ATTACHMENT 3

Notice of Draft i ng 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 am endments 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 Nonattainme nt 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 cl ean units (CU) and expanded upon provisions pertaining to pollution control projects (P CP), 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 conf orms 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 requirement s will reduce the associated overall reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates. This fina l 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 ch ange 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 requirement s and thus do not require legislative review.Notice of Draft i ng 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 Envi ronmental 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 cl ose of the drafting comment period.

Synopsis:

On May 1, 2007, the United States Environmental Pr otection 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 Produc tion 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 Classificati on 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 ne w source review regulations in December 2002. In response, the Department revised state regulations a nd 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 Caro lina on July 1, 2005 in a final rule titled Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Caroli na; 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 Depart ment has agreed to revise the State Nonattainment New Source Review program and the SIP. A require ment of the current conditional approval is the development of provisions for offsetting emissi on 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 Particul ate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM 2.5 ) (73 FR 28321) which finalized regulations to implement the New Source Review (NSR) program for fine particulate matter (that is, particles with an aerodyn amic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers, generally referred to as “PM 2.5 ”). 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 requireme nts of the above referenced finalized Federal regulations for implementing the NSR program for PM 2.5

.

The Department also proposes to make all additi onal changes necessary (including implementation of provisions for offsetting emissions) for full EPA appr oval of the State Nonattainment NSR program andthe SIP. In addition, the Department proposes to ma ke 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 requirement s 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 Prot ection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register titled Prevention of Significant Deteriorati on, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Productio n Facilities Under the ‘‘Major Emitting Facility” Definition (72 FR 24060), which excluded facilities that pr oduce ethanol by natural fermentation and are classified in North American Industry Classificati on 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 (N SR): 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 Particul ate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM 2.5 ) (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 “PM 2.5 ”). This final rule became effective July 15, 2008.

On June 2, 2008, the EPA took final action to pa rtially 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 Deteriora tion 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 requi rements 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 additi onal changes necessary (including implementation of provisions for offsetting emissions) for full EPA appr oval of the State Nonattainment NSR program and

the SIP.

The Department proposes to postpone am ending 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 aforementione d Federal amendments pub lished on May 18, 2008 (73 FR 28321). The Department has deemed it necessary to defer regulatory action until comprehensiveguidance 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 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 Federa l 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 Departme nt’s intent to draft these regulations was also published on the South Carolina Department of Heal th 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 c onsistent 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 regul ation 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 “chemi cal 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 ci tation 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 th e 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 paragra phs (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 Fo rum and Public Comment Period:

Staff of the South Carolina Department of Health a nd Environmental Control invites interested members of the public to attend a staff-conducted informationa l forum to be held on February 23, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in room 3141 (Wallace Room) at the South Ca rolina 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 Standa rds. Please use the Bull Street entrance.

Interested persons are also provided an opportuni ty 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 consid ered, 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 considera tion at the public hearing as noticed below.

Copies of the proposed regulation for public no tice and comment may be obtained by contacting Christopher L. Vaigneur at the South Carolina Departme nt 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 beobtained 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 Departme nt 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, Ayco ck 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 Bo ard’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 dete rmined 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, Ai r 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 Envi ronmental Control and publication in the State Register.

DETERMINATION OF NEED AND REASONAB LENESS 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 F acility” definition. Also, on June 13, 2007, the EPA amended its regulations to eliminate the po llution control project and clean unit provisions established in a December 31, 2002, rulemaking. Fu rthermore, 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 po litical 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 be nefit the regulated community by clarifying the regulations and increasing their ease of use.

UNCERTAINTIES OF ESTIMATES:

EPA has provided the estimated costs a nd 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 thr ough the proposed amendments to R. 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, and the SIP will prov ide 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, wh ich are believed to be beneficial to the public health and environment, would be compromised if these ame ndments 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 caus ing 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 pollu tant 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 emissi ons 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 project ed increase is determined by summing the valuesdetermined 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 Po llution Control Project (PCP) (as defined in paragraph (b)(35)) shall comply with the requireme nts under paragraph (z).

