)) and 

before the expiration date (as determined in accordance with paragraph (y)(6)) will be considered to have 

occurred while the emissions unit was a Clean Unit.

(ii) If a project at a Clean Unit does not cause the need for a change in the emission 

limitations or work practice requirements in the permit for the unit that have been determined (pursuant to 

paragraph (y)(4)) to be comparable to BACT, and the project would not alter any physical or operational 

characteristics that formed the basis for determining that the emissions unit's control technology achieves 

a level of emissions control comparable to BACT as specified in paragraph (y)(8)(iv), the emissions unit 

remains a Clean Unit.

(iii) If a project causes the need for a change in the emission limitations or work practice 

requirements in the permit for the unit that have been determined (pursuant to paragraph (y)(4)) to be 

comparable to BACT, or the project would alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed 

the basis for determining that the emissions unit's control technology achieves a level of emissions control 

comparable to BACT as specified in paragraph (y)(8)(iv), then the emissions unit loses its designation as 
a Clean Unit upon issuance of the necessary permit revisions (unless the unit re-qualifies as a Clean Unit 

pursuant to paragraph (y)(3)(iv)). If the owner or operator begins actual construction on the project 

without first applying to revise the emissions unit's permit, the Clean Unit designation ends immediately 

prior to the time when actual construction begins.

(iv) A project that causes an emissions unit to lose its designation as a Clean Unit is 

subject to the applicability requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(a) through (d) and paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(f) 

as if the emissions unit is not a Clean Unit.

(3) Qualifying or re-qualifying to use the Clean Unit applicability test. An emissions unit 

qualifies as a Clean Unit when the unit meets the criteria in paragraphs (y)(3)(i) through (iii). After the 

original Clean Unit designation expires in accordance with paragraph (y)(6) or is lost pursuant to

paragraph (y)(2)(iii), such emissions unit may re-qualify as a Clean Unit under either paragraph (y)(3)(iv), 

or under the Clean Unit provisions in paragraph (x). To re-qualify as a Clean Unit under paragraph 

(y)(3)(iv), the emissions unit must obtain a new permit issued pursuant to the requirements in paragraphs 

(y)(7) and (8) and meet all the criteria in paragraph (y)(3)(iv). The Department will make a separate Clean 

Unit designation for each pollutant emitted by the emissions unit for which the emissions unit qualifies as 

a Clean Unit.

(i) Qualifying air pollution control technologies. Air pollutant emissions from the 

emissions unit must be reduced through the use of air pollution control technology (which includes 

pollution prevention as defined under paragraph (b)(36) or work practices) that meets both the following 

requirements in paragraphs (y)(3)(i)(a) and (b).

(a) The owner or operator has demonstrated that the emissions unit's control 

technology is comparable to BACT according to the requirements of paragraph (y)(4). However, the 

emissions unit is not eligible for a Clean Unit designation if its emissions are not reduced below the level 

of a standard, uncontrolled emissions unit of the same type (e.g., if the BACT determinations to which it 

is compared have resulted in a determination that no control measures are required).

(b) The owner or operator made an investment to install the control technology. 

For the purpose of this determination, an investment includes expenses to research the application of a 

pollution prevention technique to the emissions unit or to retool the unit to apply a pollution prevention 

technique.

(ii) Impact of emissions from the unit. The Department must determine that the 

allowable emissions from the emissions unit will not cause or contribute to a violation of any national 

ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, or adversely impact an air quality related value (such as 

visibility) that has been identified for a Federal Class I area by a Federal Land Manager and for which 

information is available to the general public.

(iii) Date of installation. An emissions unit may qualify as a Clean Unit even if the 

control technology, on which the Clean Unit designation is based, was installed before the date these 

provisions become effective. However, for such emissions units, the owner or operator must apply for the 

Clean Unit designation before a period not exceeding twenty-four months following the date these 

provisions become effective. For technologies installed on and after the date these provisions become 

effective, the owner or operator must apply for the Clean Unit designation at the time the control 

technology is installed.

(iv) Re-qualifying as a Clean Unit. The emissions unit must obtain a new permit 

(pursuant to requirements in paragraphs (y)(7) and (8)) that demonstrates that the emissions unit's control 
technology is achieving a level of emission control comparable to current-day BACT, and the emissions 

unit must meet the requirements in paragraphs (y)(3)(i)(a) and (y)(3)(ii).

(4) Demonstrating control effectiveness comparable to BACT. The owner or operator may 

demonstrate that the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to BACT for purposes of 

paragraph (y)(3)(i) according to either paragraph (y)(4)(i) or (ii). Paragraph (y)(4)(iii) specifies the time 

for making this comparison.

(i) Comparison to previous BACT and LAER determinations. The Administrator 

maintains an on-line data base of previous determinations of RACT, BACT, and LAER in the 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC). The emissions unit's control technology is presumed to be 

comparable to BACT if it achieves an emission limitation that is equal to or better than the emission 

limitations achieved by all the sources for which a BACT or LAER determination has been made within 

the preceding 5 years and entered into the RBLC, and for which it is technically feasible to apply the 

BACT or LAER control technology to the emissions unit. The Department shall also compare this 

presumption to any additional BACT or LAER determinations of which it is aware, and shall consider 

any information on achieved-in-practice pollution control technologies provided during the public 

comment period, to determine whether any presumptive determination that the control technology is 

comparable to BACT is correct.

(ii) The substantially-as-effective test. The owner or operator may demonstrate that the 

emissions unit's control technology is substantially as effective as BACT. In addition, any other person 

may present evidence related to whether the control technology is substantially as effective as BACT 

during the public participation process required under paragraph (y)(7). The Department shall consider 

such evidence on a case-by-case basis and determine whether the emissions unit's air pollution control 

technology is substantially as effective as BACT.

(iii) Time of comparison.

(a) Emissions units with control technologies that are installed before the 

date these provisions become effective. The owner or operator of an emissions unit whose control 

technology is installed before the date these provisions become effective, may, at its option, either 

demonstrate that the emission limitation achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is 

comparable to the BACT requirements that applied at the time the control technology was installed, or 

demonstrate that the emission limitation achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is 

comparable to current-day BACT requirements. The expiration date of the Clean Unit designation will 

depend on which option the owner or operator uses, as specified in paragraph (y)(6).

(b) Emissions units with control technologies that are installed on and after 

the date these provisions become effective. The owner or operator must demonstrate that the emission 

limitation achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to current-day BACT 

requirements.

(5) Effective date of the Clean Unit designation. The effective date of an emissions unit's Clean 

Unit designation (that is, the date on which the owner or operator may begin to use the Clean Unit Test to 

determine whether a project involving the emissions unit is a major modification) is the date that the 

permit required by paragraph (y)(7) is issued or the date that the emissions unit's air pollution control 

technology is placed into service, whichever is later.

(6) Clean Unit expiration. If the owner or operator demonstrates that the emission limitation 

achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to the BACT requirements that applied 
at the time the control technology was installed, then the Clean Unit designation expires 10 years from the 

date that the control technology was installed. For all other emissions units, the Clean Unit designation 

expires 10 years from the effective date of the Clean Unit designation, as determined according to 

paragraph (y)(5). In addition, for all emissions units, the Clean Unit designation expires any time the 

owner or operator fails to comply with the provisions for maintaining the Clean Unit designation in 

paragraph (y)(9).

(7) Procedures for designating emissions units as Clean Units. The Department shall designate 

an emissions unit a Clean Unit only by issuing a permit through Regulation 61-62.1 including 

requirements for public notice of the proposed Clean Unit designation and opportunity for public 

comment. Such permit must also meet the requirements in paragraph (y)(8).

(8) Required permit content. The permit required by paragraph (y)(7) shall include the terms 

and conditions set forth in paragraphs (y)(8)(i) through (vi). Such terms and conditions shall be 

incorporated into the major stationary source's title V permit in accordance with the provisions of the 

applicable title V permit program under 40 CFR 70 or 40 CFR 71, but no later than when the title V 

permit is renewed.

(i) A statement indicating that the emissions unit qualifies as a Clean Unit and identifying 

the pollutant(s) for which this designation applies.

(ii) The effective date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when the 

Department issues the permit (e.g., because the air pollution control technology is not yet in service), then 

the permit must describe the event that will determine the effective date (e.g., the date the control 

technology is placed into service). Once the effective date is known, then the owner or operator must 

notify the Department of the exact date. This specific effective date must be added to the source's title V 

permit at the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, or renewal of the title V permit 

for any reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next renewal.

(iii) The expiration date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when the 

Department issues the permit (e.g., because the air pollution control technology is not yet in service), then 

the permit must describe the event that will determine the expiration date (e.g., the date the control 

technology is placed into service). Once the expiration date is known, then the owner or operator must 

notify the Department of the exact date. The expiration date must be added to the source's title V permit at 

the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, or renewal of the title V permit for any 

reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next renewal.

(iv) All emission limitations and work practice requirements adopted in conjunction with 

emission limitations necessary to assure that the control technology continues to achieve an emission 

limitation comparable to BACT, and any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for 

determining that the emissions unit's control technology achieves a level of emissions control comparable 

to BACT (e.g., possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(v) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as necessary to demonstrate 

that the emissions unit continues to meet the criteria for maintaining its Clean Unit designation. (See 

paragraph (y)(9)).

(vi) Terms reflecting the owner or operator's duties to maintain the Clean Unit 

designation and the consequences of failing to do so, as presented in paragraph (y)(9).
(9) Maintaining a Clean Unit designation. To maintain the Clean Unit designation, the owner 

or operator must conform to all the restrictions listed in paragraphs (y)(9)(i) through (v). This paragraph 

(y)(9) applies independently to each pollutant for which the Department has designated the emissions unit 

a Clean Unit. That is, failing to conform to the restrictions for one pollutant affects the Clean Unit 

designation only for that pollutant.

(i) The Clean Unit must comply with the emission limitation(s) and/ or work practice 

requirements adopted to ensure that the control technology continues to achieve emission control 

comparable to BACT.

(ii) The owner or operator may not make a physical change in or change in the method of 

operation of the Clean Unit that causes the emissions unit to function in a manner that is inconsistent with 

the physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the determination that the control 

technology is achieving a level of emission control that is comparable to BACT (e.g., possibly the 

emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(iii) Reserved

(iv) The Clean Unit must comply with any terms and conditions in the title V permit 

related to the unit's Clean Unit designation.

(v) The Clean Unit must continue to control emissions using the specific air pollution 

control technology that was the basis for its Clean Unit designation. If the emissions unit or control 

technology is replaced, then the Clean Unit designation ends.

