[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38646-38651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17223]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0045; FRL-9966-17-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 
and 2) for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan 
(SIP), submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control (DHEC), on December 7, 2016, addressing the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) interstate transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that 
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, 
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to 
as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve 
South Carolina's December 7, 2016, SIP submission addressing prongs 1 
and 2 to ensure that air emissions in the State do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 
1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0045 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia

[[Page 38647]]

submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-8966 or 
via electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8dedddacaddcb95d5d9caccd1d6ddc296d9d6dccaddcbf8ddc8d996dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="385e5d5a4a5d4b1555594a4c51565d421659565c4a5d4b785d4859165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for 
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements 
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that 
are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly 
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure 
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet 
for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established 
or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may 
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the 
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's 
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits 
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(prong 3) and from interfering with measures to protect visibility in 
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the 
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve South 
Carolina's December 7, 2016, SIP submission addressing prong 1 and 
prong 2 requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. All 
other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for South Carolina for 
the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS have been addressed in separate 
rulemakings. See 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015), 81 FR 56512 (August 22, 
2016), and 81 FR 63704 (September 16, 2016). A brief background 
regarding the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS is provided below.
    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO<INF>2</INF> at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year 
average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour 
daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). This 
NAAQS is designed to protect against exposure to the entire group of 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>). NO<INF>2</INF> is the component of 
greatest concern and is used as the indicator for the larger group of 
NO<INF>X.</INF> Emissions that lead to the formation of NO<INF>2</INF> 
generally also lead to the formation of other NO<INF>X</INF>. 
Therefore, control measures that reduce NO<INF>2</INF> can generally be 
expected to reduce population exposures to all gaseous NO<INF>X</INF> 
which may have the co-benefit of reducing the formation of ozone and 
fine particles both of which pose significant public health threats.
    States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 
2013. For comprehensive information on 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notice cited immediately 
above.

II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type 
arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as 
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's 
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such 
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as 
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure 
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this 
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to 
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment 
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the 
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, 
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the 
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and 
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address 
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities

[[Page 38648]]

concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the 
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and 
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) 
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for 
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation 
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two 
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be 
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable 
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with 
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all 
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and 
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. 
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet 
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make 
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP 
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP 
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect 
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined 
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action 
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire 
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different 
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure 
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with 
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different 
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) 
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for 
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP 
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, 
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its 
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) 
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content 
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this 
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a 
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions 
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section 
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission 
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air 
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that 
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to 
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program required in part 
C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for 
which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D 
planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP 
submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 
others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA 
most recently

[[Page 38649]]

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 
Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-
date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. 
Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make 
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP 
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of 
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure 
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively 
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that 
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need 
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of 
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA 
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's 
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural 
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD 
program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) 
pollutants, including Greenhouse Gases. By contrast, structural PSD 
program requirements do not include provisions that are not required 
under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an 
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of 
complete permit applications with respect to the fine particulate 
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional 
provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the 
context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a 
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the 
state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program 
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of 
acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think 
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a 
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing 
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and 
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \10\ (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current 
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR 
Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP 
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for 
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission 
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to 
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's 
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of 
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``State 
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; 
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a 
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the 
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense 
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section 
304.
    \11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for 
excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate 
that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring 
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against 
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may

[[Page 38650]]

include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These 
provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 
significant problem for the purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, 
and enforcement'' of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy 
of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better 
approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP 
revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other 
factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with 
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and 
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to 
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it 
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) 
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the Prong 1 and Prong 2 requirements?

    For each new NAAQS, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires 
each state to submit a SIP revision that contains adequate provisions 
prohibiting emissions activity in the state from contributing 
significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 
NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes refers to these requirements 
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 
(interference with maintenance), or conjointly as the ``good neighbor'' 
provision of the CAA.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed Prongs 1 and 
2?

    In South Carolina's December 7, 2016, SIP revision, the State 
concluded that its SIP adequately addresses prongs 1 and 2 with respect 
to the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. South Carolina provides the 
following reasons for its determination: (1) The SIP contains state 
regulations that directly or indirectly control NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions; (2) all areas in the United States are designated as 
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS; (3) 
monitored 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> design values in South Carolina and 
surrounding states (Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida) are below the 
2010 standard; \15\ and (4) point source emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> in 
the State have trended downward. EPA preliminarily agrees with the 
State's conclusion based on the rationale discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A design value is a statistic that describes the air 
quality status of a given area relative to the level of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The design value for the 1-
hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS is the 3-year average of annual 98th 
percentile daily maximum 1-hour values for a monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, South Carolina identifies SIP-approved portions of the 
following State rules that directly or indirectly control 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions: S.C. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2 
(Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)); Regulation 61-62.96 (Nitrogen 
Oxides (NOX) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Budget Trading Program General 
Provisions); Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 (Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration); and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 
(Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR)). Regulation 61-62.5, Standard 
No. 5.2 requires NO<INF>X</INF> controls on certain new stationary 
sources and requires certain existing sources that replace their 
burners to replace them with low NO<INF>X</INF> burners or equivalent 
technology capable of achieving a 30 percent reduction from 
uncontrolled levels. Regulation 61-62.96 implemented the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which created regional cap-and-trade programs to 
reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 27 eastern 
states, including South Carolina, that contributed to downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 
1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\16\ Regulations 61-62.5, Standards No. 7 
and 7.1 require any new major source or major modification to go 
through prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment 
new source review permitting, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA replaced CAIR with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(CSAPR) which, following litigation, became effective on January 1, 
2015. CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and/or NO<INF>X</INF> in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
budgets for emissions of annual SO<INF>2</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and/or ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> by each covered 
state's large EGUs. On May 26, 2017, South Carolina submitted a 
draft SIP revision for parallel processing that adopts provisions 
for participation in the CSAPR annual NO<INF>X</INF> and annual 
SO<INF>2</INF> trading programs. EPA signed a notice of proposed 
rulemaking on July 28, 2017, proposing to approve this SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, there are no designated nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-
hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA 
designated the entire country as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 
2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, stating that ``available information 
does not indicate that the air quality in these areas exceeds the 2010 
1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.''

[[Page 38651]]

    Third, the 2013-2015 NO<INF>2</INF> design values in South Carolina 
and surrounding states are well below the 100 ppb standard. The highest 
monitored design values during this time period are 56 to 65 percent 
below the NAAQS with Georgia and Florida recording the highest design 
values (48 and 44 ppb, respectively).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This information is available in the SIP submittal and at 
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values. Design 
values are computed and published annually by EPA's Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards and reviewed in conjunction with the 
EPA Regional Offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, NO<INF>X</INF> point source emissions data provided in the 
SIP submittal show that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions decreased from 72,885 
tons in 2008 to 41,070 tons in 2014, a reduction of approximately 44 
percent.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The State reported these NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as 
NO<INF>2</INF> emissions in its SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily 
determined that South Carolina does not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in any other state and that South Carolina's SIP 
includes adequate provisions to prevent emissions sources within the 
State from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering 
with maintenance of this standard in any other state.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's 
December 7, 2016, SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory actions 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule for the state of South Carolina 
does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation 
Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to 
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, 
``all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the 
[Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by 
all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes this 
action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments 
or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 3, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17223 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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