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

(b)...

(12) [Reserved] “Clean Unit” means any emissions unit that h as 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 meeti ng 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 s ources 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, primar y copper smelters, municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, h ydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, petroleum refineries, lime plants, phosphate rock processing plan ts, coke oven batteries, sulfur recovery plants, carbon black plants (furnace process), primary lead sme lters, 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) totali ng more than 250 million Br itish 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 pro cessing 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 et hanol 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 em issions 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 emissio ns did not result from the installation of add

- on control technology or application of pollution preven tion 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 reduc tion 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 a nother emissions unit). However, any new emission reductions that were not relied upon in a PCP excluded pursuant to paragraph (z) or for a Cl ean Unit designation are creditable to the extent they meet th e 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 un der paragraph (b)(36)) undertaken at an existing emissions unit that reduces emissions of air pollu tants 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 s ource 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

SO 2

.

(ii) Electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, hi gh efficiency multiclones, or scrubbers for control of particulate matter or other pollutants.

(iii) Flue gas recirculation, low

- NO

x burners or combustors, selective non

- catalytic reduction, selective catalytic reduction, low emission combustion (for IC engines), and oxidation/absorption catalyst for control of NO

x .

(iv) Reg enerative thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidi zers, condensers, thermal incinerators, hydrocarbon combustion flares, biofiltration, absorb ers and adsorbers, and floating roofs for storagevessels for control of volatile organic compounds or hazardous air pol lutants. 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 accomm odate switching (or partially switching) to

an in herently less polluting fuel, to be li mited 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 f uel, to CA 0.05 percent sulfur #2 diesel);

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

(c) Switching from coal to wood, exclud ing construction or demolition waste, chemical or pesticide treated wood, a nd 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 undert aken to accommodate switching from the use of one ozone depleting substance (ODS) to the use of a subs tance with a lower or zero ozone depletion potential (ODP.) including changes to equipment needed to accommodate the activity or project, that meet the

re quirements of paragraphs (b)(35)(vi)(a) and (b).

(a) The productive capacity of the equipm ent is not increased as a result of the activity or project.

(b) The projected usage of the ne w substance is lower, on an ODP

- weighted basis, than the baseli ne 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 m onths 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

- weig hted basis, than the baselin e 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 emissi ons) 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 d isposal.

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 stati onary 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)(4 1)(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, “Per mit 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 mo dification 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 pr ovisions 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 acco rdance with paragraph (x)(4)) and before the expiration date (as determined in accordan ce 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 determi nation 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 w ith 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 emis sions unit loses its designation as a Clean Unit upon

issuance of the necess ary permit revisions (unless the unit re

- qualifies as a Clean Unit pursuant to paragraph (x)(3)(iv)). If the owner or operator begi ns actual construction on the project without first applying to revise the emissions unit's permit, the Clean Unit designatio n 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 para graphs (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 crit eria in paragraphs (x)(3)(i), (ii) and (iii). A fter the original Clean Unit expires in accordance with paragra ph (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 f or 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 def ined 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 desi gnation 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 invest ment 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, th e facility shall notify the Department with a statement affirming that the conditions set out in paragraph (x)(3)(ii)(a) and (b) have b een 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 req uirements 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 implement ing new control technology to meet current

- day BACT. The effective date is the date the emissions unit's air pollution control technol ogy is placed into service, or 3 years after the issuance date of the major NSR permit, whichever is earlier, but no soone r 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 pe rmit 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 pa rt 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

a utomatically qualifies as a Clean Unit unde r 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 designati on, 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 d esignation. 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 w ill determine the effecti ve date ( e.g. , the date the control technology is placed into ser vice). 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, whicheve r 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 pe rmit must describe the event that will determine the expiration date ( e.g. , t he date the control technology is placed in to 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, s uch as a modification, revision, reopening, or renewal of the title V permit for any reason, whiche ver comes first, but in no case later than the next

renewal.

(iv) All emission limitations and work practi ce 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 reporti ng requirements as necessary to demonstrate

that the emissions unit continues to meet the criteri a for maintaining the Clean Unit designation. (See paragraph (x)(7).)