(10) Netting at Clean Units. Emissions changes that occur at a Clean Unit must not be included 

in calculating a significant net emissions increase (that is, must not be used in a "netting analysis") unless 

such use occurs before the date these provisions become effective, or after the Clean Unit designation 

expires; or, unless the emissions unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean 

Unit. However, if the Clean Unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit, 

then the owner or operator may generate a credit for the difference between the level that qualified the 

unit as a Clean Unit and the emissions unit's new emissions limit if such reductions are surplus, 

quantifiable, and permanent. For purposes of generating offsets, the reductions must also be federally 

enforceable. For purposes of determining creditable net emissions increases and decreases, the reductions 

must also be enforceable as a practical matter.

(11) Effect of redesignation on a Clean Unit designation. The Clean Unit designation of an 

emissions unit is not affected by redesignation of the attainment status of the area in which it is located. 

That is, if a Clean Unit is located in an attainment area and the area is redesignated to nonattainment, its 

Clean Unit designation is not affected. Similarly, redesignation from nonattainment to attainment does not 

affect the Clean Unit designation. However, if a Clean Unit's designation expires or is lost pursuant to 

paragraphs (x)(2)(iii) and (y)(2)(iii), it must re-qualify under the requirements that are currently 

applicable.

(z) [Reserved] PCP exclusion procedural requirements. PCPs shall be provided according to the 

provisions in paragraphs (z)(1) through (6).

(1) Before beginning actual construction of a PCP project, the owner or operator shall satisfy the 

requirements of Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.A, “Construction Permit. ”
(2) Before beginning actual construction of a PCP project that is listed in paragraphs (b)(35)(i) 

through (vi) of this regulation, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements of Regulation 61-62.1 

Section II.A, “Construction Permit” and paragraphs (z)(4) and (z)(5) of this regulation.

(3) Permit process for unlisted projects. Before beginning actual construction of a PCP project 

that is not listed in paragraphs (b)(35)(i) through (vi), the owner or operator shall meet the requirements 

of Regulation 61-62.1 Section II.A, “Construction Permit” and paragraphs (q) Public Participation and 

(z)(4) through (z)(5) of this regulation.

(4)Any project that relies on the PCP exclusion must meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(z)(4)(i) and (ii).

(i) Environmentally beneficial analysis. The environmental benefit from the emissions 

reductions of pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act must outweigh the environmental detriment of 

emissions increases in pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. A statement that a technology from 

paragraphs (b)(35)(i) through (vi) is being used shall be presumed to satisfy this requirement.

(ii) Air quality analysis. The emissions increases from the project will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, or adversely 

impact an air quality related value (such as visibility) that has been identified for a Federal Class I area by 

a Federal Land Manager and for which information is available to the general public.

(5) Content of notice or permit application. In the permit application sent to the Department, 

the owner or operator must include, at a minimum, the information listed in paragraphs (z)(5)(i) through 

(v).

(i) A description of the project.

(ii) The potential emissions increases and decreases of any pollutant regulated under the 

Clean Air Act and the projected emissions increases and decreases using the methodology in paragraph 

(a)(2)(iv) that will result from the project, and a copy of the environmentally beneficial analysis required 

by paragraph (z)(4)(i).

(iii) A description of monitoring and recordkeeping, and all other methods, to be used on 

an ongoing basis to demonstrate that the project is environmentally beneficial. Methods should be 

sufficient to meet the requirements in Regulation 61-62.70, Title V Operating Permit Program.

(iv) A certification that the project will be designed and operated in a manner that is 

consistent with proper industry and engineering practices, in a manner that is consistent with the 

environmentally beneficial analysis and air quality analysis required by paragraphs (z)(4)(i) and (ii), with 

information submitted in the notice or permit application, and in such a way as to minimize, within the 

physical configuration and operational standards usually associated with the emissions control device or 

strategy, emissions of collateral pollutants.

(v) Demonstration that the PCP will not have an adverse air quality impact (e.g., 

modeling, screening level modeling results, or a statement that the collateral emissions increase is 

included within the parameters used in the most recent modeling exercise) as required by paragraph 

(z)(4)(ii). An air quality impact analysis is not required for any pollutant that will not experience a 

significant emissions increase as a result of the project.
(6) Operational requirements. Upon installation of the PCP, the owner or operator must comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs (z)(6)(i) through (iv).

(i) General duty. The owner or operator must operate the PCP in a manner consistent 

with proper industry and engineering practices, in a manner that is consistent with the environmentally 

beneficial analysis and air quality analysis required by paragraphs (z)(4)(i) and (ii), with information 

submitted in the notice or permit application required by paragraph (z)(5), and in such a way as to 

minimize, within the physical configuration and operational standards usually associated with the 

emissions control device or strategy, emissions of collateral pollutants.

(ii) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator must maintain copies on site of the 

environmentally beneficial analysis, the air quality impacts analysis, and monitoring and other emission 

records to prove that the PCP operated consistent with the general duty requirements in paragraph 

(z)(6)(i).

(iii) Permit requirements. The owner or operator must comply with any provisions in 

the State Implementation Plan-approved permit or title V permit related to use and approval of the PCP 

exclusion.

(iv) Generation of emission reduction credits. Emission reductions created by a PCP 

shall not be included in calculating a significant net emissions increase unless the emissions unit further 

reduces emissions after qualifying for the PCP exclusion (e.g., taking an operational restriction on the 

hours of operation). The owner or operator may generate a credit for the difference between the level of 

reduction which was used to qualify for the PCP exclusion and the new emissions limit if such reductions 

are surplus, quantifiable, and permanent. For purposes of generating offsets, the reductions must also be 

federally enforceable. For purposes of determining creditable net emissions increases and decreases, the 

reductions must also be enforceable as a practical matter.

No changes (aa) through (bb)

R.61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 –Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, shall be revised as follows: 

No changes to (a) through (b)(4)

(b)... 

 

 (5) [Reserved] Emission test for projects that involve Clean Units. For a project that will be 

constructed and operated at a Clean Unit without causing the emissions unit to lose its Clean Unit 

designation, no emissions increase is deemed to occur.

 (6) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of emissions units. A significant 

emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the emissions increases 

for each emissions unit, using the method specified in paragraphs (b)(3) through (5) and (4) as applicable 

with respect to each emissions unit, for each type of emissions unit equals or exceeds the significant 

amount for that pollutant (as defined in paragraph (c)(14)). For example, if a project involves both an 

existing emissions unit and a Clean Unit, the projected increase is determined by summing the values 

determined using the method specified in paragraph (b)(3) for the existing unit and using the method 

specified in paragraph (b)(5) for the Clean Unit.
No change to (b)(7)

 (8) An owner or operator undertaking a Pollution Control Project (PCP) (as defined in paragraph 

(c)(10)) shall comply with the requirements under paragraph (h).

No changes to (c)(1) through (c)(3)

(c)... 

 

 (4) [Reserved] “Clean Unit” means any emissions unit that has been issued a major NSR permit 

that requires compliance with BACT or LAER, that is complying with such BACT/LAER requirements, 

and qualifies as a Clean Unit in accordance with paragraph (f); or any emissions unit that has been 

designated by the Department as a Clean Unit, based on the criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iv).

No changes to (c)(5) through (c)(6)(C)(vii)

 (6)... 

 (C)... 

 (viii) [Reserved] The addition, replacement, or use of a PCP, as defined in 

paragraph (c)(10), at an existing emissions unit meeting the requirements of paragraph (h). A replacement 

control technology must provide more effective emissions control than that of the replaced control 

technology to qualify for this exclusion.

No changes to (c)(6)(C)(ix) to (c)(7)(C)(xix) 

 (7)... 

 (C)... 

 (xx) Chemical process plants; - The term chemical process plant shall not include 

ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 

325193 or 312140; ... 

No changes to (c)(7)(C)(xxi) to (c)(8)(C)(ii)

 (8)... 

 (C)... 

 (iii) The increase or decrease in emissions did not occur at a Clean Unit, except 

as provided in paragraphs (f)(8) and (g)(10).

No changes to (c)(8)(D) to (c)(8)(E)(iv) 

 (E)... 

 (v) The decrease in actual emissions did not result from the installation of add-on 

control technology or application of pollution prevention practices that were relied on in designating an 

emissions unit as a Clean Unit pursuant to paragraph (g). That is, once an emissions unit has been 

designated as a Clean Unit, the owner or operator cannot later use the emissions reduction from the air 

pollution control measures that the Clean Unit designation is based on in calculating the net emissions
increase for another emissions unit (i.e., must not use that reduction in a "netting analysis" for another 

emissions unit). However, any new emissions reductions that were not relied upon in a PCP excluded 

pursuant to paragraph (h) or for a Clean Unit designation are creditable to the extent they meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (h)(6)(iv) for the PCP and paragraphs (f)(8) or (g)(10) for a Clean Unit.

No changes to (c)(8)(F) through (c)(9)

 (10) [Reserved] “Pollution control project (PCP)” means any activity, set of work practices or 

project (including pollution prevention as defined under paragraph (b)(36) of Standard 7) undertaken at an 

existing emissions unit that reduces emissions of air pollutants from such unit. Such qualifying activities 

or projects can include the replacement or upgrade of an existing emissions control technology with a 

more effective unit. Other changes that may occur at the source are not considered part of the PCP if they 

are not necessary to reduce emissions through the PCP. Projects listed in (c)(10)(A) through (F) are 

presumed to be environmentally beneficial pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i). Projects not listed in these 

paragraphs may qualify for a case-specific PCP exclusion pursuant to the requirements of paragraphs 

(h)(2) and (h)(5).

 

(A) Conventional or advanced flue gas desulfurization or sorbent injection for control of 

SO2.

(B) Electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, high efficiency multiclones, or scrubbers for 

control of particulate matter or other pollutants.

(C) Flue gas recirculation, low-NOX burners or combustors, selective non-catalytic 

reduction, selective catalytic reduction, low emission combustion (for Internal Combustion engines), and 

oxidation/ absorption catalyst for control of NOX.

(D) Regenerative thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, condensers, thermal incinerators, 

hydrocarbon combustion flares, biofiltration, absorbers and adsorbers, and floating roofs for storage 

vessels for control of volatile organic compounds or hazardous air pollutants. For the purpose of this 

regulation, "hydrocarbon combustion flare" means either a flare used to comply with an applicable NSPS 

or MACT standard (including uses of flares during startup, shutdown, or malfunction permitted under 

such a standard), or a flare that serves to control emissions of waste streams comprised predominately of 

hydrocarbons and containing no more than 230 mg/dscm hydrogen sulfide.

(E) Activities or projects undertaken to accommodate switching (or partially switching) 

to an inherently less polluting fuel, to be limited to the following fuel switches:

(i) Switching from a heavier grade of fuel oil to a lighter fuel oil, or any grade of 

oil to 0.05 percent sulfur diesel (i.e., from a higher sulfur content #2 fuel or from #6 fuel, to CA 0.05 

percent sulfur #2 diesel);

(ii) Switching from coal, oil, or any solid fuel to natural gas, propane, or gasified 

coal;

(iii) Switching from coal to wood, excluding construction or demolition waste, 

chemical or pesticide treated wood, and other forms of "unclean" wood;

(iv) Switching from coal to #2 fuel oil (0.5 percent maximum sulfur content); and

(v) Switching from high sulfur coal to low sulfur coal (maximum 1.2 percent 

sulfur content).
(F) Activities or projects undertaken to accommodate switching from the use of one 

ozone depleting substance (ODS) to the use of a substance with a lower or zero ozone depletion potential 

(ODP), including changes to equipment needed to accommodate the activity or project, that meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (c)(10)(F)(i) and (ii).

(i) The productive capacity of the equipment is not increased as a result of the 

activity or project.

(ii) The projected usage of the new substance is lower, on an ODP-weighted 

basis, than the baseline usage of the replaced ODS. To make this determination, follow the procedure in 

paragraphs (c)(10)(F)(ii)(a) through (d).

(a) Determine the ODP of the substances by consulting 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart A, appendices A and B.

(b) Calculate the replaced ODP-weighted amount by multiplying the 

baseline actual usage (using the annualized average of any 24 consecutive months of usage within the past 

10 years) by the ODP of the replaced ODS.

(c) Calculate the projected ODP-weighted amount by multiplying the 

projected future annual usage of the new substance by its ODP.

(d) If the value calculated in paragraph (c)(10)(F)(ii)(b) is more than the 

value calculated in paragraph (c)(10)(F)(ii)(c), then the projected use of the new substance is lower, on an 

ODP-weighted basis, than the baseline usage of the replaced ODS.

No changes to (c)(11) through (d)(1)(C)(iv)

(d)... 

 (1)... 

 (C)... 

 (v) All emission reductions claimed as offset credit shall be federally 

enforceable; and surplus;

 (a) Eligibility as Emission Offsets. Any facility that has the potential to 

emit any NAAQS pollutant that is located in a federally-designated nonattainment area shall be eligible to 

create emission offsets.

 (1) To be eligible to be an emission offset: 

 (A) A reduction in emissions shall be permanent, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus and must have occurred after December 31 of the base year 

inventory for those pollutants that are designated nonattainment by the EPA. The base year inventory date 

is two years preceding the date of nonattainment designation. However, the Department may choose to 

consider a prior shutdown or curtailment to have occurred after the last day of the base year if the 

projected emissions inventory used to develop the attainment demonstration explicitly includes the 

emissions from such previously shutdown or curtailed emission units.
 (B) Emission reductions shall have been created by an 

existing facility that has obtained an enforceable air quality permit or letter of permit cancellation 

resulting from the surrender of the source’s permit(s). 

 (2) Emission reductions may be created by any or a combination 

of the following methods: 

 (A) Production curtailment or reduction in throughput; 

 (B) Shutdown of emitting sources; or 

 (C) Any other enforceable method that the Department 

determines to result in permanent, quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus reduction of emissions. 

 (3) Prior to commencing operation of a permitted emissions unit, 

Department approval for the required emission offsets must be granted.

 (4) The following are ineligible for emission offsets:

 (A) Emission reductions that are not considered surplus, 

such as: 

 (i) Emission reductions that have previously 

been used to avoid Regulation 61-62.5 Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or 

Regulation 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), through a netting 

demonstration;

 (ii) Emission reductions of hazardous air 

pollutants, listed in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, to the extent needed to comply with Regulation 

61-62.61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and Regulation 61-

62.63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories, 

(however, emission reductions of hazardous volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or hazardous 

particulate matter (PM) air pollutants beyond the amount of reductions necessary to comply with 

Regulation 61-62.61, NESHAP, and Regulation 61-62.63, NESHAP for Source Categories, are considered 

surplus);

 (iii) Emission reductions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM) and VOCs to the extent needed to comply with 

Section 111 of the CAA and Regulation 61-62.60, South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS), (however, emission reductions of NOx, SO2, PM and VOCs 

beyond the amount of reductions necessary to comply with Regulation 61-62.60, South Carolina 

Designated Facility Plan and NSPS, are considered surplus);

 (iv) Emission units covered under an agreement, 

order or variance for exceeding an emission standard until compliance is demonstrated with the emission 

standard that is the subject of the agreement, order or variance;

 (v) Sources that have operated less than 12 

months;
 (vi) Emission reductions required in order to 

comply with any State or Federal regulation not listed above, unless these reductions are in excess of the 

amount required by the State or Federal regulation; or

 (vii) Facilities that have received a Department 

transmittal letter notifying of permit cancellation due to the facility’s decision to close out its operating 

permit without a request to qualify facility emission reductions as offsets.

 (b) Calculation of Emission Offsets

 (1) The following procedure shall be used to calculate emission 

offsets:

 (A) The existing source shall calculate average annual 

actual emissions, in tons per year (tpy), before the emission reduction using data from the 24-month 

period immediately preceding the reduction in emissions. With the Department’s written approval, the use 

of a different time period, not to exceed 10 years immediately preceding the reduction in emissions, may 

be allowed if the owner or operator of the source documents that such period is more representative of 

normal source operation, but not prior to the base year inventory date, which is the last day of the two 

years preceding the date of nonattainment designation; and 

 (B) The emission offsets created shall be calculated by 

subtracting the allowable emissions following the reduction from the average annual actual emissions 

prior to the reduction.

No changes to (d)(1)(C)(vi) through (d)(1)(C)(viii) 

 (ix) [Reserved] Decreases in actual emissions resulting from the installation of 

add-on control technology or application of pollution prevention measures that were relied upon in 

designating an emissions unit as a Clean Unit or a project as a PCP cannot be used as offsets.

 (x) [Reserved] Decreases in actual emissions occurring at a Clean Unit cannot be 

used as offsets, except as provided in paragraphs (f)(8) and (g)(10) of this regulation. Similarly, decreases 

in actual emissions occurring at a PCP cannot be used as offsets, except as provided in paragraph 

(h)(6)(iv) of this regulation.

No changes to (d)(1)(C)(xi) through (d)(2)(D) 

 (3) The following provisions apply to projects at existing emissions units at a major stationary 

source (other than projects at a Clean Unit or at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a 

reasonable possibility that a project that is not a part of a major modification may result in a significant 

emissions increase and the owner or operator elects to use the method specified in paragraphs 

(c)(11)(B)(i) through (iii) for calculating projected actual emissions. 

No changes to (d)(3)(A) through (d)(3)(E)

 (4) If a Clean Unit modification project or a project at a source with a PAL requires construction 

permitting under Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, “Permit Requirements,” the owner or operator shall 

provide notification of source status as part of the permit application to the Department. 

No changes to (d)(5) through (e)(S)
(e)... 

 (T) Chemical process plants; - The term chemical process plant shall not include ethanol 

production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 

312140; ... 

No changes to (e)(U) through (e)(AA)

(f) [Reserved] Clean Unit Test for emissions units that are subject to LAER. An owner or operator of 

a major stationary source has the option of using the Clean Unit Test to determine whether emissions 

increases at a Clean Unit are part of a project that is a major modification according to the provisions in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (9).

(1) Applicability. The provisions of paragraph (f) apply to any emissions unit for which the 

Department has issued a major NSR permit within the past 10 years.

(2) General provisions for Clean Units. The provisions in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (v) apply 

to a Clean Unit.

(i) Any project for which the owner or operator begins actual construction after the 

effective date of the Clean Unit designation (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f)(4)) and 

before the expiration date (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f)(5)) will be considered to have 

occurred while the emissions unit was a Clean Unit.

(ii) If a project at a Clean Unit does not cause the need for a change in the emission 

limitations or work practice requirements in the permit for the unit that were adopted in conjunction with 

LAER and the project would not alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for 

the LAER determination as specified in paragraph (f)(6)(iv), the emissions unit remains a Clean Unit.

(iii) If a project causes the need for a change in the emission limitations or work practice 

requirements in the permit for the unit that were adopted in conjunction with LAER or the project would 

alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the LAER determination as 

specified in paragraph (f)(6)(iv), then the emissions unit loses its designation as a Clean Unit upon 

issuance of the necessary permit revisions (unless the unit requalifies as a Clean Unit pursuant to 

paragraph (f)(3)(iv)). If the owner or operator begins actual construction on the project without first 

applying to revise the emissions unit's permit, the Clean Unit designation ends immediately prior to the 

time when actual construction begins.

(iv) A project that causes an emissions unit to lose its designation as a Clean Unit is 

subject to the applicability requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and paragraph (b)(6) as if the 

emissions unit is not a Clean Unit.

(v) Certain Emissions Units with PSD permits. For emissions units that meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(v)(A) and (B), the BACT level of emissions reductions and/or work 

practice requirements shall satisfy the requirement for LAER in meeting the requirements for Clean Units 

under paragraphs (f)(3) through (8). For these emissions units, all requirements for the LAER 

determination under paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall also apply to the BACT permit terms and 

conditions. In addition, the requirements of paragraph (f)(7)(i)(B) do not apply to emissions units that 

qualify for Clean Unit status under this paragraph (f)(2)(v).
(A) The emissions unit must have received a PSD permit within the last 10 years 

and such permit must require the emissions unit to comply with BACT.

(B) The emissions unit must be located in an area that was redesignated as 

nonattainment for the relevant pollutant(s) after issuance of the PSD permit and before the effective date 

of the Clean Unit Test provisions in the area.

(3) Qualifying or re-qualifying to use the Clean Unit applicability test. An emissions unit 

automatically qualifies as a Clean Unit when the unit meets the criteria in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii). 