(vi) Terms reflecting the owner or opera tor's duties to maintain the Clean Unit designation and the consequences of failing to do so, a s 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 liste d in paragraphs (x)(7)(i) through (iii). This paragraph (x)(7) applies in dependently to each pollutant for whic h the emissions unit has the Clean Unit designation. That is, failing to conform to the rest rictions 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 operati onal 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 cont rol emissions using the specific air pollution

contr ol technology that was the basi s 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 u nit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit. However, if the Clean Unit reduces em issions 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 c reditable 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 o f 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 redesi gnated to nonattainment, its Clean Unit designation is not affected. Sim ilarly, redesignation from nonattainment to attainment does not affect the Clean Unit designation. However, if an existing Clean Unit designation expires, it must re

qualify under the requirements that ar e currently applicable in the area.

(y) [Reserved] Clean Unit provisions for emissions units th at 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 pa ragraphs (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 wh ich are achieving a level of emissions control comparable to BACT, as determined by the Depa rtment 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 operat or begins actual construction after the effective date of the Clean Unit designation (as dete rmined in accordance with paragraph (y)(5)) and before the expiration date (as determin ed 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 cau se the need for a change in the emission limitations or work practice requirements in the permit for the unit that have been d etermined (pursuant to paragraph (y)(4)) to be comparable to BACT, and th e 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 con trol comparable to BACT as specified in paragraph (y)(8 )(iv), then the emissions unit loses its designation asa Clean Unit upon issuance of the necessar y 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 em issions 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 accordan ce 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 ne w permit issued pursuant to th e 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 requirem ents of paragraph (y)(4). However, the emissions unit is not eligible for a Clean Unit designa tion 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 invest ment to install the control technology. For the purpose of this determination, an i nvestment includes expenses to research the ap plication 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 un it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, or a dversely impact an air quality related value (such as visibility) that has been identified for a Federal Class I area by a Federal Land Manage r 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

p rovisions become effective. However, for such emissi ons 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 (p ursuant to requirements in paragraphs (y)(7) and (8)) that demonstrates that the emissions unit's controltechnology is achieving a level of em ission 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 t echnology is comparable to BACT for purposes of paragraph (y)(3)(i) according to either paragr aph (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 determinat ions of RACT, BACT, and LAER in t he RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC). The emissions unit's control technology is presumed to be comparable to BACT if it achieves an emission limita tion 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 th e 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 t echnology is substantially as effective as BACT during the public participation pr ocess required under paragraph (y)(7). The Department shall consider

such evidence on a case

- by

- case basis and determine whet her the emissions unit's air pollution control technology is substantially as effective as BACT.

(iii) Time of comparison.

(a) Emissions units with control techno logies 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 provision s 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 t he Clean Unit designation will depend on which option the owner or operator uses, as specified in paragraph (y)(6).

(b) Emissions units with control technol ogies that are installed on and after the date these provisions become effective. The owner or o perator must demonstrate that the emission limitation achieved by the emissions unit's c ontrol 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

Un it 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 un it 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 techno logy is comparable to the BACT requirements that appliedat 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 Un it 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 un its, 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) s hall include the terms and conditions set forth in paragraphs (y)(8)(i) th rough (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 progr am 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 effectiv e 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 th at 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 fir st 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 s ervice). 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 practi ce requirements adopted in conjunction with emission limitations necessary to assure that the c ontrol 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 tec hnology achieves a level of emissions control compa rable to BACT ( e.g. , possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

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

that the emissions unit continues to meet th e criteria for maintaining its Clean Unit desig nation. (See paragraph (y)(9)).

(vi) Terms reflecting the owner or opera tor'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 mainta in the Clean Unit designation, the owner or operator must conform to all the restrictions liste d in paragraphs (y)(9)(i) through (v). This paragraph (y)(9) applies independently to each pollutant for wh ich the Department has designated the emissions unit

a Clean Unit. That is, failing to conform to the r estrictions 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 ensur e that the control technology con tinues to achieve emission control comparable to BACT.