After the original Clean Unit designation expires in accordance with paragraph (f)(5) or is lost pursuant to 

paragraph (f)(2)(iii), such emissions unit may re-qualify as a Clean Unit under either paragraph (f)(3)(iv), 

or under the Clean Unit provisions in paragraph (g). To re-qualify as a Clean Unit under paragraph 

(f)(3)(iv), the emissions unit must obtain a new major NSR permit issued through the applicable 

nonattainment major NSR program and meet all the criteria in paragraph (f)(3)(iv). Clean Unit 

designation applies individually for each pollutant emitted by the emissions unit.

(i) Permitting requirement. The emissions unit must have received a major NSR permit 

within the past 10 years. The owner or operator must maintain and be able to provide information that 

would demonstrate that this permitting requirement is met.

(ii) Qualifying air pollution control technologies. Air pollutant emissions from the 

emissions unit must be reduced through the use of an air pollution control technology (which includes 

pollution prevention as defined under paragraph (b)(36) of Standard 7 or work practices) that meets both 

the following requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(A) and (B).

(A) The control technology achieves the LAER level of emissions reductions as 

determined through issuance of a major NSR permit within the past 10 years. However, the emissions 

unit is not eligible for Clean Unit designation if the LAER determination resulted in no requirement to 

reduce emissions below the level of a standard, uncontrolled, new emissions unit of the same type.

(B) The owner or operator made an investment to install the control technology. 

For the purpose of this determination, an investment includes expenses to research the application of a 

pollution prevention technique to the emissions unit or expenses to apply a pollution prevention technique 

to an emissions unit.

(iii) Prior to using the Clean Units test, the facility shall notify the Department with a 

statement affirming that the conditions set out in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) have been met in order to 

qualify as a Clean Unit.

(iv) Re-qualifying for the Clean Unit designation. The emissions unit must obtain a 

new major NSR permit that requires compliance with the current-day LAER, and the emissions unit must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii).

(4) Effective date of the Clean Unit designation. The effective date of an emissions unit's Clean 

Unit designation (that is, the date on which the owner or operator may begin to use the Clean Unit Test to 

determine whether a project at the emissions unit is a major modification) is determined according to the 

applicable paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii).

(i) Original Clean Unit designation, and emissions units that re-qualify as Clean 

Units by implementing a new control technology to meet current-day LAER. The effective date is the 

date the emissions unit's air pollution control technology is placed into service, or 3 years after the 
issuance date of the major NSR permit, whichever is earlier, but no sooner than the date that provisions 

for the Clean Unit applicability test are approved by the Administrator for incorporation into the plan and 

become effective for the State.

(ii) Emissions units that re-qualify for the Clean Unit designation using an existing 

control technology. The effective date is the date the new, major NSR permit is issued.

(5) Clean Unit expiration. An emissions unit's Clean Unit designation expires (that is, the date 

on which the owner or operator may no longer use the Clean Unit Test to determine whether a project 

affecting the emissions unit is, or is part of, a major modification) according to the applicable paragraph 

(f)(5)(i) or (ii).

(i) Original Clean Unit designation, and emissions units that re-qualify by 

implementing new control technology to meet current-day LAER. For any emissions unit that 

automatically qualifies as a Clean Unit under paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii), the Clean Unit designation 

expires 10 years after the effective date, or the date the equipment went into service, whichever is earlier; 

or, it expires at any time the owner or operator fails to comply with the provisions for maintaining Clean 

Unit designation in paragraph (f)(7).

(ii) Emissions units that re-qualify for the Clean Unit designation using an existing 

control technology. For any emissions unit that re-qualifies as a Clean Unit under paragraph (f)(3)(iv), 

the Clean Unit designation expires 10 years after the effective date; or, it expires any time the owner or 

operator fails to comply with the provisions for maintaining the Clean Unit Designation in paragraph 

(f)(7).

(6) Required title V permit content for a Clean Unit. After the effective date of the Clean Unit 

designation, and in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 61-62.70, “Title V Operating Permit 

Program”, but no later than when the title V permit is renewed, the title V permit for the major stationary 

source must include the following terms and conditions in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (vi) related to the 

Clean Unit.

(i) A statement indicating that the emissions unit qualifies as a Clean Unit and identifying 

the pollutant(s) for which this Clean Unit designation applies.

(ii) The effective date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when the 

Clean Unit designation is initially recorded in the title V permit (e.g., because the air pollution control 

technology is not yet in service), the permit must describe the event that will determine the effective date 

(e.g., the date the control technology is placed into service). Once the effective date is determined, the 

owner or operator must notify the Department of the exact date. This specific effective date must be 

added to the source's title V permit at the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, or 

renewal of the title V permit for any reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next 

renewal.

(iii) The expiration date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when 

the Clean Unit designation is initially recorded into the title V permit (e.g., because the air pollution 

control technology is not yet in service), then the permit must describe the event that will determine the 

expiration date (e.g., the date the control technology is placed into service). Once the expiration date is 

determined, the owner or operator must notify the Department of the exact date. The expiration date must 

be added to the source's title V permit at the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, 

or renewal of the title V permit for any reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next 

renewal.
(iv) All emission limitations and work practice requirements adopted in conjunction with 

the LAER, and any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the LAER 

determination (e.g., possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(v) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as necessary to demonstrate 

that the emissions unit continues to meet the criteria for maintaining the Clean Unit designation. (See 

paragraph (f)(7)).

(vi) Terms reflecting the owner or operator's duties to maintain the Clean Unit 

designation and the consequences of failing to do so, as presented in paragraph (f)(7).

(7) Maintaining the Clean Unit designation. To maintain the Clean Unit designation, the owner 

or operator must conform to all the restrictions listed in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (iii). This paragraph 

(f)(7) applies independently to each pollutant for which the emissions unit has the Clean Unit designation. 

That is, failing to conform to the restrictions for one pollutant affects Clean Unit designation only for that 

pollutant.

(i) The Clean Unit must comply with the emission limitation(s) and/or work practice 

requirements adopted in conjunction with the LAER that is recorded in the major NSR permit, and 

subsequently reflected in the title V permit.

(A) The owner or operator may not make a physical change in or change in the 

method of operation of the Clean Unit that causes the emissions unit to function in a manner that is 

inconsistent with the physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the LAER 

determination (e.g., possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(B) The Clean Unit may not emit above a level that has been offset.

(ii) The Clean Unit must comply with any terms and conditions in the title V permit 

related to the unit's Clean Unit designation.

(iii) The Clean Unit must continue to control emissions using the specific air pollution 

control technology that was the basis for its Clean Unit designation. If the emissions unit or control 

technology is replaced, then the Clean Unit designation ends.

(8) Offsets and netting at Clean Units. Emissions changes that occur at a Clean Unit must not 

be included in calculating a significant net emissions increase (that is, must not be used in a "netting 

analysis"), or be used for generating offsets unless such use occurs before the effective date of the Clean 

Unit designation, or after the Clean Unit designation expires; or, unless the emissions unit reduces 

emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit. However, if the Clean Unit reduces 

emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit, then, the owner or operator may generate 

a credit for the difference between the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit and the new emission 

limitation if such reductions are surplus, quantifiable, and permanent. For purposes of generating offsets, 

the reductions must also be federally enforceable. For purposes of determining creditable net emissions 

increases and decreases, the reductions must also be enforceable as a practical matter.

(9) Effect of redesignation on the Clean Unit designation. The Clean Unit designation of an 

emissions unit is not affected by redesignation of the attainment status of the area in which it is located. 

That is, if a Clean Unit is located in an attainment area and the area is redesignated to nonattainment, its 

Clean Unit designation is not affected. Similarly, redesignation from nonattainment to attainment does not 
affect the Clean Unit designation. However, if an existing Clean Unit designation expires, it must requalify under the requirements that are currently applicable in the area.

(g) [Reserved] Clean Unit provisions for emissions units that achieve an emission limitation 

comparable to LAER. An owner or operator of a major stationary source has the option of using the 

Clean Unit Test to determine whether emissions increases at a Clean Unit are part of a project that is a 

major modification according to the provisions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (11).

(1) Applicability. The provisions of this paragraph (g) apply to emissions units which do not 

qualify as Clean Units under paragraph (f) of this regulation, but which are achieving a level of emissions 

control comparable to LAER, as determined by the Department in accordance with this paragraph (g).

(2) General provisions for Clean Units. The provisions in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) 

apply to a Clean Unit (designated under this paragraph (g)).

(i) Any project for which the owner or operator begins actual construction after the 

effective date of the Clean Unit designation (as determined in accordance with paragraph (g)(5)) and 

before the expiration date (as determined in accordance with paragraph (g)(6)) will be considered to have 

occurred while the emissions unit was a Clean Unit.

(ii) If a project at a Clean Unit does not cause the need for a change in the emission 

limitations or work practice requirements in the permit for the unit that have been determined (pursuant to 

paragraph (g)(4) of this regulation) to be comparable to LAER, and the project would not alter any 

physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for determining that the emissions unit's 

control technology achieves a level of emissions control comparable to LAER as specified in paragraph 

(g)(8)(iv), the emissions unit remains a Clean Unit.

(iii) If a project causes the need for a change in the emission limitations or work practice 

requirements in the permit for the unit that have been determined (pursuant to paragraph (g)(4)) to be 

comparable to LAER, or the project would alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed 

the basis for determining that the emissions unit's control technology achieves a level of emissions control 

comparable to LAER as specified in paragraph (g)(8)(iv), then the emissions unit loses its designation as 

a Clean Unit upon issuance of the necessary permit revisions (unless the unit re-qualifies as a Clean Unit 

pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)(iv)). If the owner or operator begins actual construction on the project 

without first applying to revise the emissions unit's permit, the Clean Unit designation ends immediately 

prior to the time when actual construction begins.

(iv) A project that causes an emissions unit to lose its designation as a Clean Unit is 

subject to the applicability requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and paragraph (b)(6) as if the 

emissions unit were never a Clean Unit.

(3) Qualifying or re-qualifying to use the Clean Unit applicability test. An emissions unit 

qualifies as a Clean Unit when the unit meets the criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii). After the 

original Clean Unit designation expires in accordance with paragraph (g)(6) or is lost pursuant to 

paragraph (g)(2)(iii), such emissions unit may re-qualify as a Clean Unit under either paragraph (g)(3)(iv), 

or under the Clean Unit provisions in paragraph (f). To re-qualify as a Clean Unit under paragraph 

(g)(3)(iv), the emissions unit must obtain a new permit issued pursuant to the requirements in paragraphs 

(g)(7) and (8) and meet all the criteria in paragraph (g)(3)(iv). The Department will make a separate Clean 

Unit designation for each pollutant emitted by the emissions unit for which the emissions unit qualifies as 

a Clean Unit.
(i) Qualifying air pollution control technologies. Air pollutant emissions from the 

emissions unit must be reduced through the use of air pollution control technology (which includes 

pollution prevention as defined under paragraph (b)(36) of Standard 7 or work practices) that meets both 

the following requirements in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A) and (B).

(A) The owner or operator has demonstrated that the emissions unit's control 

technology is comparable to LAER according to the requirements of paragraph (g)(4). However, the 

emissions unit is not eligible for the Clean Unit designation if its emissions are not reduced below the 

level of a standard, uncontrolled emissions unit of the same type (e.g., if the LAER determinations to 

which it is compared have resulted in a determination that no control measures are required).

(B) The owner or operator made an investment to install the control technology. 

For the purpose of this determination, an investment includes expenses to research the application of a 

pollution prevention technique to the emissions unit or to retool the unit to apply a pollution prevention 

technique.

(ii) Impact of emissions from the unit. The Department must determine that the 

allowable emissions from the emissions unit will not cause or contribute to a violation of any national 

ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, or adversely impact an air quality related value (such as 

visibility) that has been identified for a Federal Class I area by a Federal Land Manager and for which 

information is available to the general public.

(iii) Date of installation. An emissions unit may qualify as a Clean Unit even if the 

control technology, on which the Clean Unit designation is based, was installed before the date these 

provisions become effective. However, for such emissions units, the owner or operator must apply for the 

Clean Unit designation before a period not exceeding twenty-four months following the date these 

provisions become effective. For technologies installed after the plan requirements become effective, the 

owner or operator must apply for the Clean Unit designation at the time the control technology is 

installed.

(iv) Re-qualifying as a Clean Unit. The emissions unit must obtain a new permit 

(pursuant to requirements in paragraphs (g)(7) and (8)) that demonstrates that the emissions unit's control 

technology is achieving a level of emission control comparable to current-day LAER, and the emissions 

unit must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A) and (g)(3)(ii).

(4) Demonstrating control effectiveness comparable to LAER. The owner or operator may 

demonstrate that the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to LAER for purposes of 

paragraph (g)(3)(i) according to either paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (ii). Paragraph (g)(4)(iii) specifies the time 

for making this comparison.

(i) Comparison to previous LAER determinations. The administrator maintains an online data base of previous determinations of RACT, BACT, and LAER in the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (RBLC). The emissions unit's control technology is presumed to be comparable to LAER 

if it achieves an emission limitation that is at least as stringent as any one of the five best-performing 

similar sources for which a LAER determination has been made within the preceding 5 years, and for 

which information has been entered into the RBLC. The Department shall also compare this presumption 

to any additional LAER determinations of which it is aware, and shall consider any information on 

achieved-in-practice pollution control technologies provided during the public comment period, to 

determine whether any presumptive determination that the control technology is comparable to LAER is 

correct.
(ii) The substantially-as-effective test. The owner or operator may demonstrate that the 

emissions unit's control technology is substantially as effective as LAER. In addition, any other person 

may present evidence related to whether the control technology is substantially as effective as LAER 

during the public participation process required under paragraph (g)(7). The Department shall consider 

such evidence on a case-by-case basis and determine whether the emissions unit's air pollution control 

technology is substantially as effective as LAER.

(iii) Time of comparison.

(A) Emissions units with control technologies that are installed before the 

effective date of plan requirements implementing this paragraph. The owner or operator of an 

emissions unit whose control technology is installed before the effective date of plan requirements 

implementing this paragraph (g) may, at its option, either demonstrate that the emission limitation 

achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to the LAER requirements that applied 

at the time the control technology was installed, or demonstrate that the emission limitation achieved by 

the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to current-day LAER requirements. The expiration 

date of the Clean Unit designation will depend on which option the owner or operator uses, as specified in 

paragraph (g)(6).

(B) Emissions units with control technologies that are installed after the 

effective date of plan requirements implementing this paragraph. The owner or operator must 

demonstrate that the emission limitation achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is 

comparable to current-day LAER requirements.

(5) Effective date of the Clean Unit designation. The effective date of an emissions unit's Clean 

Unit designation (that is, the date on which the owner or operator may begin to use the Clean Unit Test to 

determine whether a project involving the emissions unit is a major modification) is the date that the 

permit required by paragraph (g)(7) is issued or the date that the emissions unit's air pollution control 

technology is placed into service, whichever is later.

(6) Clean Unit expiration. If the owner or operator demonstrates that the emission limitation 

achieved by the emissions unit's control technology is comparable to the LAER requirements that applied 

at the time the control technology was installed, then the Clean Unit designation expires 10 years from the 

date that the control technology was installed. For all other emissions units, the Clean Unit designation 

expires 10 years from the effective date of the Clean Unit designation, as determined according to 

paragraph (g)(5). In addition, for all emissions units, the Clean Unit designation expires any time the 

owner or operator fails to comply with the provisions for maintaining the Clean Unit designation in 

paragraph (g)(9).

(7) Procedures for designating emissions units as Clean Units. The Department shall designate 

an emissions unit a Clean Unit only by issuing a permit through a permitting program that has been 

approved by the Administrator and that conforms with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 

51.164 including requirements for public notice of the proposed Clean Unit designation and opportunity 

for public comment. Such permit must also meet the requirements in paragraph (g)(8).

(8) Required permit content. The permit required by paragraph (g)(7) shall include the terms 

and conditions set forth in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) through (vi). Such terms and conditions shall be 

incorporated into the major stationary source's title V permit in accordance with the provisions of the 

applicable title V permit program under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, but no later than when the 

title V permit is renewed.
(i) A statement indicating that the emissions unit qualifies as a Clean Unit and identifying 

the pollutant(s) for which this designation applies.

(ii) The effective date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when the 

Department issues the permit (e.g., because the air pollution control technology is not yet in service), then 

the permit must describe the event that will determine the effective date (e.g., the date the control 

technology is placed into service). Once the effective date is known, then the owner or operator must 

notify the Department of the exact date. This specific effective date must be added to the source's title V 

permit at the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, or renewal of the title V permit 

for any reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next renewal.

(iii) The expiration date of the Clean Unit designation. If this date is not known when 

the Department issues the permit (e.g., because the air pollution control technology is not yet in service), 

then the permit must describe the event that will determine the expiration date (e.g., the date the control 

technology is placed into service). Once the expiration date is known, then the owner or operator must 

notify the Department of the exact date. The expiration date must be added to the source's title V permit at 

the first opportunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening, or renewal of the title V permit for any 

reason, whichever comes first, but in no case later than the next renewal.

(iv) All emission limitations and work practice requirements adopted in conjunction with 

emission limitations necessary to assure that the control technology continues to achieve an emission 

limitation comparable to LAER, and any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for 

determining that the emissions unit's control technology achieves a level of emissions control comparable 

to LAER (e.g., possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(v) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as necessary to demonstrate 

that the emissions unit continues to meet the criteria for maintaining its Clean Unit designation. (See 

paragraph (g)(9).)

(vi) Terms reflecting the owner or operator's duties to maintain the Clean Unit 

designation and the consequences of failing to do so, as presented in paragraph (g)(9).

(9) Maintaining Clean Unit designation. To maintain Clean Unit designation, the owner or 

operator must conform to all the restrictions listed in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through (v). This paragraph 

(g)(9) applies independently to each pollutant for which the Department has designated the emissions unit 

a Clean Unit. That is, failing to conform to the restrictions for one pollutant affects the Clean Unit 

designation only for that pollutant.

(i) The Clean Unit must comply with the emission limitation(s) and/or work practice 

requirements adopted to ensure that the control technology continues to achieve emission control 

comparable to LAER.

(ii) The owner or operator may not make a physical change in or change in the method of 

operation of the Clean Unit that causes the emissions unit to function in a manner that is inconsistent with 

the physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for the determination that the control 

technology is achieving a level of emission control that is comparable to LAER (e.g., possibly the 

emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(iii) The Clean Unit may not emit above a level that has been offset.
(iv) The Clean Unit must comply with any terms and conditions in the title V permit 

related to the unit's Clean Unit designation.

(v) The Clean Unit must continue to control emissions using the specific air pollution 

control technology that was the basis for its Clean Unit designation. If the emissions unit or control 

technology is replaced, then the Clean Unit designation ends.

(10) Offsets and Netting at Clean Units. Emissions changes that occur at a Clean Unit must not 

be included in calculating a significant net emissions increase (that is, must not be used in a "netting 

analysis"), or be used for generating offsets unless such use occurs before the effective date of plan 

requirements adopted to implement this paragraph (g) or after the Clean Unit designation expires; or, 

unless the emissions unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit. 

However, if the Clean Unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit, then 

the owner or operator may generate a credit for the difference between the level that qualified the unit as a 

Clean Unit and the emissions unit's new emission limitation if such reductions are surplus, quantifiable, 

and permanent. For purposes of generating offsets, the reductions must also be federally enforceable. For 

purposes of determining creditable net emissions increases and decreases, the reductions must also be 

enforceable as a practical matter.

(11) Effect of redesignation on the Clean Unit designation. The Clean Unit designation of an 

emissions unit is not affected by redesignation of the attainment status of the area in which it is located. 

That is, if a Clean Unit is located in an attainment area and the area is redesignated to nonattainment, its 

Clean Unit designation is not affected. Similarly, redesignation from nonattainment to attainment does not 

affect the Clean Unit designation. However, if a Clean Unit's designation expires or is lost pursuant to 

paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (g)(2)(iii), it must re-qualify under the requirements that are currently 

applicable.

(h) [Reserved] PCP exclusion procedural requirements. PCPs shall be provided according to the 

provisions in paragraphs (h)(1) through (6).

(1) Before beginning actual construction of a PCP project, the owner or operator shall satisfy the 

requirements of Regulation 61-62.1, Section II.A, “Construction Permit.”

(2) Any project that relies on the PCP exclusion must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(h)(2)(i) and (ii).

(i) Environmentally beneficial analysis. The environmental benefit from the emission 

reductions of pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act must outweigh the environmental detriment of 

emissions increases in pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. A statement that a technology from 

paragraphs (c)(10)(A) through (F) is being used shall be presumed to satisfy this requirement.

(ii) Air quality analysis. The emissions increases from the project will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, or adversely 

impact an air quality related value (such as visibility) that has been identified for a Federal Class I area by 

a Federal Land Manager and for which information is available to the general public.