(ii) The owner or operator may not make a phys ical change in or change in the method of operation of the Clean Unit that causes the emissions unit to function in a m anner 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 cap acity 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 pol lution 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 b ecome effective, or after the Clean Unit designation expires; or, unless the emiss ions unit reduces emissions below the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit. However, if the Clean Unit reduces emissions be low the level that qualified the unit as a Clean Unit, then the owner or operator may gene rate a credit for the difference b etween the level that qualified the

unit as a Clean Unit and the emissions unit's new em issions limit if such reductions are surplus, quantifiable, and permanent. For purposes of generati ng offsets, the reductions must also be federally enforceable. For pu rposes 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 affect ed by redesignation of the attainment st atus of the area in which it is located. That is, if a Clean Unit is located in an attainment area and the area is redesi gnated to nonattainment, its Clean Unit designation is not affected. Similarly, redesignation f rom 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 applicabl e.

(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 Regulati on 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 th e 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 incr eases in pollutants regulated under the Clean Ai r 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 ai r 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 av ailable 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 increase s 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 recordkeep ing, and all other methods, to be used on an ongoing basis to demonstrate that the project is environmentally be neficial. 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 wit h 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 operationa l 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 stat ement 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 paragr aphs (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 require d by paragraph (z)(5), and in such a way as to minimize, within the physical configurati on and operational standards usually associate d 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 ai r quality impacts analysis, and monitoring and other emission records to prove that the PCP operated consistent with the general duty requ irements 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 fo r 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 increas es 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 –Nona ttainment 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 proj ected to occur if the sum of the emissions increases for each emissions unit, using the method sp ecified 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 project ed increase is determined by summing the values determined using the method specified in paragra ph (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 h as 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); o r 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 meeti ng 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 t his 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 preven tion practices that were relied on in designating an emissions unit as a Clean Unit pursuant to paragra ph (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 emissionsincrease for another emissions unit (i.e., must not use that reduction in a "netting analysis" for another emissions unit). However, any new emissions reductio ns that were not relied upon in a PCP excluded pursuant to paragraph (h) or for a Clean Unit des ignation 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 pa ragraph (b)(36) of Standard 7) undertaken at an existing emissions unit that reduces emissions of air pollutants from such unit. Such qualifying activities

or pro jects can include the replacement or upgrade of an existing emissions control technology with a more effective unit. Other changes that may occur at th e 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 desulfur ization or sorbent injection for control of

SO 2

.

(B) Electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, high efficiency multiclones, or scrubbers for control of particulate matter or other pollutants

.

(C) Flue gas recirculation, low

- NO X burners or combustors, selective non

- catalytic reduction, selective catalytic reduction, low emission combustion (for Internal Combustion engines), and oxidation/ absorption catalyst for control of NO X

.

(D) Regen erative thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidi zers, condensers, thermal incinerators, hydrocarbon combustion flares, biofiltration, absorb ers and adsorbers, and floating roofs for storage vessels for control of volatile organic compounds or hazardous air pollu tants. 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 acco mmodate switching (or partially switching)

to an inhe rently less polluting fuel, to be lim ited 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, excl uding construction or demolition waste, chemical or pesticide treated wood, a nd 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 undertake n to accommodate switching from the use of one ozone depleting substance (ODS) to the use of a subs tance with a lower or zero ozone depletion potential (ODP), including changes to equipment needed to accommodate the activity or project, that meet the requi rements of paragraphs (c)(10)(F)(i) and (ii).

(i) The productive capacity of the equipm ent 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 substan ces by consulting 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendices A and B.

(b) Calculate the replac ed ODP

- weighted amount by multiplying the baseline actual usage (using the annualized average of any 24 consecutive m onths of usage within the past 10 years) by the ODP of the replaced ODS.

(c) Calculate the projected ODP

- weighted amount by multiplyin g 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 base line 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 federa lly-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 ha ve 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 desi gnation. 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 th e 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 Ac t, 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 Ai r Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories

, (however, emission reductions of hazardous vol atile 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 (SO 2 ), 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, SO 2 , 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 doc uments 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 projec t 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 occ urring 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 pa rt of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase and the owner or operator elect s 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 natura l fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140;

...

No changes to (e)(U) through (e)(AA)

(f) [Reserved] Clean Unit Tes t for emissions units that are subject to LAER

. An owner or operator of a major stationary source has the option of using th e Clean Unit Test to determine whether emissions increases at a Clean Unit are part of a project that is a major modification accord ing to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (9).

(1) Applicability

. The provisions of paragraph (f) appl y to any emissions unit for which the Department has issued a major NSR permit within the past 10 years.

(2) General provisions for Clean Uni ts

. The provisions in paragra phs (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 accordan ce 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 emissi on 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 (u nless 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 un it 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 requireme nt for LAER in meeting the requirements for Clean Units under paragraphs (f)(3) through (8). For these em issions units, all requirements for the LAER determination under paragraphs (f)(2 )(ii) and (iii) shall also apply to the BACT permit terms and

conditio ns. 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 perm it 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 issuan ce of the PSD permit and before the effective date

of the Clean U nit 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 m eets the criteria in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii). After the original Cl ean 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 ma jor NSR permit issued through the applicable nonattainment major NSR program and meet all the criteria in paragraph (f)(3)(iv). Clean Unit designation applies indiv idually 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 de monstrate 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 t echnology (which includes pollution preve ntion as defined under paragraph (b)(36) of St andard 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 i ssuance of a major NSR permit within the past 10 years. However, the emissions unit is not eligible for Clean Unit designation if th e LAER determination resulted in no requirement to

reduce emissions below the level of a standard, uncontrolled, new emissio ns unit of the same type.

(B) The owner or operator made an invest ment 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 emis sions unit or expenses to apply a pollution prevention technique

to an emissions unit.

(iii) Prior to using the Clean Units test, th e 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 paragra phs (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 owne r 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 implem enting a new control technology to meet current

- day LAER

. The effective date is the date the emissions unit's air pollution control technol ogy is placed into service, or 3 years after theissuance 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 th e 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 implement ing new control techno logy to meet current

- day LAER

. For any emissions unit that automatically qualifies as a Clean Unit under paragr aphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii), the Clean Unit designation expires 10 years after the effective date, or the date the equipment we nt 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 u sing 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 wi th the provisions for maintaining th e 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 rene wed, the title V permit for the major stationary source must include the following terms and condition s 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 pla ced 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 fi rst opportunity, such as a modification, revisi on, reopening, or renewal of the title V permit for any reason, whicheve r 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 init ially recorded into the title V permit ( e.g. , because the air pollution control technology is not yet in service), then the pe rmit 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 op portunity, such as a modification, revision, reopening,

or renewa l 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 practi ce 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 reporti ng 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 opera tor'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 liste d in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) thro ugh (iii). This paragraph (f)(7) applies independently to each pollutant for which the emissi ons unit has the Clean Unit designation. That is, failing to conform to the restrictions for on e pollutant affects Clean Un it designation only for that pollutant.

(i) The Clean Unit must comply with the emission limitation(s) and/or work practice requir ements adopted in conjunction with the LAER th at 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 t hat causes the emissions unit to function in a manner that is inconsistent with the physical or operational ch aracteristics that formed the basis for the LAER determination ( e.g. , possibly the emissions unit's capacity or throughput).

(B) The Clean Uni t 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 spe cific 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 a t 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, o r after the Clean Unit designation expir es; 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, quantifiabl e, and permanent. For purposes of generating offsets,

the r eductions must also be federally enforceable. Fo r 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 Clea n 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 redesi gnated to nonattainment, its

Clean Unit de signation is not affected. Similarly, redesigna tion from nonattainment to attainment does notaffect the Clean Unit designation. However, if an existing Clean Unit designation expires, it must re

qualify 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 inc reases at a Clean Unit are part of a project that is a major modification according to the provisi ons 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, bu t 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 parag raph (g)(5)) and before the expiration date (as determined in accordan ce 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 compar able to LAER, and the project would not alter any physical or operational characteristics that formed the basis for determ ining that the emissions unit's control technology achieves a level of emissions cont rol 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 tha t 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 th e 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 de signation 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 paragrap h (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 crit eria 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 parag raph (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 para graph (g)(3)(iv). The Department will make a s eparate Clean Unit designation for each pollutant emitted by the em issions 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 th rough the use of air pollution control technology (which includes pollution prevention as defined under pa ragraph (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 o perator 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 d esignation 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 determ ination that no control measures are required).