(3) Content of notice or permit application. In the notice or permit application sent to the 

Department, the owner or operator must include, at a minimum, the information listed in paragraphs 

(h)(3)(i) through (v).

(i) A description of the project.
(ii) The potential emissions increases and decreases of any pollutant regulated under the 

Clean Air Act and the projected emissions increases and decreases using the methodology in paragraph 

(b), that will result from the project, and a copy of the environmentally beneficial analysis required by 

paragraph (h)(2)(i).

(iii) A description of monitoring and recordkeeping, and all other methods, to be used on 

an ongoing basis to demonstrate that the project is environmentally beneficial. Methods should be 

sufficient to meet the requirements in Regulation 61-62.70, “Title V Operating Permit Program.”

(iv) A certification that the project will be designed and operated in a manner that is 

consistent with proper industry and engineering practices, in a manner that is consistent with the 

environmentally beneficial analysis and air quality analysis required by paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii), with 

information submitted in the notice or permit application, and in such a way as to minimize, within the 

physical configuration and operational standards usually associated with the emissions control device or 

strategy, emissions of collateral pollutants.

(v) Demonstration that the PCP will not have an adverse air quality impact (e.g., 

modeling, screening level modeling results, or a statement that the collateral emissions increase is 

included within the parameters used in the most recent modeling exercise) as required by paragraph 

(h)(2)(ii). An air quality impact analysis is not required for any pollutant which will not experience a 

significant emissions increase as a result of the project.

(4) Review process for listed projects. Before beginning actual construction of a PCP project 

that is listed in paragraphs (c)(10)(A) through (F), the owner or operator shall meet the requirements of 

Regulation 61-62.1 Section II. A, “Construction Permit” and paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this 

regulation.

(5) Permit process for unlisted projects. Before beginning actual construction of a PCP project 

that is not listed in paragraphs (c)(10)(A) through (F) the owner or operator shall meet the requirements of 

paragraphs A. and G.5 of Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, “Construction Permit,” paragraph (d)(6) and 

(d)(7) of this regulation, and (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this regulation. 

(6) Operational requirements. Upon installation of the PCP, the owner or operator must comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs (h)(6)(i) through (iii).

(i) General duty. The owner or operator must operate the PCP in a manner consistent 

with proper industry and engineering practices, in a manner that is consistent with the environmentally 

beneficial analysis and air quality analysis required by paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii), with information 

submitted in the notice or permit application required by paragraph (h)(3), and in such a way as to 

minimize, within the physical configuration and operational standards usually associated with the 

emissions control device or strategy, emissions of collateral pollutants.

(ii) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator must maintain copies on site of the 

environmentally beneficial analysis, the air quality impacts analysis, and monitoring and other emission 

records to prove that the PCP operated consistent with the general duty requirements in paragraph 

(h)(6)(i).

(iii) Permit requirements. The owner or operator must comply with any provisions in 

the plan-approved permit or title V permit related to use and approval of the PCP exclusion.
(iv) Generation of emission reduction credits. Emission reductions created by a PCP 

shall not be included in calculating a significant net emissions increase, or be used for generating offsets, 

unless the emissions unit further reduces emissions after qualifying for the PCP exclusion (e.g., taking an 

operational restriction on the hours of operation). The owner or operator may generate a credit for the 

difference between the level of reduction which was used to qualify for the PCP exclusion and the new 

emission limitation if such reductions are surplus, quantifiable, and permanent. For purposes of 

generating offsets, the reductions must also be federally enforceable. For purposes of determining 

creditable net emissions increases and decreases, the reductions must also be enforceable as a practical 

matter.

No change to (i) through (j)
ATTACHMENT 5 

Notice of Final Regulation 

To Published in the State Register on April 24, 2009 

Document No. 4056 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

CHAPTER 61 

Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Section 48-1-10 et seq. 

61-62. Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards

Synopsis: 

Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 48-1-10 et seq., the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (Department) has amended Regulation 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations 

and Standards, and the South Carolina Air Quality Implementation Plan, also known as the State

Implementation Plan (SIP), to incorporate United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

federally mandated regulations. These changes were outlined in Federal Register Notices published on 

May 1, 2007 (72 FR 24060), June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), and June 2, 2008 (73 FR 31368). 

These amendments revise Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR); and amend the SIP to 

change the definition of “major emitting facility” by excluding facilities that produce ethanol by natural 

fermentation and are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 

325193 or 312140 from the definition of “chemical process plants.” The abovementioned regulations and 

SIP were also revised to remove pollution control project (PCP) and clean unit (CU) provisions and to 

make all additional changes necessary (including implementation of provisions for offsetting emissions) 

for full EPA approval of the State Nonattainment NSR program and the SIP. 

These amendments will maintain conformity with Federal requirements and ensure compliance with 

Federal standards. 

Discussion of Revisions: 

SECTION CITATION/EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(a)(2)(iv)(e): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(a)(2)(iv)(f): 

Revise paragraph by changing the regulation citation in sentence one from (a)(2)(iv)(c) through (e) to 

(a)(2)(iv)(c) and (d), and removing sentence two. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(a)(2)(vi): 

Remove paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(12): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(30)(iii)(h): 
Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(32)(i)(a): 

Add exclusion to the text of paragraph concerning “chemical process plants.” 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(32)(iii)(t): 

Add exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(34)(iii)(b): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(34)(vi)(d): 

Remove paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(35): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(36): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(41)(ii)(d): 

Revise paragraph by changing the regulation citation from (a)(41)(ii)(a) through (c) to (b)(41)(ii)(a) 

through (c). 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(i)(1)(vii)(t): 

Add exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(r)(6): 

Remove “at a Clean Unit or” from paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(r)(7): 

Remove “a Clean Unit modification project or” from paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(x): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(y): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(z): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(b)(5): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(b)(6): 

Revise paragraph by changing the regulation citation in sentence one from (b)(3) through (5) to (b)(3) and 

(4), and removing sentence two. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(b)(8): 

Remove paragraph. 
R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(c)(4): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(c)(6)(C)(viii): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(c)(7)(C)(xx): 

Add exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(c)(8)(C)(iii): 

Remove paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(c)(8)(E)(v): 

Remove paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(c)(10): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(d)(1)(C)(v): 

Add emissions offsets language to paragraph. This language was developed by the Department in 

cooperation with stakeholders to address the requirements of the EPA for full approval of the SIP in 

regard to emissions offsets. This revision specifically fulfills the requirement that reductions be surplus 

and develops a methodology for calculating offsets. These revisions are no more stringent than the 

Federal requirements. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(d)(1)(C)(ix) and (x): 

Remove and reserve paragraphs. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(d)(3): 

Remove “at a Clean Unit or” from paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(d)(4): 

Remove “a Clean Unit modification project or” from paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(e)(T): 

Add exclusion to the definition of “chemical process plants” in paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(f): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(g): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1(h): 

Remove and reserve paragraph. 

Instructions:

Amend Regulation 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, pursuant to each individual 

instruction provided below with the text of the amendments. 
Text of Amendments:

R.61-62.5, Standard No. 7 –Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(a)(2)(iv)(e) and (f) to read: 

 (e) [Reserved]

 (f) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of emissions units. A significant 

emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the emissions increases 

for each emissions unit, using the method specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(c) and (d) as applicable with 

respect to each emissions unit, equals or exceeds, the significant amount for that pollutant (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(49)). 

Remove 61-62.5 Std. 7(a)(2)(vi): 

 (vi) An owner or operator undertaking a Pollution Control Project (PCP) (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(35)) shall comply with the requirements under paragraph (z). 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(12) to read: 

 (12) [Reserved]

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(30)(iii)(h) to read: 

 (h) [Reserved] 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(32)(i)(a) to read: 

 (a) Any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants which emits, or has the 

potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any regulated NSR pollutant: Fossil fuel-fired steam 

electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, coal cleaning plants 

(with thermal dryers), kraft pulp mills, portland cement plants, primary zinc smelters, iron and steel mill 

plants, primary aluminum ore reduction plants, primary copper smelters, municipal incinerators capable 

of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, petroleum 

refineries, lime plants, phosphate rock processing plants, coke oven batteries, sulfur recovery plants, 

carbon black plants (furnace process), primary lead smelters, fuel conversion plants, sintering plants, 

secondary metal production plants, chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production 

facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140), 

fossil fuel boilers (or combinations thereof) totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour 

heat input, petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, 

taconite ore processing plants, glass fiber processing plants, and charcoal production plants; 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(32)(iii)(t) to read: 

 (t) Chemical process plants – The term chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol 

production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 

312140; 
Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(34)(iii)(b) to read: 

 (b) [Reserved] 

Remove 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(34)(vi)(d): 

 (d) The decrease in actual emissions did not result from the installation of add-on control 

technology or application of pollution prevention practices that were relied on in designating an emissions 

unit as a Clean Unit under paragraph (y) or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165 or to 

40 CFR 51.166 (u). That is, once an emissions unit has been designated as a Clean Unit, the owner or 

operator cannot later use the emissions reduction from the air pollution control measures that the 

designation is based on in calculating the net emissions increase for another emissions unit (i.e., must not 

use that reduction in a “netting analysis” for another emissions unit). However, any new emission 

reductions that were not relied upon in a PCP excluded pursuant to paragraph (z) or for a Clean Unit 

designation are creditable to the extent they meet the requirements in paragraph (z)(6)(iv) for the PCP and 

paragraphs (x)(8) or (y)(10) for a Clean Unit. 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(35) and (36) to read: 

 (35) [Reserved]

 (36) [Reserved]

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(41)(ii)(d) to read: 

 (d) In lieu of using the method set out in paragraph (b)(41)(ii)(a) through (c), may elect to 

use the emissions unit's potential to emit, in tons per year, as defined under paragraph (b)(37). 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(i)(1)(vii)(t) to read:

 (t) Chemical process plants - The term chemical process plant shall not include ethanol 

production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 

312140; 

Revise introductory text of 61-62.5 Std. 7(r)(6) to read (remaining text of 61-62.5 Std. 7(r)(6)(i) 

through (v) remains unchanged):

 (6) Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The provisions of this paragraph (r)(6) apply to 

projects at an existing emissions unit at a major stationary source (other than projects at a source with a 

PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not a part of a major 

modification may result in a significant emissions increase and the owner or operator elects to use the 

method specified in paragraphs (b)(41)(ii)(a) through (c) for calculating projected actual emissions. 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(r)(7) to read:

 (7) If a project at a source with a PAL requires construction permitting under Regulation 61-62.1, 

Section II, “Permit Requirements”, the owner or operator shall provide notification of source status as 

part of the permit application to the Department. 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(x) to read:
(x) [Reserved] 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(y) to read:

(y) [Reserved] 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(z) to read:

(z) [Reserved] 

R.61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 –Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(b)(5) and (6) to read:

 

 (5) [Reserved]

 (6) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of emissions units. A significant 

emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the emissions increases 

for each emissions unit, using the method specified in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as applicable with respect 

to each emissions unit, for each type of emissions unit equals or exceeds the significant amount for that 

pollutant (as defined in paragraph (c)(14)). 

Remove 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(b)(8):

 (8) An owner or operator undertaking a Pollution Control Project (PCP) (as defined in paragraph 

(c)(10)) shall comply with the requirements under paragraph (h). 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(c)(4) to read: 

 (4) [Reserved]

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(c)(6)(C)(viii) to read:

 

 (viii) [Reserved] 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(c)(7)(C)(xx) to read:

 (xx) Chemical process plants - The term chemical process plant shall not include ethanol 

production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 

312140; 

Remove 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(c)(8)(C)(iii): 

 (iii) The increase or decrease in emissions did not occur at a Clean Unit, except as provided 

in paragraphs (f)(8) and (g)(10).

Remove 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(c)(8)(E)(v): 
 (v) The decrease in actual emissions did not result from the installation of add-on control 

technology or application of pollution prevention practices that were relied on in designating an emissions 

unit as a Clean Unit pursuant to paragraph (g). That is, once an emissions unit has been designated as a 

Clean Unit, the owner or operator cannot later use the emissions reduction from the air pollution control 

measures that the Clean Unit designation is based on in calculating the net emissions increase for another 

emissions unit (i.e., must not use that reduction in a "netting analysis" for another emissions unit). 

However, any new emissions reductions that were not relied upon in a PCP excluded pursuant to 

paragraph (h) or for a Clean Unit designation are creditable to the extent they meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (h)(6)(iv) for the PCP and paragraphs (f)(8) or (g)(10) for a Clean Unit. 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(c)(10) to read: 

 (10) [Reserved]

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(d)(1)(C)(v) to read:

 (v) All emission reductions claimed as offset credit shall be federally enforceable and 

surplus; 

 (a) Eligibility as Emission Offsets. Any facility that has the potential to emit any 

NAAQS pollutant that is located in a federally-designated nonattainment area shall be eligible to create 

emission offsets. 

 

 (1) To be eligible to be an emission offset: 

 (A) A reduction in emissions shall be permanent, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and surplus and must have occurred after December 31 of the base year inventory for those 

pollutants that are designated nonattainment by the EPA. The base year inventory date is two years 

preceding the date of nonattainment designation. However, the Department may choose to consider a 

prior shutdown or curtailment to have occurred after the last day of the base year if the projected 

emissions inventory used to develop the attainment demonstration explicitly includes the emissions from 

such previously shutdown or curtailed emission units. 

 (B) Emission reductions shall have been created by an existing facility 

that has obtained an enforceable air quality permit or letter of permit cancellation resulting from the 

surrender of the source’s permit(s). 

 

 (2) Emission reductions may be created by any or a combination of the following 

methods: 

 (A) Production curtailment or reduction in throughput; 

 (B) Shutdown of emitting sources; or 

 

 (C) Any other enforceable method that the Department determines to 

result in permanent, quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus reduction of emissions. 

 (3) Prior to commencing operation of a permitted emissions unit, Department 

approval for the required emission offsets must be granted. 

 (4) The following are ineligible for emission offsets: 
 (A) Emission reductions that are not considered surplus, such as: 

 (i) Emission reductions that have previously been used to avoid 

Regulation 61-62.5 Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or Regulation 61-62.5 

Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), through a netting demonstration; 

 (ii) Emission reductions of hazardous air pollutants, listed in 

Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, to the extent needed to comply with Regulation 61-62.61, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and Regulation 61-62.63, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories, (however, emission 

reductions of hazardous volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or hazardous particulate matter (PM) air 

pollutants beyond the amount of reductions necessary to comply with Regulation 61-62.61, NESHAP, and 

Regulation 61-62.63, NESHAP for Source Categories, are considered surplus); 

 (iii) Emission reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM) and VOCs to the extent needed to comply with Section 111 of the 

CAA and Regulation 61-62.60, South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS), (however, emission reductions of NOx, SO2, PM and VOCs beyond the amount of 

reductions necessary to comply with Regulation 61-62.60, South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and 

NSPS, are considered surplus); 

 (iv) Emission units covered under an agreement, order or 

variance for exceeding an emission standard until compliance is demonstrated with the emission standard 

that is the subject of the agreement, order or variance; 

 (v) Sources that have operated less than 12 months; 

 (vi) Emission reductions required in order to comply with any 

State or Federal regulation not listed above, unless these reductions are in excess of the amount required 

by the State or Federal regulation; or 

 (vii) Facilities that have received a Department transmittal letter 

notifying of permit cancellation due to the facility’s decision to close out its operating permit without a 

request to qualify facility emission reductions as offsets. 

 (b) Calculation of Emission Offsets

 (1) The following procedure shall be used to calculate emission offsets: 

 

 (A) The existing source shall calculate average annual actual emissions, 

in tons per year (tpy), before the emission reduction using data from the 24-month period immediately 

preceding the reduction in emissions. With the Department’s written approval, the use of a different time 

period, not to exceed 10 years immediately preceding the reduction in emissions, may be allowed if the 

owner or operator of the source documents that such period is more representative of normal source 

operation, but not prior to the base year inventory date, which is the last day of the two years preceding 

the date of nonattainment designation; and 

 (B) The emission offsets created shall be calculated by subtracting the 

allowable emissions following the reduction from the average annual actual emissions prior to the 

reduction. 
Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(d)(1)(C)(ix) and (x) to read:

 (ix) [Reserved] 

 (x) [Reserved] 

Revise introductory text of 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(d)(3) to read (remaining text of 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(d)(3)(A) 

through (E) remains unchanged): 

 (3) The following provisions apply to projects at existing emissions units at a major stationary source 

(other than projects at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility that a 

project that is not a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase and the 

owner or operator elects to use the method specified in paragraphs (c)(11)(B)(i) through (iii) for 

calculating projected actual emissions. 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(d)(4) to read:

 (4) If a project at a source with a PAL requires construction permitting under Regulation 61-62.1, 

Section II, “Permit Requirements,” the owner or operator shall provide notification of source status as 

part of the permit application to the Department. 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(e)(T) to read:

 (T) Chemical process plants - The term chemical process plant shall not include ethanol production 

facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140; 

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(f) to read: 

(f) [Reserved]

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(g) to read:

(g) [Reserved]

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7.1(h) to read:

(h) [Reserved]

Statement of Need and Reasonableness: 

This statement of need and reasonableness was determined by staff analysis pursuant to S.C. Code 

Section 1-23-115(C)(1)-(3) and (9)-(11). 

DESCRIPTION OF REGULATION: Amendments to Regulation 61-62, Air Pollution Control 

Regulations and Standards and the SIP.

Purpose of Regulation: These amendments will maintain conformity with Federal requirements and 

ensure compliance with Federal standards. 

Legal Authority: The legal authority for R. 61-62 is S.C. Code Section 48-1-10 et seq.
Plan for Implementation: The amendments will take effect upon approval and adoption by the South 

Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control and publication in the State Register.

DETERMINATION OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS OF THE REGULATIONS BASED ON 

ALL FACTORS HEREIN AND EXPECTED BENEFITS: 

The EPA regularly promulgates amendments to Federal regulations to include clarification, guidance, 

technical amendments, and strengthen air quality provisions. On May 1, 2007, the EPA published a final 

rule, adding certain exclusions to the definition of “chemical process plants” under the “Major Emitting 

Facility” definition (72 FR 24060). Also, on June 13, 2007, the EPA amended its regulations to eliminate 

the pollution control project and clean unit provisions established in a December 31, 2002, rulemaking 

(72 FR 32526). Furthermore, on June 2, 2008, the EPA took final action to partially approve, disapprove, 

and conditionally approve revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of South Carolina on July 5, 2005 

(73 FR 31368). As part of the conditional approval, the Department has agreed to revise the State 

Nonattainment New Source Review program and the SIP in order to obtain full approval from the EPA. 

States are mandated by law to adopt these Federal amendments. These amendments are reasonable as 

they promote consistency and ensure conformity of State regulations to Federal requirements. 

DETERMINATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS: 

There will be no increased cost to the State or its political subdivisions as a result of these amendments. 

The standards to be adopted are already effective and applicable to the regulated community as a matter 

of Federal law. The amendments will benefit the regulated community by clarifying the regulations and 

increasing their ease of use. 

UNCERTAINTIES OF ESTIMATES: 

EPA has provided the estimated costs and benefits for these standards in the Federal Register notices that 

are cited within this document. 

EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH: 

Adoption of the recent changes in Federal law through these amendments to R. 61-62 and the SIP will 

provide continued protection of the environment and public health. 

DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH IF THE 

REGULATIONS ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED: 

While there is no specific detrimental effect on the environment and public health, the State’s authority to 

implement Federal requirements, which are believed to be beneficial to the public health and 

environment, would be compromised if these amendments were not adopted in South Carolina. 
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) BEFORE THE SOUTH CAROLINA 

) BOARD OF HEALTH AND 

COUNTY OF RICHLAND ) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

INFORMATIONAL FORUM: ) 

) 

R.61-62, AIR POLLUTION 1 

CONTROL REGULATIONS AND ) 

STANDARDS AND THE SOUTH ) 

CAROLINA QUALITY ) TRANSCRIPT OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) ) 

) PROCEEDINGS 

STATE REGISTER DOCUMENT ) 

) 

Informational Forum held at the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 

before Facilitator Chris Vaigneur in the Wallace Room, 

2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina, on Monday, 

February 23, 2009, commencing at 10:lO o'clock, A.M. and 

ending at 10:18 o'clock, A.M., in the above-entitled 

matter, taken by Faye A. Grainger, Certified Court 

Reporter. 

FAYE A. GRAINGER, d/b/a 

GRAINGER REPORTING SERVICE 

Post Office Box 532 

Irmo, South Carolina 29063 

(803) 798-2679 fayegrainger@belLsouth.net 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 

APPEARANCES: 

DHEC Staff Present: 

Chris Vaigneur, Facilitator 

Andrew Hollis 

Anthony Lofton 

Robert Brown 

Faye A. Grainger 

Court Reporter 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
3HEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 

INDEX 

FACILITATOR VAIGNEUR .......................... 