(B) The owner or operator made an investment to in stall 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 incr ement, 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 U nit 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 emissi ons units, the owner or operator must apply for the Clean Unit designation before a p eriod not exceeding twenty

- four months following the date these provisions become effective. For technologies installed after the plan requirement s become effective, the owner or operator must apply for the Clean Unit designation at the time the control te chnology 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 emissio n 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 un it'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 a dministrator 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 tec hnology is presumed to be comparable to LAER

if it achieves an emission limitation th at 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 RBL C. The Department shall also compare this p resumption 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 t hat 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 perso n may present evidence related to whether the control technology is substantially as effective as LAER during the public participation pr ocess required under paragraph (g)(7). The Department shall consider

such evidence on a case

- by

- case basis and determin e whether the emissions unit's air pollution control technology is substantially as effective as LAER.

(iii) Time of comparison

.

(A) Emissions units with control techno logies that are installed before the effective date of plan requirements implemen ting 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

achieve d by the emissions unit's control technology is comp arable 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 techno logies that are installed after the

ef

fective 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 t he 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 modifi cation) 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 demonstrate s 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 Clea n Unit designation expires any time the owner or operator fails to comply with the provi sions 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 paragra ph (g)(7) shall include the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph s (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 pa rt 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 t echnology 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, whi chever comes first, but in no case later than the next renewal.

(iv) All emission limitations and work practi ce requirements adopted in conjunction with emission limitations necessary to assure that the c ontrol technology continues to achieve an emissio n 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 reporti ng requirements as necessary to demonstrate

that the emissions unit continues to meet the crite ria for maintaining its Clean Unit designation. (See paragraph (g)(9).)

(vi) Terms re flecting the owner or operator's du ties 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 m ust conform to all the restrictions listed in pa ragraphs (g)(9)(i) through (v). This paragraph (g)(9) applies independently to each pollutant for wh ich the Department has designated the emissions unit a Clean Unit. That is, failing to conform to the restri ctions 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 emis sion control comparable to LAER.

(ii) The owner or operator may not make a phys ical 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 operati onal 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 e mit 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 pol lution 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 U nit 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 su ch use occurs before the effective date of plan requirements adopted to implement t his 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 di fference between the level that qualified the unit as a

Clean Unit and the emissions unit's new emission limita tion if such reductions are surplus, quantifiable, and permanent. For pu rposes 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 a ttainment area and the area is redesignated to nonattainment, its Clean Unit designation is not affected. Similarly, re designation 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 a ctual construction of a PCP project, th e 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 Clea n 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 standa rd 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 whic h 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 o f the project.(ii) The potential emissions increases and decreases of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act and the projected emissions increase s and decreases using the methodology in paragraph (b), that will result from the project, and a c opy of the environmentally beneficial analysis required by paragraph (h)(2)(i).

(iii) A description of monitoring and recordkeep ing, and all other methods, to be used on an ongoing basis to demonstrate that the pr oject is environmentally beneficial. Met hods 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 practi ces, in a manner that is consistent with the environmentally beneficial analysis and air quality anal ysis required by paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii), with information submitted in the notice or permit applicat ion, and in such a way as to minimize, within th e physical configuration and operationa l 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, screenin g 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 polluta nt which will not experience a significant emissions increase as a result of the project.

(4) Review process for listed projects

. Before beginning actual cons truction of a PCP project that is listed in paragraphs (c)( 10)(A) through (F), the owner or ope rator 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 ow ner 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 r egulation.