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER .................... 

3 

PAGE 

4 

12 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 4 

PROCEEDING 

FACILITATOR VAIGNEUR: Good morning, 

my name is Chris Vaigneur with the Bureau 

of Air Quality (Bureau) . I will be the 

facilitator for this forum. Let the 

record show that this forum was convened 

at 10:lO o'clock, A.M. on February 23, 

2009, at the duly announced location. 

Public notice of this hearing was 

published in the South Carolina State 

Register on January 23, 2009. Copies of 

the Notice were also sent to a mailing 

list of interested parties maintained by 

the Bureau. Unless I hear an objection, a 

copy of this notice will be entered into 

public record as though it were read. Are 

there are any objections? Hearing none 

let the record reflect that the forum 

today is being conducted by the South 

Carolina Department of Heath and 

Environmental Control or the Department. 

The purpose of this hearing is to answer 

questions, clarify issues and receive 

input from interested persons on proposed 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 5 

revisions to Regulation 61-62 Air 

Pollution Control Regulations and 

Standards and the South Carolina Air 

Quality Implementation Plan, also referred 

to as the State Implementation Plan or 

SIP. Comments received today shall be 

considered by the Department in preparing 

a final regulation revision in State 

Implementation Plan revisions. A court 

reporter is present today for the taking 

of the record. If you wish to speak, 

please state your name and affiliation for 

the record. The Department welcomes your 

input and assistance in perfecting the 

proposed State Revisions. If anyone has 

any written comments please submit them to 

me for the record. I will present a brief 

summary and explanation of the proposed 

plan. Following the presentation if any 

member of the audience desiring to make 

comments will be given the opportunity to 

do so. Speakers will be recognized in the 

order in which they are registered. If 

there are any questions after the 

presentation please direct them to me and 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 6 

I will either answer them or ask that the 

appropriate person respond. If no one is 

able to answer the question today an 

answer will be provided in writing at a 

later date. The Department is proposing 

to amend Regulation 61-62, to revise 

Regulation 61-62.5 Standard Number Seven, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard 7.1, 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) , and 

to amend the SIP. Each year the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency or 

EPA promulgates amendments to the Federal 

regulations to include clarification, 

guidance and technical amendments. States 

are mandated by law to adopt these federal 

amendments. These amendments promote 

consistency and ensure compliance with 

both State and Federal regulations. As 

such the Department proposes to amend 

Regulation 61-62 and the SIP to 

incorporate the new Federal requirements 

and necessary corrections and 

clarifications into existing regulations 

and SIP. Pursuant to S.C. Code Section 1- 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 7 

23-120 (H) (1) the proposed amendments are 

necessary to maintain consistency with 

Federal rules and will not require 

legislative review. On May lst, 2007 the 

EPA published a final rule in the Federal 

Register titled, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Nonattainment New Source 

Review and Title V, treatment of certain 

Ethanol Production Facilities Under the 

Major Emitting Facility Definition (72 FR 

24060), which excluded facilities that 

produce ethanol by natural fermentation 

and are classified in the North American 

Industry Classification System code 325193 

or 312140 from the definition of chemical 

process plants. This final rule became 

effective on July 2nd, 2007. 

On June 13th, 2007 the EPA published 

a final rule in the Federal Register 

titled Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR), Removal of Vacated 

Elements (72 FR 32526), which amended its 

regulations and eliminated the pollution 

project for PCP and clean unit or (CU) 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 8 

provisions. This final rule became 

effective on June 13th, 2007. 

On June 2nd, 2008 the EPA took final 

action to partially approve, disapprove 

and conditionally approve revisions to the 

SIP submitted by the State of South 

Carolina on July lst, 2005, in a final 

rule titled, Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, South Carolina; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source Review Rules, 

(73 FR 31368) . This final rule became 

effective July 2nd, 2008. As part of the 

current conditional approval, the 

Department has agreed to revise the State 

Nonattainment New Source Review or 

Nonattainment NSR program and the SIP. A 

requirement of the current conditional 

approval is the development of provisions 

for offsetting emission increases from New 

Source Review or NSR projects. 

The Department is proposing to amend 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard Number 7; 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard Number 7.1 

and the SIP to incorporate by reference 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 9 

the aforementioned amendments. The 

Department is also proposing to amend 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard Number 7, 

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard Number 7.1 

and the SIP to make all additional changes 

necessary, including implementation of 

provisions for offsetting emissions for 

full EPA approval of the State 

Nonattainment NSR program and the SIP. 

Additionally, on May 16th, 2008, the 

EPA published a final rule in the Federal 

Register titled, Implementation of the New 

Source Review Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers, or PM 

2.5, 73 Federal Register 28321, which 

finalized regulations to implement the NSR 

program for fine particulate matter; that 

is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

I 

less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 

micrometers, generally referred to as PM 

2.5. This final rule became effective 

July 15th, 2008. In a Notice of Drafting 

published in the State Register on 

September 26th, 2008, the Department 

proposed to amend Regulation 61-62.5, 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 10 

Standard Number 7; Regulation 61-62.5, 

Standard Number 7.1; and the SIP to 

incorporate by reference these amendments, 

Based on an internal review by the staff, 

the Department is proposing to defer 

action on the aforementioned Federal 

regulations to implement the NSR program 

for PM 2.5, 73 Federal Register 28321, 

until comprehensive guidance for 

additional PM 2.5 provisions is released 

by the EPA. These amendments will be 

handled in a separate regulatory action. 

In the interim, existing State provisions 

for particulates adequately meet the 

requirements for Federal compliance. 

At this point, I will recognize 

anyone who wishes to comment on the 

proposed revisions. If yes, please state 

your name and affiliation clearly for the 

record. Seeing none, I would like to 

thank everybody for showing up. Is there 

anyone else present who wishes to comment 

on the proposed amendments? 

Seeing none, I would like to remind 

you that any comments received will be 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 11 

entered into the official transcript of 

this forum and submitted to the EPA for 

review and approval. 

Additionally, comments deemed 

significant by the Department may be used 

to modify the regulations and SIP as 

necessary. 

Are there any more comments for the 

record? There being no further comments, 

this forum is adjourned. Thank you for 

your attendance and participation today. 

Thereupon, at 10:18 a.m. on the same 

day, the forum was concluded. 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
DHEC INFO FORUM, 2/23/2009 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) 

1 CERTIFICATE 

COUNTY OF LEXINGTON ) 

Be it known that I am a duly qualified court 

reporter; that I was hired to take the proceedings 

in this matter; that I took notes by stenomask of 

the said testimony; that the said notes were reduced 

to typewritten form by me; and that the foregoing 

eleven (11) pages constitute a true, accurate and 

complete transcript, to the best of my skill and 

ability. 

Witness my hand and seal at Columbia, South 

Carolina, this 20th day of March, 2009. 

Faye A(j Grain 

~okary- public-f or South karolina 

My ~oiimission Expires: 5-18-2015 

Grainger Reporting Service 

(803) 798-2679 
Sign-In Sheet For Public Hearing 

NOTICE TO AMEND REGULATION 61 -62, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA AIR 

QUALITY STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

February 23, 2009 

Synopsis: The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is Proposing to 

amend Regulation 6 1-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations und Stundurds, to revise Regulation 

61 -62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention oJ'Significant Deterioration, Regulation 61-62.5, Standard 

7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), and to amend the South Carolina Air Quality 

Implementation Plan (also known as the State Implementation Plan or SIP). The proposed 

amendments are necessary in order to incorporate new Federal requirements and necessary 

corrections and clarifications into the existing regulations. Pursuant to S.C. Code Section, 1-23- 

120(H)(1), the proposed amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with Federal rules 

and will not require legislative review. 
ATTACHMENT 7 

LEGAL AUTHORITY1

No plan for attaining a goal, the attainment of which is dependent upon regulatory action, can be used 

with any degree of effectiveness unless the legal framework is strong. Consequently, the Requirements 

for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR 51, as amended, define the 

necessary statutory powers which must be immediately available to states to carry out the responsibility to 

the Clean Air Act. 

40 CFR 51.230 sets forth six specific requirements for State authority. The South Carolina Pollution 

Control Act, Act 1157 of 1970, as amended, S. C. Code Sections 48-1-10 thru - 350 (1976), provides the 

State’s authority to respond to these requirements. The Attorney General of the State of South Carolina 

has given an opinion as to the adequacy of South Carolina laws, as follows: 

Legal Authority Required 

40 CFR 51 

Adequacy of 

S. C. Law S. C. Statutes Involved 

(a) “Adopt emission standards and limitations and 

any other measures necessary for attainment and 

maintenance of national standards.” 

Adequate S. C. Code Secs. 48-1-20, 48-1-50(23) 

(b) “Enforce applicable laws, regulations, & 

standards, and seek injunctive relief.” Adequate 

S. C. Code Sec. 48-1-50(1), (3), (4), (5), 

(11); Secs. 48-1-120, 48-1-130, 

48-1-210, 48-1-320, 48-1-330. 

(c) “Abate pollutant emissions on an emergency 

basis to prevent substantial endangerment to the 

health of persons, i.e., authority comparable to 

that available to the Administrator under section 

305 of the Act.” 

Adequate S. C. Code Sec. 48-1-290. 

(d) “Prevent construction, modification, or 

operation of a facility, building, structure, or 

installation, or combination thereof, which 

directly or indirectly results or may result in 

emissions of any air pollutant at any location 

which will prevent the attainment or maintenance 

of a national standard.” 

Adequate S. C. Code Sec. 48-1-50(5), (10); Secs. 

48-1-100, 48-1-110. 

(e) “Obtain Information necessary to determine 

whether air pollution sources are in compliance 

with applicable laws, regulations, and standards, 

Including authority to require recordkeeping and 

to make inspections and conduct tests of air 

pollution sources.” 

Adequate S. C. Code Sec. 48-1-50(10), (20), (22), 

(24). 

(f) “Require owners or operators of stationary 

sources to install, maintain, and use emission 

monitoring devices and to make periodic reports 

to the State on the nature and amounts of 

emissions from such stationary sources; also 

authority for the State to make such data available 

to the public as reported and as correlated with 

any applicable emission standards or limitations.” 

Adequate S. C. Code Secs. 48-1-50(22), 48-1-270. 
1

 Section 2 of the EPA-approved South Carolina Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP), which 

defines the State’s statutory powers as required in 40 CFR 51.230.