(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 qualit y analysis required by paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii), with information submitted in the notice or permit application r equired 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 owne r 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 requ irements 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 perm it related to use and approval of the PCP exclusion.(iv) Generation of emission reduction credits

. Emission reduction s created by a PCP shall not be included in calculating a significant net em issions 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 restric tion 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 Amer ican Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325193 or 312140 from the definition of “chemical pro cess 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 impl ementation of provisions for offsetting emissions) for full EPA approval of the State Nonattainment NSR program and the SIP.

These amendments will maintain conformity with Fe deral 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 paragra ph concerning “chemical process plants.”

R. 61-62.5 Standard No. 7(b)(32)(iii)(t):

Add exclusion to the definition of “ch emical 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 citati on 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 “ch emical 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 re gulation citation in sentence one fro m (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 “ch emical 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. Th is 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 “ch emical 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 proj ected 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 Po llution 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 s ources 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 therma l 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, primar y copper smelters, municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, hydr ofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, petroleum refineries, lime plants, phosphate rock processing plan ts, coke oven batteries, sulfur recovery plants, carbon black plants (furnace process), primary lead sm elters, fuel conversion plants, sintering plants, secondary metal production plants, chemical process plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermen tation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140), fossil fuel boilers (or combinations thereof) totali ng more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, petroleum storage and transfer units w ith a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, taconite ore processing plants, glass fiber pro cessing plants, and charcoal production plants;

Revise 61-62.5 Std. 7(b)(32)(iii)(t) to read:

(t) Chemical process plants – The term ch emical processing plant shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natura l 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 prac tices that were relied on in designating an emissions unit as a Clean Unit under paragraph (y) or under regul ations 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 anot her emissions unit). However, any new emission reductions that were not relied upon in a PCP exclude d pursuant to paragraph (z) or for a Clean Unit designation are creditable to the extent they meet th e 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 ch emical process plant shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natura l 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 stati onary 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 incr ease and the owner or operator elects to use the method specified in paragraphs (b)(41)(ii)(a) thr ough (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 requir es construction permitting u nder Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, “Permit Requirements”, the owner or opera tor 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 –Nona ttainment 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 proj ected 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 natura l 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 prac tices 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 credita ble 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-designa ted 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. Ho wever, the Department may choose to consider a prior shutdown or curtailment to have occurred afte r 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, enforceab le, 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 Po llutants (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 n ecessary 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 (SO 2 ), 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, SO 2 , 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 complia nce 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 re quired in order to comply with any State or Federal regulation not listed above, unless th ese 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 reducti on using data from the 24-month period immediately preceding the reduction in emissions. With the Departme nt’s written approval, the use of a different time period, not to exceed 10 years immediately preceding th e 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 da te, 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 th e 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 circ umstances where there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not a part of a major modificati on may result in a significant emissions increase and the owner or operator elects to use the method specif ied 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 requir es construction permitting u nder 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 fermen tation 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 determ ined 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 confor mity 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 Environm ental 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 Federa l 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 provisi ons established in a December 31, 2002, rulemaking (72 FR 32526). Furthermore, on June 2, 2008, the EP A 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 SI P 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 an d applicable to the regulated community as a matter

of Federal law. The amendments will benefit the re gulated 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 thr ough these amendments to R. 61-62 and the SIP will provide continued protection of th e 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 envi ronment and public health, the State’s authority to implement Federal requirements, wh ich are believed to be beneficial to the public health and environment, would be compromised if these ame ndments 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) 798-2679DHEC 

### 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) 798-2679DHEC 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) 798-2679DHEC 

### 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 AUTHORITY 1

No plan for attaining a goal, the attainment of wh ich is dependent upon regulato ry action, can be used with any degree of effectiveness unless the legal fram ework is strong. Consequently, the Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implem entation Plans, 40 CFR 51, as amended, define the necessary statutory powers which must be immediately av ailable 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, re gulations, 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 st andards or limitations.” Adequate S. C. Code S ecs. 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 pow ers as required in 40 CFR 51.230.